WIND ENERGY - THE FACTS

To view this page ensure that Adobe Flash Player version 9.0.124 or greater is installed.

Please login or register to make a comment!

VOLUME 4 ENVIRONMENT WIND ENERGY - THE FACTS HOOFDTITEL 142 WIND ENERGY - THE FACTS - ENVIRONMENT Acknowledgments This volume was compiled by Professor Olav Hohmeyer, and Scientific Assistants Florian Wetzig and David Mora of the Chair of Energy and Resource Economics of the University of Flensburg, Germany. Our thanks also to the national wind associations around Europe for their contri- butions of data, and to the other project partners for their inputs. WIND ENERGY - THE FACTS - ENVIRONMENT 143 VOLUME 4 Sustainable development is an issue of prime importance both now and in the future.

As defined by the Brundtland Commission in 1987, sustainable development is cdevel- opment that meets the needs of the present without com- promising the ability of future generations to meet their own needs d (World Commission for Environment and Development, 1987). Environmental pollution and emissions of CO 2 caused by the use of fossil fuels constitute a significant threat to sustainable development. A major contributor to these emissions is electricity generation based on fossil fuels.

The Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change (IPCC) predicted in its last report (IPCC, 2001) that human- induced greenhouse gas (GHG) emissions will lead to a substantial increase in GHG concentrations ... more. less.

in the atmos- phere causing increased radiative forcing, with CO 2 con- tributing about 50% to this anthropogenic greenhouse effect. Without drastic emission reductions of CO 2 and other GHGs a significant change in the world 9s climate is inevitable unless energy systems and sources are changed as soon as possible. In addition to the problem of climate change, emissions of SO 2 , NO x and other pol- lutants from energy conversion processes in conventional electricity generation cause substantial regional damage to human health and the environment. As most renewable energy sources, such as wind power, emit neither GHGs nor other pollutants such as SO 2 or NO x , they will be the basis of any long-term sustainable energy supply system (Fischedick et al ., 2000). The large-scale use of renewable energy sources is essential if the necessary reductions in CO 2 and other emissions from electricity gen- eration are to be met and if sustainable development is to be achieved. The following chapters provide a summary of our current understanding of the direct and indirect environmental impacts associated with wind energy, as well as its eco- nomic (external) costs and those associated with avoiding the environmental and health impacts of conventional elec- tricity generation by substitution with wind energy. Public acceptance of wind energy is crucial for its successful intro- duction. Thus, a public acceptance analysis is included in 1INTRODUCTION TO VOLUME 4 - ENVIRONMENT this volume, showing the main elements affecting public acceptance along with the results of some recent surveys from a selected number of EU countries. In the first part of this volume, the concept of the external cost of energy is introduced. As environmental and health costs caused by energy conversion processes are not taken into account in the calculations of the producer or con- sumer of energy, economists call these costs cexternali- ties d. Analysis of these externalities enables the environ- mental and health benefits of wind energy compared to fos- sil fuels to be expressed in economic terms. Subsequently, the benefits of wind energy are discussed. In contrast to fossil fuel fired power plants, wind energy con- verters cause virtually no operational emissions. There may be minor losses of lubricants from the turbine gearbox but these do not normally find their way into the environment. Being a clean energy source is the main advantage of wind energy when compared to conventional electricity genera- tion. Indirect emissions, which result from manufacturing, installation, maintenance and removal, do play a very small part in this equation. Nevertheless, these have been taken into account in our analysis. By means of external cost analysis, it is possible to quan- tify the environmental and health costs of the different electricity generation technologies. To compare the exter- nal costs of wind energy and of the substituted conven- tional electricity generation, we need to analyse and cal- culate them. The net avoided external costs of wind power are the external monetary benefits of wind energy. Only if we combine these with a comparison of the internal costs of wind energy and conventional electricity generation sub- stituted do we get a fair picture of the competitive situa- tion of wind energy. In chapter 1, a review of the external cost concept is given. In chapter 2.1 a short description of the background for the calculations of avoided emissions and avoided external costs from the use of wind energy in the EU and in new member states is presented. In chapter 2.2, a short overview of electricity generation structure in each country, as well as a very brief description of the national environ- 144 WIND ENERGY - THE FACTS - ENVIRONMENT mental policy frameworks is given. In this chapter the total and specific emissions of CO 2 , NO x and SO 2 are given for each country. Calculations of external costs of standard air pollutants are performed by the EcoSense model, which has been developed as part of a major European Commission research effort on the analysis of external energy costs. This model is briefly introduced in chapter 2.3, but a short description of the input data and modelling assumptions used are given here. Chapter 2.4 reports on the emissions and external costs which can be avoid- ed by extending the use of wind energy in the EU and in the new member countries (Turkey, Romania and Bulgaria are also included). These are reported as total as well as specific values. To facilitate a comparison of future and present calcula- tions of emission and external cost reductions due to the use of wind energy, a standard methodology for calculat- ing emission reductions has been designed. This is report- ed in chapter 3. Based on the future diffusion of wind energy on the one hand and on improvements in conventional electricity- generating technologies on the other, mid- and long-term emission reductions are forecast in chapter 4. Chapters 5 and 6 report the public debate on wind ener- gy, as far as this has been subject to scientific research and as far as the results of this research are available. The debate considers such issues as visual intrusion, noise, and interference with birds, and their influence on public acceptance. WIND ENERGY - THE FACTS - ENVIRONMENT 145 VOLUME 4 VOLUME 4 - ENVIRONMENT: TABLE OF CONTENTS INTRODUCTION TO VOLUME 4143 CHAPTER 1EXTERNALITIES147 1.1 Introduction to Externalities 147 1.2 Definition and Classification 147 1.3 Importance of Externalities 147 1.4 Externalities and Electricity Production 149 1.5 Impacts of Wind Energy and Other Technologies. 