Comparison of Reported Effects and Risks to Vertebrate Wildlife from Six Electricity Generation Types in the New York/New England Region
March 2009 (Environmental Bioindictors Foundation and Pandion Systems)
SUMMARY
Comparison of Reported Effects and Risks to Vertebrate Wildlife from Six Electricity Generation Types in the New York/New England Region, from the New York State Research & Development Authority (NYSERDA), shows that while electricity generation inevitably causes adverse effects on the environment in general and on wildlife and wildlife habitat in particular, the effects and levels of risk vary importantly between generation sources.
The study assessed data on the New York and New England region and its conclusions are specifically applicable only there but it is readily generalizable.
Of the major sources of electricity generation used in the region specifically (and in the U.S. generally), the study showed clearly that wind power, hydroelectric power and natural gas are far preferable in terms of their environmental impacts to coal, oil and nuclear energy.
Because impacts occur throughout the lifecycles of the generation sources, the NYSERDA study made a thorough comparative assessment of each energy source’s lifecycle.
Some examples of impacts throughout energy source lifecycles:
(1) coal, oil, natural gas, and uranium for nuclear energy are aggressively extracted from the ground and then transported with much energy consumption and emission spew to power plants sometimes hundreds or thousands of miles away.
(2) Hydroelectric power engages and alters a source of flowing water.
(3) Wind energy installations are built into remote sites where there are reliable wind flow patterns.
(4) Most electricity is generated remotely for consumption in population centers and therefore requires a vast built transmission and distribution system.
The NYSERDSA study classified the impacts of electricity generation sources on wildlife by (1) direct and/or indirect impacts, (2) acute or chronic impacts, (3) individual or cumulative impacts and (4) local, regional, or global impacts.
The study used 3 key factors to define the well-being of wildlife populations: (1) birth rate, (2) death rate, and (3) availability of habitat. Any change in any of these factors will cause changes in wildlife populations.
Effects and risks can be injury or mortality of individuals or habitat loss and decline of entire species. The degree and extent of harm to individuals and to populations varies according to the energy generation source, although some harmful effects are perpetrated across the spectrum of sources.
The study carefully differentiated generation source harms as acute and immediate effects versus chronic, cumulative, and long-term effects.
It identified (1) acidic deposition, (2) mercury bioaccumulation and (3) climate change as the 3 most significant and widespread stressors on wildlife and habitat.
It addressed the very troublesome issue of bird and bat population impacts with wind turbines but points out there are equally problematic impacts on bird and bat populations from collisions with and electrocutions by the transmission and distribution lines necessary for every generation source. Birds and bats are also seriously harmed by collisions with oil and natural gas offshore drilling platforms, coal plant smoke and steam stacks and nuclear plant cooling towers. The paper included a consideration of impacts on varying species according to their ranges, flight patterns, and migratory behaviors.
It also included a consideration of what kinds of further assessments are needed and suggests, in particular, a study to rank the recovery potentials allowed by the different generation sources from the harms they inflict on populations and habitats. The recovery possible from local impacts such as bird and bat collisions is completely different from the recovery possible from alteration of complete habitats by a change in air or water quality or of the alteration of reproductive potential by toxic depositions such as acids or mercury.
Finally, the paper suggested there is a need for a state-by-state analysis of energy generation potential risks.
The study put several important limitations on itself: (1) It did not consider risks according to the size of individual generating facilities. (2) It did not consider low-likelihood catastrophic events like nuclear reactor incidents or hydroelectric dam breaches. (3) It considered only terrestrial and aquatic vertebrate wildlife and
their habitats. (4) It focused on total wildlife impacts and risks without consideration of recovery potentials. (5) In the absence of definitive data, it was necessary to estimate the effects of some impacts.
COMMENTARY
All electricity generation sources have “adverse” risks to wildlife (fish, amphibians, reptiles, birds, mammals) and habitat.
The effects and risks can be: (1) injury and mortality of individuals and (2) habitat loss and decline in species.
The effects and risks can also be in (1) immediacy of response, (2) level of impact, (3) lifecycle stage effects and (4) spatial extent of response.
There can be acute and immediate effects like (a) the toxicity of an oil spill, (b) exposure to acid mine drainage, (c) collisions with infrastructure, or (d) electrocution by transmission lines.
There can also be chronic, cumulative, latent, and long-term effects like (a) biomagnification of mercury and other toxins in the food and water chain, leading to alterations of reproductive dysfunction or disease resistance; (b) acidification of soils from deposition, leading to forest decline; and (c) climate change, leading to reproduction habit changes, migration pattern disruption, or altered ranging of species.