152 1.6 Externalities of Wind Energy 154 1.7 Benefits of Wind Energy 155 1.8 Present State of Knowledge 156 CHAPTER 2 ENVIRONMENTAL BENEFITS OF WIND ENERGY158 2.1 Background 158 2.2 Electricity Generation and Emissions in EU-25 and other European Countries 159 2.2.1 Electricity Generation Sector and Environmental Policy Framework160 2.2.2 Emission Data163 2.3 The Calculation of External Costs with the EcoSense Model 165 2.3.1 Software Description165 2.3.2 Input Data to the Model166 2.4 Benefits of Wind Energy - Results 167 2.4.1 Avoidable Emissions by the Use of Wind Energy167 2.4.2 Avoidable External Costs by the Use of Wind Energy168 CHAPTER 3 STANDARD METHODOLOGY FOR CALCULATION OF EMISSION REDUCTIONS172 CHAPTER 4ANALYSIS OF EMISSION REDUCTIONS173 4.1 Avoidable Specific Emissions Through Wind Energy 173 4.2 Avoidable Total Emissions Through Wind Energy 174 4.3 Avoidable External Costs Through Wind Energy 177 CHAPTER 5PUBLIC ACCEPTANCE ANALYSIS179 5.1 Environmental Impacts of Wind Energy 179 5.1.1 Visual Impact179 5.1.2 Noise180 5.1.3 Land Use182 5.1.4 Impact on Birds182 5.1.5 Impacts of Construction on Terrestrial Ecosystems184 5.1.6 Electromagnetic Interference (EMI)184 146 WIND ENERGY - THE FACTS - ENVIRONMENT 5.1.7 Flickering185 5.1.8 Consumption of Energy (Energy Balance)185 5.2 Environmental Impacts of Offshore Wind Energy 186 5.3 Factors Affecting Public Acceptance of Wind Energy 188 CHAPTER 6PUBLIC ACCEPTANCE IN THE EU190 6.1 Attitudes of EU Citizens to Energy and Energy Technology Issues 190 6.2 Public Acceptance in Spain 192 6.3 Public Acceptance in the United Kingdom 194 6.4 Public Acceptance in Denmark 197 6.5 Public Acceptance in Germany 197 6.6 Public Acceptance in Sweden 198 6.7 Public Acceptance in Austria 198 6.8 Public Acceptance in Belgium 199 6.9 Conclusions 200 1EXTERNALITIES WIND ENERGY - THE FACTS - ENVIRONMENT 147 1.1 Introduction to Externalities The economics of wind energy show that the capital costs, O&M costs, taxes, insurance and other costs, along with the expected profit, comprise the price of a kWh of elec- tricity. Depending on the market situation and, perhaps, additional promotional measures, wind energy may or may not be competitive. It is generally appreciated that although wind energy and other renewable energy sources have envi- ronmental benefits compared to conventional electricity generation, these benefits may not be fully reflected in elec- tricity market prices. The question therefore is: cDo market prices for electricity give an appropriate representation of the full costs to society of producing electricity? d The externalities of energy generation deal with these questions in order to estimate the hidden benefits/dam- ages of electricity production not accounted for in the existing pricing system. The costs are cexternal d because they are paid for by third parties and by future genera- tions. In order to establish a fair comparison of the differ- ent electricity production activities, all costs to society, both internal and external, need to be taken into account. The following sections explain the basic concepts and describe present knowledge about the external costs of electricity generation. Chapter 2 will report on specific external costs, which can be avoided in the EU by the use of wind energy. 1.2Definition and Classification Looking at the foundations of externalities, the different definitions and interpretations are based upon the prin- ciples of welfare economics, which state that economic activities by any party or individual making use of scarce resources cannot be beneficial if they adversely affect the well-being of a third party or individual (Energy Information Administration, 1995). From this, a generic definition of externalities is cbene- fits and costs which arise when the social or economic activities of one group of people have an impact on anoth- er, and when the first group fails to fully account for their impacts d (European Commission, 1994). Externalities are not included in the market pricing calculations and it can be concluded that private calculations of benefits or costs may differ substantially from society 9s valuation if substantial external costs occur. Externalities can be classified according to their benefits or costs in two main categories: non-environmental and environmental externalities. Table 1.1 lists examples of these externalities of energy conversion (European Commission 1994; Centre for Energy, Policy and Technology, 2001): The environmental and human health externalities can additionally be classified as local, regional, or global, with the latter. referring to climate change caused by emis- sions of CO 2 or destruction of the ozone layer by emis- sions of CFCs or SF 6 . Non-environmental externalities refer to hidden costs, such as those borne by tax-payers in the form of subsidies, research and development costs or benefits like employment opportunities, although for the latter it is debatable whether this constitutes an exter- nal benefit in the welfare economics sense. 1.3 Importance of Externalities As markets neither include external effects nor their costs, it is important to identify external effects and to monetise the external costs of different energy systems if these are of a similar order of magnitude as the internal costs of energy, and if these external costs vary substan- tially between competing energy systems, like conven- tional electricity generation and wind energy. VOLUME 4 Environmental and Human HealthNon 3Environmental "Human health (accidents, disease)" Subsidies "Occupational health (accidents, noise," Research and physical stress)development costs "Amenity impacts (noise, visual impacts, odor)" Employment " Security and reliability of supply" Effects on GDP "Ecological impacts (acidification, eutrophication, soil quality) "Climate change (temperature rise, sea level rise, precipitation changes, storms) Table 1.1: Classification of Externalities 148 WIND ENERGY - THE FACTS - ENVIRONMENT As markets do not internalise external costs, internalisa- tion has to be achieved by adequate policy measures like taxes or adjusted electricity rates. Before such measures can be taken, policy-makers need to be informed about the existence and the extent of external costs of different energy systems. Analysing external costs is not an easy task. Science (to understand the nature of the impacts) and economics (to value the impacts) must work together to create analytical approaches and methodologies, producing results upon which policy-makers can base their decisions on appropri- ate measures and policies. As much of the costing of non-market goods includes valuation procedures, for example by putting a value on a person becoming ill as a result of a nuclear accident or the cost of visual intrusion caused by a wind turbine (WT), or the cost of future damage caused by a tonne of CO 2 , the externalities may pose uncertainties; include assumptions, risks and moral dilemmas. This sometimes makes it difficult to fully implement externalities by poli- cy measures. Nevertheless, they offer a base for politi- cians to improve the allocation processes of the energy markets. Koomey and Krause (1997) in their introduction to environmental externality costs state that: c& to not incorporate externalities in prices is to implicitly assign a value of zero, a number that is demonstrably wrong d . Figure 1.1: An Illustrative Example of the Social Cost of Energy The question arises whether the internalisation of exter- nalities in the pricing mechanism could impact on the competitive situation of different electricity-generating technologies, fuels or energy sources. As Figure 1.1 illus- trates, a substantial difference in the external costs of two competing electricity generating technologies may result in a situation where the least-cost technology (where only internal costs are considered) may turn out to be the highest-cost solution to society, if all costs (inter- nal and external) are taken into account. Production of construction materials Transport of construction materials Exploration of fuel Extraction of fuel Transport of fuel Transport of personnel Power plant operation Treatment of flu gases Generation of wastes and byproducts Further treatment of waste removal of plant at the end of its service lifetime Restoration of site after closure 149 WIND ENERGY - THE FACTS - ENVIRONMENT 1.4 Externalities and Electricity Production For the particular case of electricity production, the use of energy sources may ccause damage to a wide range of receptors, including human health, natural ecosystems and the built environment, and they are referred to as external cost of energy d (European Commission, 1994). The externalities in the energy sector started to be quanti- fied by pioneer studies in the late 1980s and beginning of the 1990s (Hohmeyer, 1988, Friedrich et al ., 1989, Ottinger et al. , 1990), which started the interest and gave a first insight into the importance of externalities for energy policy as a decision-making tool. The most outstanding pro- ject on determining the external cost of energy is the ExternE project, which developed a consistent methodology to assess the externalities of power generation in the EU. For that reason, a brief introduction of its methodology and an analysis of its results is provided in this chapter. An important aspect in any analysis of the environmental externalities of electricity production is defining the activities that can have an impact. In that sense, the impacts of power production are not exclusively generated during the operation of the power plant, but also in the entire chain of activities needed for electricity production and distribution, such as fuel extraction, processing and transformation, construction and installation of the equipment, as well as waste disposal. These stages, which constitute the chain of electricity pro- duction and distribution, are known as the fuel cycle. Every technology (wind, hydro, coal, gas, etc) has its own very dis- tinct fuel cycle. A generic fuel cycle can be seen in Figure 1.2. VOLUME 4 Figure 1.2: Generic Fuel Cycle 150 WIND ENERGY - THE FACTS - ENVIRONMENT The impacts from any of the stages in the fuel cycle depend on the particular location of an activity. Impacts may vary greatly as a function of the sensitivity of the surrounding ecosystem, the population density, and eco- nomic and social aspects. In the case of renewable fuel cycles like wind, the major impacts of the fuel cycle arise from the activities required to produce and install a wind turbine and ancillary systems, while only minor externali- ties arise from wind turbine operation. The ExternE methodology is a bottom-up approach, which first characterises the stages of the fuel cycle of the sys- tem in question (e.g. coal), defining the activities associ- Figure 1.3: Impact Pathway Approach ated with the power technology. Subsequently, the fuel chain burdens are identified. Burdens refer to anything that is, or could be, capable of causing an impact of what- ever type. After having identified the burdens, an identifi- cation of the potential impacts is achieved independent of their number, type or size. Every impact is then reported. This process just described for the fuel cycle is known as the Accounting Framework. For the final analysis, the most important impacts are selected and only their effects are calculated. Afterwards, the Impact Pathway approach developed by ExternE proceeds to establish the effects and spatial dis- tribution of the burdens to see their final impact on health and the environment. Then, the economic valuation assigns the respective costs of the damages induced by a given activity. The most important results of this study are found in its final phase in which the ExternE methodology was imple- mented in the EU in 1998 to take into account site-spe- cific conditions, technologies, preferences, problems and policy issues. The aim was to create an EU-wide data set to assess the external cost. The results are shown in Table 1.2. Source: European Commission (1994). WIND ENERGY - THE FACTS - ENVIRONMENT 151 CountryCoal&LignitePeatOilGasNuclearBiomassHydroPVWind AT1-32-3 0.1 BE4-151-20.5 DE3-65-81-20.230.60.05 DK4-72-310.1 ES5-81-23-5**0.2 FI2-42-51 FR7-108-112-40.311 GR5-83-510-0.810.25 IE6-83-4 IT3-62-30.3 NL3-41-20.70.5 NO1-20.20.20-0.25 PT4-71-21-20.03 SE2-40.30-0.7 UK4-73-51-20.2510.15 Table 1.2: External Cost Figures for Electricity Production in the EU for Existing Technologies (c¬/kWh*) * Subtotal of quantifiable externalities (such as global warming, public health, occupational health, material damage) ** biomass co-fired with lignites Source: European Commission (1999), data updated in 2003. VOLUME 4 152 WIND ENERGY - THE FACTS - ENVIRONMENT Table 1.2 is a summary of the national reports with the final results. The values vary between countries since spe- cific peculiarities from every country have an influence on the results due to a different range of technologies, fuels and pollution abatement options as well as locations. The fossil fuel cycles demonstrate the highest values (coal and lignite, peat, oil and gas), of which gas is the least dam- aging. Renewable energy and nuclear show the lowest externalities or damages. In these results, the externalities for the nuclear cycle assume that waste and other hazardous impacts are well managed. As the results on nuclear power plants are based on calculations done for the ExternE project, and as the calculation of the underlying accident probabilities and source terms have never been made available for third party analysis, these figures are not as credible as the other estimates of external costs given in Table 1.2, where all assumptions underlying the calculations are revealed. What is more, the numbers seem to contradict the results of the German reactor safety study phase B which give rather more significant source terms and accident proba- bilities for severe core melt-down accidents with contain- ment rupture (Gesellschaft für Reaktorsicherheit, 1989). The ExternE results show that the damages vary substan- tially between countries. At present these external costs are hardly ever internalised, although the EU ordinance on subsidies for environmental measures (Official Journal of the European Communities, 2001) states that proven externalities may be compensated by public payments of up to 0.05 ¬/kWh without being considered as subsidies. 1.5Impacts of Wind Energy and Other Technologies The assessment of externalities is the result of the economic valuation of impacts on the environment and human health from all the activities required to produce a kWh of electricity. In order to provide an idea of the relevant impacts of wind energy and other technologies to assess the external cost, a broad description of the impacts of wind energy and other technologies is given. Wind energy, a clean technology mainly due to the avoid- ance of air pollutant emissions, is not totally free of impacts on the environment and human health. Wind energy has very few environmental impacts in its operation stage, although it may cause some impact in its direct vicinity in the form of aerodynamic noise. Furthermore, the visual impact of large WTs on the land- scape may adversely affect some people. Visual intrusion of the turbines along with ancillary systems in the land- scape and noise are considered as amenity impacts of the technology. Other impacts deal with indirect pollution from the production of components and construction of the tur- bine. A brief description of wind energy impacts follows: " Noise: coming from WT operation, installation of the turbines at the wind farm site, turbine manufacturing processes, and transportation systems used in tur- bine delivery and maintenance. The dominant issue is aerodynamic noise from the turbines. However, mod- ern WTs are seldomly heard at distances further than 300 m as background noise from wind in trees, for example, will be higher. " Visual intrusion of the turbines and associated equip- ment in the landscape: the most difficult to quantify. Nevertheless, the total costs are generally overesti- mated, as the number of persons adversely affected is rather limited. In addition, since the beginning of the 1980s planners have become much more sophisticat- ed. Today's wind power plants are erected in designat- ed areas, thus further limiting the number of affected areas. WIND ENERGY - THE FACTS - ENVIRONMENT 153 VOLUME 4 "Indirect atmospheric emissions: impacts of global warm- ing and acid deposition due to emissions from materials processing and component manufacturing. Experience shows that these effects are in the range of less than 2% of the emissions avoided if fossil fuels are substituted. What is more, they decline as the share of clean renew- able energy in the system increases. "Accidents: affecting workers in manufacturing, con- struction and operation as well as accidents affecting the general public due to turbine operation and road trav- el by workers. So far, most accidents have affected work- ers installing and maintaining WTs. "Impact on birds: collision in flight with turbines and behavioural disturbance from blade avoidance. Although numerous studies show that birds rarely collide with rotor blades