There are 2 levels of impact: (1) individual risks, considered in the report to be Lowest to Moderate Potential risks, and (2) population-level risks, considered Higher and Highest Potential risks and more likely to come from extraction and generation than other lifecycle stages.
Electricity generation lifecycle stage effects can be (1) local, like the impacts of coal mining in West Virginia, (2) regional, like acid deposition across the Northeast from coal plant emissions, or (3) global, like climate change.
The 3 most significant and widespread wildlife impacts are (1) acidic deposition, (2) mercury bioaccumulation, and (3) climate change. They come from fossil fuels and hydroelectric dams. They create Moderate to Highest Potential risks.
Acidic deposition is from coal, oil, and (less) natural gas generation. Acidification of forests, streams, and lakes has widespread effects on fish, wildlife and their habitats.
Mercury bioaccumulation comes from coal, oil, and hydroelectric generation. It is a major risk to wildlife, especially fish, birds, and mammals, but its effects can be reversible, as shown by measurements of sources and deposits of mercury emissions and biotic uptake following controls were instituted in the late 1980s.
Climate change is global and most impactful on fish, wildlife and habitat. Some impacts may not be reversible. Coal, oil, gas, and hydroelectric generation contribute (unequally).
Risks are relative but generation is presently affecting a wide variety of species, some more than others.
Generation types also vary in the magnitude of their impacts at different stages of their lifecycles.
The transmission and delivery stages of all forms of generation are of Moderate Potential risk to birds and bats from collisions. During generation, birds and bats collide with offshore oil and natural gas drilling platforms and wind turbines, coal and gas plant smoke and steam stacks, and nuclear plant cooling towers.
Oil and natural gas extraction creates High Potential risks to local and regional wildlife.
Coal is “by far” the biggest contributor to acidic deposition, mercury bioaccumulation, and climate change through its higher sulfur dioxide (SO2), nitrogen oxides (NOx), carbon dioxide (CO2) and mercury (Hg) emissions.
Old Energy generation sources, especially coal and oil, have higher potential risks than New Energies like hydroelectric power and wind power.
1) Coal risks go from Lowest to Highest Potential. Highest Potential risks come with extraction by strip and mountain top mining. Highest Potential risks also come during generation from acidification and mercury bioaccumulation caused by combustion.
(2) Oil risks go from Lowest to Highest Potential. Extraction and transport cause Highest Potential risks because of spills. Generation causes acidification, a Highest Potential risk.
(3) Natural gas risks go from Lowest to Higher Potential risks. Generation risks are similar to oil generation risks but magnitudes are lower. Moderate Potential risks come from natural gas greenhouse gas emissions (GhGs) rather than the Higher Potential risks associated with oil GhGs.
(4) Nuclear risks go from Lowest to Highest Potential. Although nuclear shares emissions-free generation with the New Energies, its risks include the collisions with stacks and cooling towers associated with coal and oil generation sources. It also impacts the local marine habitats of adjacent water bodies used to cool plants. And there is the conundrum of radioactive leakage and waste.
(5) Hydroelectric power risks go from Lowest to Highest Potential. Construction, generation and decommissioning has impacts in land and water habitat upstream and
downstream from dams, which also cause somewhat mitigated disruptions to fish migration.
(6) Wind risks go from Lowest to Moderate Potential. Bird and bat collisions with turbines are a risk. Bird population-level risks have not been observed. Bat population-level impacts were indeterminate at the time of the study and have since been mitigated.
The construction, transmission and delivery, and decommissioning stages generally have lesser wildlife impacts. The exception is the construction, operation, and decommissioning of hydroelectric dams.
Single Net Takeaway: Choice of generation source determines impacts. Pick cancer, lung disease and the ravaging of ecosystems (coal, oil nuclear) or pick mitigatable local and specific disruptions to local fish and wildlife and their habitats (hydroelectric, wind).
QUOTES
- From the NYSERDA Executive Summary: “Electricity generation causes adverse effects
on both people and the environment, including wildlife and wildlife habitat.
SUMMARY
Comparison of Reported Effects and Risks to Vertebrate Wildlife from Six Electricity Generation Types in the New York/New England Region, from the New York State Research & Development Authority (NYSERDA), shows that while electricity generation inevitably causes adverse effects on the environment in general and on wildlife and wildlife habitat in particular, the effects and levels of risk vary importantly between generation sources.