this is an issue sometimes raised. "Impacts of construction on terrestrial ecosystems: long-term loss of land where turbines are placed and impacts of erection activities together with electrical con- nections, buildings and access tracks. It has to be noted, however, that only the access roads and a very small area around the tower of a WT are lost for other uses. The Danish and German examples show that agri- culture goes on in wind parks, which are often used for grazing cattle. "Electromagnetic interference: the moving blades can affect radio waves and microwaves used for communi- cation purposes although this has proven to be less of an issue. These issues are explained in greater detail in the following chapters. In order to also give an idea of the sources of externalities for other fuel cycles, Table 1.3 lists the priority impacts taken into account in the most important study available, the ExternE project. This list only includes those impacts which have been identified as having substantial impor- tance. Other impacts such as land use by the installations, visual intrusion and interference of transmission lines on birds have not been included. Fossil Fuel Technologies: "Effects of atmospheric pollution on human health "Accidents affecting workers and/or the public "Effects of atmospheric pollution on: - materials - crops - forests - freshwater fisheries - unmanaged ecosystems "Impacts of global warming "Impacts of noise Specific for some Activities in Fossil Fuel Technologies: "Impacts of coal and lignite mining on ground and surface waters "Impacts of coal mining on building and construction "Resettlement necessary through lignite extraction "Effects of accidental oil spills on marine life "Effects of routine emissions from exploration, development and extraction from oil and gas wells Nuclear Technologies: "Radiological and non-radiological health impacts (routine and acci- dental releases to the environment) "Occupational health Impacts (radiological and non-radiological exposures due to work accidents and radiation exposure) "Impacts on the environment of increased levels of natural back- ground radiation (major accident releases) Renewable Technologies: Wind "Accidents affecting workers and/or the public "Effects on visual amenity "Effects of noise emissions on amenity "Effects of atmospheric emissions (turbines 9 manufacturing, on site construction and servicing) Hydro "Occupational health effects "Employment benefits and local economic effects "Impacts of transmission lines on bird populations "Damage to private goods (forestry, agriculture, water supply, ferry traffic) "Damages to environmental goods and cultural objects Source: European Commission (1999). Table 1.3: Priority Impacts assessed in the ExternE Project 154 WIND ENERGY - THE FACTS - ENVIRONMENT The nuclear fuel cycle in the ExternE project has eight stages covering electricity production from the mining of uranium oxide. The impacts deriving from this fuel cycle are caused by inhalation, external exposure and ingestion of agricultural products due to atmospheric emissions, liquid discharges and solid residues. The hydro power fuel cycle differs greatly from the fossil fuel cycles. The particular impacts of this cycle are the intrusion of the infrastructure into the environment and the flooding of large areas in the case of large hydro dams. 1.6Externalities of Wind Energy Different studies and methodologies show that the exter- nalities of wind energy are far smaller than the external costs of fossil fuel based electricity generation. The exter- nality values shown in the final results of the national implementation of the ExternE project (see Table 1.2) range from 0.05 to 0.25 c¬/kWh. Looking at a conventional power production technology such as coal, the values observed are of the same order or double the magnitude of the internal electricity cost of these technologies. In general the lower and upper levels are between 2 and 15 c¬/kWh. Costs600 kW WT1,000 kW WT Cost of Wind c¬/kWh4.44.1 External Cost* c¬/kWh0.09 3 0.160.09 3 0.16 Social Cost4.49 3 4.564.19 3 4.26 Note: *The external cost was not converted to ¬ 2001 prices. Table 1.5: Social Cost of Wind Energy With this information, it is possible to estimate the social cost of coal and wind power. Assuming that the cost of producing a kWh with coal is around 3 c¬/kWh on aver- age, internalisation of the coal externalities increase costs by between 5 and 18 c¬/kWh resulting in rather high costs of electricity. Table 1.4 shows the social cost of coal and gas power systems for Spain, Denmark and Germany in which the external cost range given for coal is higher than the internal cost. For the case of gas the external cost is below the internal cost. Based on the figures given in Volume 2, the cost of produc- ing electricity with wind energy in coastal and inland sites can be derived. These costs were based on constant 2001 prices for Denmark. Taking the inland wind energy cost for machines of 600 and 1,000 kW along with the externality figures of Denmark from Table 1.2 the results are: a The external cost was not converted to ¬ 2001 prices. b Germany coal and gas (combined cycle) cost is own calculation. Source: Hohmeyer et al. (2000). c Projected avoided cost of conventional power assuming 25% capacity credit for wind power (see Volume 2). Source: Coal prices from IEA/OECD updated to ¬ 2001 prices. Table 1.4: Social Cost of Coal and Gas Powered Systems (Internal + External a ) CoalGas CostsSpainDenmarkGermany b SpainDenmarkGermany b Internal cost c c¬/kWh3.933.413.145.25.232.85 External Cost c¬/kWh4.8 - 7.73.5 - 6.53.0 - 5.51.1 - 2.21.5 - 3.01.2 - 2.3 Total Cost8.73 - 11.636.91 - 9.916.14 - 8.646.3 - 7.46.73 - 8.234.05 - 5.15 WIND ENERGY - THE FACTS - ENVIRONMENT 155 VOLUME 4 1.7Benefits of Wind Energy The benefits of wind energy are the avoided emissions and their impacts from fossil fuel electricity generation. The external costs avoidable through wind energy can be calculated as shown in chapter 2. The evaluation includes damages from air pollutant emis- sions like SO 2 and NO x as well as costs of the anthro- pogenic greenhouse effect resulting from CO 2 emissions. The analysis has been carried out based on a calculation with the EcoSense model (air pollutants) on the one hand and on the estimates of Azar and Sterner (1996) concerning the adverse effects of climate change on the other. The calculations carried out for the EU-25, Turkey, Romania and Bulgaria take into account the replaceable energy mix of each country as well as the technological standards. The possible ranges of reductions in external costs due to the increased use of wind energy are shown in Figure 1.5. The social costs are practically unchanged by the inclusion of the external cost of wind energy. Based on this total cost comparison, the cost of wind energy is very competi- tive to the cost of conventional power plants as shown in figure 1.1. The social cost of coal for Denmark as shown in Table 1.4 ranges from 6.9 to 9.9 c¬/kWh. Figure 1.4 illus- tates the social cost estimated in the tables for coal, gas and wind in Denmark. As was mentioned before, a precise estimation of dam- ages is not an easy task. In addition, the results of the national implementation phase of the ExternE project have to be used with care since social and environmental impacts are difficult to quantify and damages of the fuel cycles are not fully quantified. For the case of wind ener- gy the external costs are strongly influenced by local factors. Thus, translating values to other locations is not recommended. However, the results do show the order of magnitude of the differences between clean energy tech- nologies and conventional ways of producing electricity. Figure 1.4: Social Cost of Coal, Gas and Wind in Denmark Figure 1.5: Avoidable External Costs by the Use of Wind Energy in 2000 in c¬/kWh, EU-25 and other European Countries a source of CO 2 emission data: Ministry of Environment and Physical Planning: "National Programme for the Reduction of Greenhouse Gas Emissions", Athens 2002. b no emission data available. c all data are from 2002, source: EWEA (2003b). d source of emission data: MVM, Hungary. e no data available. Source: Eurelectric (2002), own calculations. 156 WIND ENERGY - THE FACTS - ENVIRONMENT Figure 1.5 gives an overview of the avoidable external costs by wind energy per kWh. It is observed that there is a notice- able difference between the countries covered by this study. Some new member states and accession countries, in par- ticular, have very high emissions resulting in high external costs of electricity generation. By combining the avoidable external costs with the amount of electricity produced by wind energy, the total amount of avoided external costs can be calculated. This is shown for the year 2000 in ¬ millions for each country in Figure 1.6. Only three countries (Denmark, Germany and Spain) use substantial parts of their wind energy resource to reduce external costs. This reduction is more than ¬1 billion per year in the case of Germany. The ranges low, mid and high relate to the lower and upper bound and the central value of the specific exter- nalities per kWh shown in the Figure above. The precise description of the calculations is given in chapter 2. Figure 1.6: Total Avoided External Costs by the Use of Wind Energy in 2000 a source of CO 2 emission data: Ministry of Environment and Physical Planning: "National Programme for the Reduction of Greenhouse Gas Emissions", Athens 2002. b source of emission data: TEAS, Turkey. Source: Eurelectric (2002), own calculations. 1.8Present State of Knowledge The current state of knowledge of external costs can be described as a process that was mainly initiated in the late 1980s, when the first studies were published attempting to quantify and compare the external costs of electricity generation. The studies released at that time started a public interest in externalities, as they showed for the first time that the differences in external costs are of the same order of magnitude as the direct internal costs of generating electricity. Since that time more research and different approaches, better scientific infor- mation and a constant improvement of the analytical methodologies used have driven an evolution of external- ities research in Europe and the USA. This development has resulted in a convergence of methodologies, at least for calculating the external costs of fossil fuel based electricity generation and wind energy. This has induced policy-makers to adopt some measures to attempt a first internalisation, as under the German Renewable Energy Law. Despite the uncertainties and debates about externali- ties, it can be stated that with the exemption of nuclear power and long term impacts of GHGs on climate change, the results of the different research groups converge and can be used as a basis for developing policy measures aimed at a further internalisation of the different external costs of electricity generation. Finally, it is worth drawing attention to issues that have not been mentioned in this chapter which may enhance the concept of external costs such as, for example, sus- tainability and security and reliability of supply. With respect to sustainability, the neoclassical definition of externalities assumes that monetary valuation by man- ufactured and natural capital can be a substitute for envi- ronmental deterioration. This valuation is considered to be an indicator of weak sustainability (Rennings, 1996). In contrast, strong sustainability principles demand an economic system that does not exceed the capacity of the global ecological system and development that meets the needs of the present without compromising the ability of WIND ENERGY - THE FACTS - ENVIRONMENT 157 VOLUME 4 future generations to meet their own needs (WCED, 1987). The neoclassical definition of externalities and sustainability principles should be linked to sustainable development issues (Weinreich, 2002). The security and reliability of supply and its conse- quences for market risk is an aspect that can also enhance the concept of externalities of electricity gen- eration. The inclusion or accounting of market risk due to supply disruption and, especially, fuel price volatili- ty represents a security issue. This has an effect on the economics of fossil fuel which is not recognised in traditional analysis. Furthermore, renewable ener- gies (e.g. wind and solar) are not subject to volatile fuel prices. The inclusion of volatility in the private costs equation could change the perception that renewables are high cost (Awerbuch, 2003). This topic needs further research. 158 WIND ENERGY - THE FACTS - ENVIRONMENT 2.1Background Emissions The most important emissions concerning electricity generation are CO 2 , SO 2 , NO x and PM 10 (particulate mat- ter up to 10 micrometers in size). Emissions generally depend on the type of fuel used. CO 2 emissions are related to carbon content. There is no realistic opportu- nity of reducing carbon emissions by using filters or scrubbers, although techniques such as burning fossil fuel with pure oxygen and capturing and storing the exhaust gas may reduce the carbon content of emis- sions (IPCC, 2002). For SO 2 , the quantity of emissions per kWh electricity generated depends on the sulphur content of the input fuel. Furthermore, SO 2 emissions can be reduced by filtering the exhaust gases and con- verting SO 2 to gypsum or elementary sulphur. In gener- al, the sulphur content of lignite is rather high, fuel oil and hard coal have roughly a medium sulphur content and natural gas is nearly sulphur free. In contrast, NO x emissions are practically unrelated to input fuel. As NO x are formed from the nitrogen in air during combustion, their formation depends mainly upon the combustion temperature. Thus, NO x emissions can be reduced by choosing a favourable (low) combustion temperature or by denitrifying the exhaust gases (by wet scrubbing). Technology Due to its intermittent nature, wind power can at present only replace specific segments of conventional electricity generation. And as it varies with available wind speed it cannot replace conventional base load power plants. As wind energy is a capital intensive technology, and because the fuel is free, it needs to be used as much as possible. Thus, it should be used to replace conventional power plants in the intermediate rather than peak load segment. Keeping these facts in mind, we can define a reference system whereby wind farms may replace conventional power plants. Firstly, neither nuclear nor standard hydro power plants are replaceable by wind, as both almost exclusively operate in the base load segment. As pump storage (hydro) power plants are used to cover very short load peaks, they cannot be replaced by wind energy either, due to the latter 9s intermittent nature. This leaves electricity generation from the fossil fuels (assuming average generation structure): hard coal, lig- nite, fuel oil and gas. However, this assumption can lead to an overestimation of the share of the replaced elec- tricity supplied by lignite, as this is predominantly used in the base load segment as well, and to an underesti- mation of substituted electricity from gas, which, due to the dynamic characteristics of gas fired power plants, lends itself perfectly to balance fluctuations in the supply of wind energy. As we know the current mode of operation of conventional power plants, the rules of their dispatch based on the so-called cmerit order d and the dynamic behaviour of the different types of conventional power plants, we can safely assume a replacement of intermediate load by wind energy. Apart from nuclear energy, all conventional fuel types are more or less used to generate intermediate load electricity. These are: hard coal, lignite, fuel oil, natural gas and derived gas. For our analysis, the contributions of the different energy sources to intermediate load electricity need to be specified. They probably differ sub- stantially in different countries and there are virtually no national statistics available on their contributions. Therefore, data for the German situation supplied by Vereinigung Deutscher Elektrizitätswerke (VDEW, 2000) are used as