The study assessed data on the New York and New England region and its conclusions are specifically applicable only there but it is readily generalizable.
Of the major sources of electricity generation used in the region specifically (and in the U.S. generally), the study showed clearly that wind power, hydroelectric power and natural gas are far preferable in terms of their environmental impacts to coal, oil and nuclear energy.
Because impacts occur throughout the lifecycles of the generation sources, the NYSERDA study made a thorough comparative assessment of each energy source’s lifecycle.
Some examples of impacts throughout energy source lifecycles:
(1) coal, oil, natural gas, and uranium for nuclear energy are aggressively extracted from the ground and then transported with much energy consumption and emission spew to power plants sometimes hundreds or thousands of miles away.
(2) Hydroelectric power engages and alters a source of flowing water.
(3) Wind energy installations are built into remote sites where there are reliable wind flow patterns.
(4) Most electricity is generated remotely for consumption in population centers and therefore requires a vast built transmission and distribution system.
The NYSERDSA study classified the impacts of electricity generation sources on wildlife by (1) direct and/or indirect impacts, (2) acute or chronic impacts, (3) individual or cumulative impacts and (4) local, regional, or global impacts.
The study used 3 key factors to define the well-being of wildlife populations: (1) birth rate, (2) death rate, and (3) availability of habitat. Any change in any of these factors will cause changes in wildlife populations.
Effects and risks can be injury or mortality of individuals or habitat loss and decline of entire species. The degree and extent of harm to individuals and to populations varies according to the energy generation source, although some harmful effects are perpetrated across the spectrum of sources.
The study carefully differentiated generation source harms as acute and immediate effects versus chronic, cumulative, and long-term effects.
It identified (1) acidic deposition, (2) mercury bioaccumulation and (3) climate change as the 3 most significant and widespread stressors on wildlife and habitat.
It addressed the very troublesome issue of bird and bat population impacts with wind turbines but points out there are equally problematic impacts on bird and bat populations from collisions with and electrocutions by the transmission and distribution lines necessary for every generation source. Birds and bats are also seriously harmed by collisions with oil and natural gas offshore drilling platforms, coal plant smoke and steam stacks and nuclear plant cooling towers. The paper included a consideration of impacts on varying species according to their ranges, flight patterns, and migratory behaviors.
It also included a consideration of what kinds of further assessments are needed and suggests, in particular, a study to rank the recovery potentials allowed by the different generation sources from the harms they inflict on populations and habitats. The recovery possible from local impacts such as bird and bat collisions is completely different from the recovery possible from alteration of complete habitats by a change in air or water quality or of the alteration of reproductive potential by toxic depositions such as acids or mercury.
Finally, the paper suggested there is a need for a state-by-state analysis of energy generation potential risks.
The study put several important limitations on itself: (1) It did not consider risks according to the size of individual generating facilities. (2) It did not consider low-likelihood catastrophic events like nuclear reactor incidents or hydroelectric dam breaches. (3) It considered only terrestrial and aquatic vertebrate wildlife and
their habitats. (4) It focused on total wildlife impacts and risks without consideration of recovery potentials. (5) In the absence of definitive data, it was necessary to estimate the effects of some impacts.
COMMENTARY
All electricity generation sources have “adverse” risks to wildlife (fish, amphibians, reptiles, birds, mammals) and habitat.
The effects and risks can be: (1) injury and mortality of individuals and (2) habitat loss and decline in species.
The effects and risks can also be in (1) immediacy of response, (2) level of impact, (3) lifecycle stage effects and (4) spatial extent of response.
There can be acute and immediate effects like (a) the toxicity of an oil spill, (b) exposure to acid mine drainage, (c) collisions with infrastructure, or (d) electrocution by transmission lines.
There can also be chronic, cumulative, latent, and long-term effects like (a) biomagnification of mercury and other toxins in the food and water chain, leading to alterations of reproductive dysfunction or disease resistance; (b) acidification of soils from deposition, leading to forest decline; and (c) climate change, leading to reproduction habit changes, migration pattern disruption, or altered ranging of species.
There are 2 levels of impact: (1) individual risks, considered in the report to be Lowest to Moderate Potential risks, and (2) population-level risks, considered Higher and Highest Potential risks and more likely to come from extraction and generation than other lifecycle stages.
Electricity generation lifecycle stage effects can be (1) local, like the impacts of coal mining in West Virginia, (2) regional, like acid deposition across the Northeast from coal plant emissions, or (3) global, like climate change.