the basis of our analysis. The load curves 2ENVIRONMENTAL BENEFITS OF WIND ENERGY Figure 2.1: Load Curves for Lignite, Hard Coal, Fuel Oil and Gas Source: based on VDEW (1998). for one typical load day (Figure 2.1) have been derived for each relevant type of fuel and will be taken as the basis for the calculation of shares of intermediate load. The graphs show that the highest load variations during one day are displayed by fuel oil and gas. Hard coal shows some variation, while electricity production based on lignite is almost constant. Although, these load curves are based on the German electricity generation structure, power plants have common fuel-specific tech- nical and economic characteristics. Therefore, load curves are assumed to have similar day-to-day variations in other countries. Based on these considerations, Table 2.1 sets out assumptions for the intermediate load shares, with the percentage figures being based on the total volume of electricity produced for each fuel. WIND ENERGY - THE FACTS - ENVIRONMENT 159 VOLUME 4 2.2Electricity Generation and Emissions in EU-25 and other European Countries This section provides a short overview of the 28 countries covered by this study. The countries are divided into groups according to their geographical location. The EU-15 countries can be sub-divided into three groups, shown in Table 2.2. Fuel TypeShare of Intermediate Load lignite10 % hard coal30 % mixed firing50 % fuel oil100 % natural/derived gas100 % Table 2.1: Share of Intermediate Load NorthCentralSouth DenmarkAustriaGreece FinlandBelgiumItaly SwedenFrancePortugal GermanySpain Ireland Luxembourg* Netherlands UK Table 2.2: EU-15 Countries *data are not available for emissions in Luxembourg. The 10 new member states, along with Turkey, Bulgaria and Romania can be divided into three similar groups (see Table 2.3). North-eastEastSouth-east EstoniaCzech RepublicBulgaria LatviaHungaryMalta* LithuaniaPolandRomania SlovakiaSlovenia Turkey Cyprus Table 2.3: New EU Member States, Bulgaria, Romania and Turkey *data are not available for electricity generation and emissions in Malta. 2.2.1 ELECTRICITY GENERATION SECTOR AND ENVIRONMENTAL POLICY FRAMEWORK The countries covered by this study differ substantially in the volume and structure of their electricity generation. All data used have been taken from Eurelectric (2002). Therefore, the shares of input fuels for electricity gener- ation vary strongly between different countries. The share of hydropower used is determined by the very different resources of the 28 countries, while the share of nuclear is a function of the nuclear energy policy of each country, varying from a very strong reliance on nuclear energy in the case of France to a policy of no nuclear energy in countries like Denmark and Austria. As has been explained above, intermittent renewable energy cannot at present replace nuclear or hydro power. Thus only fossil fuels are replaced by wind energy in this study. The struc- ture of electricity generation by fossil fuel fired conven- tional thermal power plants is shown in Figures 2.2 and 2.3. Unfortunately, the only available comprehensive 160 WIND ENERGY - THE FACTS - ENVIRONMENT Figure 2.2: Total Electricity Generation in EU-15 Countries in 2000 Source: Eurelectric (2002). source of statistical data for the 28 countries studied (Eurelectric, 2002) does not allow a full disaggregation with respect to power plants suitable for more than one fuel ( cmixed firing d). To permit a good comparison between electricity generation in all the countries, the same scale is used in the two figures. As figure 2.2 shows, there are a few countries which use mainly hard coal and lignite for the fossil part of their electricity production. These are Germany, Greece, Spain, Denmark, Finland and Portugal. Other countries favour gas, for example the UK and the Netherlands. Some of the new member states and others mainly use hard coal and lignite for their fossil fuel based electricity generation. These are Poland, Slovenia, Czech Republic, Bulgaria, Slovakia and Hungary. Natural gas is favoured by Latvia, Turkey and Romania. The majority of these countries use a substantial share of nuclear energy for electricity generation. WIND ENERGY - THE FACTS - ENVIRONMENT 161 VOLUME 4 Figure 2.3: Total Electricity Generation in the 10 New Member States, Turkey, Bulgaria and Romania in 2000 a data are from 2002. Source: EWEA (2003b). b no data available. Source: Eurelectric (2002). Figure 2.4: Total Electricity Generation in the EU-15, EU-25 and all 28 Countries in 2000 Source: Eurelectric (2002), own calculations. Data for Estonia are from 2002, source: EWEA (2003b). No data are available for Malta. For a better orientation, the amounts of electricity genera- tion in the EU-15, the EU-25 and in all 28 countries are shown in Figure 2.4. As this figure illustrates, the amount of electricity generation is very low in most of the countries outside the EU-15. Figures 2.5 to 2.7 provide a detailed picture of the elec- tricity generation fuel mix in the various countries. 162 WIND ENERGY - THE FACTS - ENVIRONMENT Figure 2.5: Segmentation of Fuels for Electricity Generation in EU-15 Countries in 2000 (%) Figure 2.6: Segmentation of Fuels for Electricity Generation in the 10 New Member States, Turkey, Bulgaria and Romania in 2000 (%) a no data available. Source: Eurelectric (2002). a data are from 2002, source: EWEA (2003b). Source: Eurelectric (2002). WIND ENERGY - THE FACTS - ENVIRONMENT 163 2003), Denmark 9s wind generation figures for 2002 showed production at 4.9 TWh representing a share of 14.8% (Danish Wind Industry Association, 2003) while Spain 9s production of 9.5 TWh for 2002 represents 4% (IDAE, 2003). Here, it is very important to point out that the figures for electricity generation by wind energy have increased dra- matically in recent years. In terms of installed wind capac- ity, Europe experienced a growth of 10,200 MW of total installed capacity from 2000 to 2002. This fact has an impact on the quantification of the benefits of wind ener- gy. However, for the purposes of this study, the figures for electricity generation by wind energy were taken from the year 2000 (Eurelectric, 2002). Although wind energy is only used in significant volumes in just four out of the 28 countries, the use of wind energy in the year 2000 has already resulted in significant emission reductions, which are discussed in chapter 2.4 below. 2.2.2 EMISSION DATA To be able to analyse the possible environmental and health benefits of the use of wind energy we need to know the specific emissions of the electricity replaced by wind. These can be derived by dividing the absolute VOLUME 4 Electricity generation by renewable energies is widely spread around the European countries. The specific amount which is covered by renewable energies in each depends on geo- graphical conditions and the country 9s policies on renewable energies. Therefore, the use of renewables differs widely between the 28 countries. Due to its relatively low internal costs, hydro power is used by most, with Austria and Latvia producing more than half their electricity from hydro power. The use of wind energy differs very substantially across the 28 countries, with Germany, Denmark and Spain pro- ducing more than 4 TWh/annum (2000) and nine other EU-15 member states producing up to 1 TWh/annum. Of all the other countries, only Turkey was using any signifi- cant amount of wind energy in the year 2000. Countries generating electricity from wind energy (2000) are shown in Figure 2.8. If wind energy production is looked at in terms of share of electricity produced, a somewhat different picture emerges, as only Denmark produced more than 10% of its electricity from wind in 2000 (12.8%), while Spain (2.1%), Germany (1.8%) and Greece (1.1%) were way behind. Nevertheless, the situation is changing dramatically; for example in Germany the installed capacity has more than doubled since the year 2000. For 2002, Germany pro- duced 23.1 TWh which represents a share of 4.7% (Ender, Figure 2.7: Segmentation of Fuels for Electricity Generation in the EU-15, EU-25 and all 28 Countries in 2000 (%) Source: Eurelectric (2002), own calculations. Data for Estonia are from 2002, source: EWEA (2003b). No data are available for Malta. Figure 2.8: Electricity Generation by Wind Energy in 2000 (TWh/a) Source: Eurelectric (2002). emissions produced by a type of fuel in kilotons of CO 2 /annumused for electricity generation in one country by the electricity produced from this fuel in kWh/annum. For clarity, the emissions statistics for each country are given on the CD attached to this report. Most of the data used for the calculations are from Eurelectric (2002). However, not all the necessary data were available from this source, so some calculations have been based on additional sources. As explained in chapter 2.1, wind energy is capable of replacing intermediate load conventional power production. The emissions avoided by wind energy depend on three fac- tors: the specific emissions from each type of generation facility; the fuel mix in each country; and the per- centage of each fuel replaced by wind energy. A detailed calculation of avoidable specific emissions by wind energy in all the countries studied is shown in chapter 2.4. Average emissions per kWh were calculated to provide a starting point for examining the relationship between elec- tricity production from fossil fuels and total emissions from the electricity sector in the different countries (see Figures 2.9 to 2.11). The results include all fossil fuel based electricity not just the intermediate load segment (see chapter 2.4). 164 WIND ENERGY - THE FACTS - ENVIRONMENT Figure 2.9: Specific Average CO 2 Emissions in g/kWh from Fossil Fuel Electricity Generation in 2000 a source of CO 2 emission data: Ministry of Environment and Physical Planning: "National Programme for the Reduction of Greenhouse Gas Emissions", Athens (2002). b no emission data available. c all data are from 2002, source: EWEA (2003b). d source of emission data: MVM, Hungary. e no data available. f source of emission data: NEK, Bulgaria. g source of emission data: TEAS, Turkey. Source: Eurelectric (2002), own calculations. Figure 2.10: Specific Average SO 2 Emissions in g/kWh from Fossil Fuel Electricity Generation in 2000 a no emission data available. b all data are from 2002, source: EWEA (2003b). c source of emission data: MVM, Hungary. d no data available. e source of emission data: NEK, Bulgaria. f source of emission data: TEAS, Turkey. Source: Eurelectric (2002), own calculations. WIND ENERGY - THE FACTS - ENVIRONMENT 165 VOLUME 4 In summary, Figures 2.9 to 2.11 show that the southern European EU-15 countries (Greece and Spain), as well as all south-eastern countries (Bulgaria, Cyprus, Romania, Slovenia and Turkey), Hungary and Estonia have rather high emissions from electricity generation. Two of the cen- trally-located countries (Ireland and the UK), Italy and Portugal, Lithuania, and most of the eastern European new member countries (Czech Republic, Poland and Slovakia) show intermediate emission levels. Countries with rather low emissions are mostly northern or central countries - Denmark, Finland, Sweden, Austria, Belgium, France, Germany, the Netherlands, and Latvia. Due to this distribution there is a significant increase of specific average emissions from electricity generation from northern to south-eastern Europe. Figure 2.9 shows that the difference in specific CO 2 emis- sions is more than a factor of three between the various countries. This is related to differences in fuel mix as well as the fact that some countries have power plants with very low efficiencies. The distribution of SO 2 emissions per kWh is very differ- ent, as shown in Figure 2.10. This is related to the very heterogeneous sulphur content of fuel and the use of desulphurisation in only the most advanced countries. NO x emissions differ between the countries according to the combustion process used, the combustion tempera- ture, which is not optimal in all the countries, and the scrubbing technologies employed, as shown in Figure 2.11. To determine avoidable emissions from the use of wind energy, specific emissions from electricity generation for the different fuels must be calculated. Specific emissions have been evaluated based on total emissions from elec- tricity generation and the amounts of electricity generated in each country. For further information about this calcu- lation see Appendix G. 2.3The Calculation of External Costs with the EcoSense Model In order to be able to calculate the external costs avoided by wind energy, it is necessary to model the pathway of emissions from conventional power plants to the different receptors, such as plants, animals and humans, which may be located thousands of kilometres away. As air pol- lutants can damage a number of different receptors, the task of analysing the impacts of any given emission is fair- ly complex. To allow such complex analysis, a tool has been developed during the last 10 years in a major co- ordinated EU research effort, the EcoSense model. This chapter explains the basics of the model, which is used in the calculations in chapter 2.4. 2.3.1 SOFTWARE DESCRIPTION EcoSense is a computer model for assessing environ- mental impacts and the resulting external costs of electric power generation systems. The model is based on the Impact Pathway approach of the ExternE project and Figure 2.11: Specific Average NO X Emissions in g/kWh from Fossil Fuel Electricity Generation in 2000 a no emission data available. b all data are from 2002, source: EWEA (2003b). c source of emission data: MVM, Hungary. d no data available. e source of emission data: NEK, Bulgaria. f source of emission data: TEAS, Turkey. Source: Eurelectric (2002), own calculations. 166 WIND ENERGY - THE FACTS - ENVIRONMENT provides the relevant data and models required for an integrated impact assessment related to airborne pollu- tants. (For extensive information on the model as well as the approach used, see European Commission, 1994) EcoSense provides the windrose trajectory model (WTM) for modelling the atmospheric dispersion of emissions, including the formation of secondary air pollutants. For any given point source of emissions (e.g. a coal fired power plant) the resulting changes in the concentration and deposition of primary and secondary pollutants can be estimated on a Europe-wide scale with the help of this model. Developed in the UK by the Harwell Laboratory it covers a range of several thousand kilometres. The refer- ence environment database, which is included in EcoSense, provides receptor-specific data as well as meteorological information based on the Eurogrid-co-ordinate system. The Impact Pathway approach can be divided into four analytical steps: "Calculation of Emissions The first step is to calculate emissions of CO 2 , SO 2 and NO x per kWh from a specific power plant. "Dispersion Modelling Then air pollutant dispersion around the site of the specif- ic plant is modelled. Based on meteorological data, changes in the concentration levels of the different pollu- tants can be calculated across Europe. "Impact Analysis Based on data for different receptors in the areas with sig- nificant concentration changes, the impacts of the addi- tional emissions on these receptors can be calculated on the basis of so-called dose response functions. Important data on receptors included in the model database are, for example, and population density and land use patterns. "Monetisation of Costs The last step is to monetise the impacts per kWh caused by the specific power plant. In this stage, the calculated physical damage to a receptor is valued on a monetary scale based on the best available approaches for each type of damage. 