The 3 most significant and widespread wildlife impacts are (1) acidic deposition, (2) mercury bioaccumulation, and (3) climate change. They come from fossil fuels and hydroelectric dams. They create Moderate to Highest Potential risks.
Acidic deposition is from coal, oil, and (less) natural gas generation. Acidification of forests, streams, and lakes has widespread effects on fish, wildlife and their habitats.
Mercury bioaccumulation comes from coal, oil, and hydroelectric generation. It is a major risk to wildlife, especially fish, birds, and mammals, but its effects can be reversible, as shown by measurements of sources and deposits of mercury emissions and biotic uptake following controls were instituted in the late 1980s.
Climate change is global and most impactful on fish, wildlife and habitat. Some impacts may not be reversible. Coal, oil, gas, and hydroelectric generation contribute (unequally).
Risks are relative but generation is presently affecting a wide variety of species, some more than others.
Generation types also vary in the magnitude of their impacts at different stages of their lifecycles.
The transmission and delivery stages of all forms of generation are of Moderate Potential risk to birds and bats from collisions. During generation, birds and bats collide with offshore oil and natural gas drilling platforms and wind turbines, coal and gas plant smoke and steam stacks, and nuclear plant cooling towers.
Oil and natural gas extraction creates High Potential risks to local and regional wildlife.
Coal is “by far” the biggest contributor to acidic deposition, mercury bioaccumulation, and climate change through its higher sulfur dioxide (SO2), nitrogen oxides (NOx), carbon dioxide (CO2) and mercury (Hg) emissions.
Old Energy generation sources, especially coal and oil, have higher potential risks than New Energies like hydroelectric power and wind power.
1) Coal risks go from Lowest to Highest Potential. Highest Potential risks come with extraction by strip and mountain top mining. Highest Potential risks also come during generation from acidification and mercury bioaccumulation caused by combustion.
(2) Oil risks go from Lowest to Highest Potential. Extraction and transport cause Highest Potential risks because of spills. Generation causes acidification, a Highest Potential risk.
(3) Natural gas risks go from Lowest to Higher Potential risks. Generation risks are similar to oil generation risks but magnitudes are lower. Moderate Potential risks come from natural gas greenhouse gas emissions (GhGs) rather than the Higher Potential risks associated with oil GhGs.
(4) Nuclear risks go from Lowest to Highest Potential. Although nuclear shares emissions-free generation with the New Energies, its risks include the collisions with stacks and cooling towers associated with coal and oil generation sources. It also impacts the local marine habitats of adjacent water bodies used to cool plants. And there is the conundrum of radioactive leakage and waste.
(5) Hydroelectric power risks go from Lowest to Highest Potential. Construction, generation and decommissioning has impacts in land and water habitat upstream and
downstream from dams, which also cause somewhat mitigated disruptions to fish migration.
(6) Wind risks go from Lowest to Moderate Potential. Bird and bat collisions with turbines are a risk. Bird population-level risks have not been observed. Bat population-level impacts were indeterminate at the time of the study and have since been mitigated.
The construction, transmission and delivery, and decommissioning stages generally have lesser wildlife impacts. The exception is the construction, operation, and decommissioning of hydroelectric dams.
Single Net Takeaway: Choice of generation source determines impacts. Pick cancer, lung disease and the ravaging of ecosystems (coal, oil nuclear) or pick mitigatable local and specific disruptions to local fish and wildlife and their habitats (hydroelectric, wind).
QUOTES
- From the NYSERDA Executive Summary: “Electricity generation causes adverse effects
on both people and the environment, including wildlife and wildlife habitat.
In recent years, concerns about global climate change, caused in part by fossil fuel combustion, have focused enhanced attention on these effects and the need to move toward a mix of electricity generation sources that will reduce adverse effects of all types on the environment.
The effects and relative levels of risk vary among the different electricity generation sources.”
- From the NYSERDA Executive Summary: “To objectively compare adverse effects caused by different electricity generation source types, the total life cycle of electricity generation was examined.
The Life Cycle Assessment identified the stages of electricity generation: resource extraction, fuel transportation, construction of facility, power generation, transmission and delivery, and decommissioning of facility…Wildlife effects from exposure to stressors encountered at each life cycle stage were identified and compiled for each electricity generation source.”
http://newenergynews.blogspot.com/2009/07/comparing-impacts-of-new-energy-and-old.html
http://newenergynews.blogspot.com/2009/07/comparing-impacts-of-new-energy-and-old.html
No comments:
Post a Comment