2.3.2 INPUT DATA TO THE MODEL As the EcoSense model requires a specified site as a start- ing point for its pollutant dispersion modelling we have chosen one typical electricity generation site for each coun- try to assess the impacts and calculate the costs caused by emissions from fossil fuel fired power plants which may be replaced by wind energy. The co-ordinates at each site are chosen in order to locate the reference plants centrally in the electricity generating activities of each country. Thus, it is assumed that the cho- sen site represents approximately the average location of electricity generating activities of each country has been chosen. For more information about the input data see Appendix H. To control for effects caused by this assumption and to prevent extreme data results, a sensitivity analysis was carried out by shifting the geographical location of the plant. This analysis showed a relatively high sensitivity of external costs to the location of the electricity generation facilities. This is due to the very heterogeneous distribu- tion of the different receptors in different parts of a coun- try. For this reason, the specific external costs per kWh may differ by a factor of two. Unfortunately, the area cov- ered by EcoSense is limited to 29° east, so substantial parts of eastern Europe are not included in the analysis and the impacts of eastward emissions due to the prevail- ing westwind drift are not fully accounted for. Thus, in countries located at the border of the area covered exter- nal costs may be substantially underestimated. WIND ENERGY - THE FACTS - ENVIRONMENT 167 VOLUME 4 emissions from lignite but low on SO 2 emissions from oil. (The calculations are described in detail in Appendix G.) The specific emissions per fuel and the share of interme- diate load generated on the basis of each fuel are used to calculate the specific emissions which could have been avoided per kWh of wind energy in each country in 2000. Results are shown in Figures 2.12 to 2.14. Due to a lack of sufficient data there are no results for Luxembourg and Malta. Due to the fact that wind energy replaces only part of the electricity produced by fossil fuels (intermediate load), specific avoidable emissions are different from average emissions from fossil fuel electricity generation. In most cases, avoidable emissions by wind energy are less than average emissions from fossil fuel electricity generation. This is justified by the fact that intermediate load elec- tricity generation by fossil fuels is based on fuel with rel- atively low emissions (see chapter 2.1 for more informa- tion on this point). As is to be expected, the specific emissions of intermedi- ate fossil power which could be avoided by using wind energy, are higher in most new member states than in most of the EU-15. This is due to less efficient power plants and a lack of SO 2 and NO x scrubbers. Consequently, new wind energy plants in the countries besides EU-15 countries could induce higher specific emissions. Nevertheless, this may not hold in the long run, as a convergence of technical standards is expected in the next 20 years. Figure 2.8 reveals that some countries are already avoiding a sizeable amount of fossil fuel emissions through their use of wind energy. Due to the different specific emissions avoided per kWh in each country (Figures 2.12 to 2.14) the total emissions are not directly proportional to the wind energy produced. For Spain, in particular, total emission reductions for SO 2 and NO x are comparatively high in rela- tion to the electricity replaced. This is due to the high spe- cific emissions of Spanish fossil fuel power plants. In 2000, approximately 15 Mt CO 2 were avoided by the use of wind energy as shown in Figures 2.15 to 2.17. In order to run the model, the capacity of the power plant, its full load hours of operation and the volume stream of exhaust gas per hour are required. The assumptions made for the calculations are shown in Table 2.4 for the different fossil fuels. For each country, calculations have been performed for a representative power plant location based on the specific national emission data for each fuel and each pollutant. 2.4Benefits of Wind Energy - Results 2.4.1 AVOIDABLE EMISSIONS BY THE USE OF WIND ENERGY As explained in chapter 2.1, electricity from wind energy can replace intermediate load from fossil fuel power plants. Avoidable emissions by wind energy can be calcu- lated based on specific emissions derived in chapter 2.2. Due to the fact that there are no data available on specific emissions per fuel for most countries, specific emission data have been estimated by splitting up the total emis- sions from conventional thermal electricity generation based upon the shares of electricity generated by the dif- ferent fossil fuels. Different power plants running on the same fuel are assumed to have the same specific emis- sions in any one country. Furthermore, it is assumed that the countries have attained the same relative emission abatement level for each fuel type. That is to say, for example, that one country would not rank high on SO 2 Fuel TypeCapacity Full LoadVolume Stream (MW)Hours per Yearper Hour (m 3 ) Hard coal4005,0001,500,000 Lignite8007,0003,000,000 Fuel oil2002,000750,000 Natural gas, 2002,000750,000 derived gas Mixed firing, 4005,0001,500,000 not specified Table 2.4: Technical Data of the Reference Facilities Assumed for the Calculation 2.4.2AVOIDABLE EXTERNAL COSTS BY THE USE OF WIND ENERGY To calculate the external costs avoided by the use of wind energy, the external costs resulting from air pollu- tants such as SO 2 and NO x (calculated by EcoSense) have to be added to the external costs of the anthro- pogenic greenhouse effect resulting from CO 2 emissions, which are not calculated by EcoSense. As air pollutants can damage a large number of different receptors, calculations of external costs will generally include a large number of damages, which tend to be restricted to the most important impacts to allow a calcu- lation of external costs with a limited resource input. At present, EcoSense includes the following receptors: humans (health), crops, materials (in buildings, etc.), forests and ecosystems, with monetary valuation only included for human health, crops and materials. There are two approaches to evaluating effects on human health: value of statistical life (VSL); and years of life lost 168 WIND ENERGY - THE FACTS - ENVIRONMENT Figure 2.13: Specific Avoidable SO 2 Emissions in g/kWh by Wind Energy in 2000 a no emission data available. b all data are from 2002, source: EWEA (2003b). c source of emission data: MVM, Hungary. d no data available. e source of emission data: NEK, Bulgaria. f source of emission data: TEAS, Turkey. Source: Eurelectric (2002), own calculations. Figure 2.14: Specific Avoidable NO x Emissions in g/kWh by Wind Energy in 2000 a no emission data available. b all data are from 2002, source: EWEA (2003b). c source of emission data: MVM, Hungary. d no data available. e source of emission data: NEK, Bulgaria. f source of emission data: TEAS, Turkey. Source: Eurelectric (2002), own calculations. Figure 2.12: Specific Avoidable CO 2 Emissions in g/kWh by Wind Energy in 2000 a source of CO 2 emission data: Ministry of Environment and Physical Planning: "National Programme for the Reduction of Greenhouse Gas Emissions", Athens (2002). b no emission data available. c all data are from 2002, source: EWEA (2003b). d source of emission data: MVM, Hungary. e no data available. f source of emission data: NEK, Bulgaria. g source of emission data: TEAS, Turkey. Source: Eurelectric (2002), own calculations. WIND ENERGY - THE FACTS - ENVIRONMENT 169 VOLUME 4 (YOLL). The VSL approach measures a society 9s willingness to pay to avoid additional deaths. This can be seen in spend- ing on improved safety in the aircraft or car industry. In the EU and the US, figures of between US$/¬1 million and US$/¬10 million per life saved have been found in different studies. Earlier versions of the ExternE project adopted a figure of US$3 million per life saved for VSL calculations. In these calculations a person 9s age does not matter. The YOLL approach takes age into account. In the case of chronic disease leading to death in a very old person, only the years of life lost due to the disease as com- pared to average life expectancy are taken into account. For each year of life lost approximately one-twentieth of the VSL value is used. Using one or other approach may lead to substantially different results of monetised huma

less