Mainstreaming energy and climate policies into nature conservation
THE EUROPEAN WIND INDUSTRY’S VIEWS ON HOW WIND TURBINES ANDWILDLIFE CAN CO-EXIST
OCTOBER 2017
introduction
Background
1.1.Legislative framework: climate, energy and nature conservation
1.2.Wind power today
1.3.Wind power helps mitigate climate change – the single largest threat to biodiversity loss
Wind farms and Wildlife can co-exist
1.4.Proper planning – avoiding or reducing wind turbine impacts on wildlife
1.5.Wind energy developments in Natura 2000
1.6.Anthropogenic activities and bird fatalities
Wind Industry’s view on nature conservation
1.7.Appropriately sited and well-designed wind farms are not a threat to birds and habitats
1.8.Effects of wind farms on ecosystems should be assessed on a case by case basis
1.9.Avoid retroactive changes
1.10.Technology innovation: cameras, avian radars and deterrent devices
1.11.The precautionary principle and the knowledge gaps
introduction
Climate change and the degradation of ecosystems and biodiversity cannot be solved in isolation. Land and marine ecosystems play a crucial role in the climate system, capturing roughly half of the carbon dioxide emissions generated by human activities (UNEP, 2009). Protecting biodiversity preserves ecosystem services that are important for regulating the climate and help us to adapt to the impacts of climate change. Meanwhile, by increasing theshareof renewable energy sources (RES) we ease pressure on ecosystems by slowing down climate change. Thus, efforts to address climate change and protect natural ecosystems benefit each other(EC, 2014).
As showed in the paragraph above, at a global scale, it is widely recognised that renewables, including wind power make a major contribution to decarbonising today’s economy and mitigating climate change – the single, largest threat to biodiversity loss. However, at a local level, conflicts may arise between renewable energy and nature conservation policies. In the case of wind farm development, habitatloss or fragmentation (for vegetal species)as well as bird and bat collisions with wind turbines are the most commonly documented impacts. The wind industry is aware of thesepotential impacts on wildlife and their habitats, and makes continuous efforts to understand and reduce the pressure on the environment. Nonetheless,with appropriate sited and well-designed wind farms, many conflicts between wind energy production and nature conservation can be solved.
This paper presents the wind industry’s views on a better and more holistic integration of climate, energy and biodiversity objectives. Aims at providing industry, policy makers and civil society organisations with relevant and practical information on the subject of sustainable management of natural resources. Therefore, bringing concrete examples of successful mitigation applied to avoid or minimise bird or bat collisions with wind turbines. Research on the subject is ongoing in both academic and industry fora and with this comes the challenge of keeping this paper up-to-date. Should you have further input please notify us .
Background
1.1.Legislative framework: climate, energy and nature conservation
The Paris agreement has marked the start of a fundamental transition in world’s economies. The power sector is the largest single contributor to global greenhouse gas emissions(World Energy Outlook, Energy and Climate Change Special Report, IEA, 2015) and swift action to transform energy systems and scale-up investments in renewable energy is essential in order to limit global temperature increases.Nonetheless, the deal must be seen as a starting point. A turning point that influences EU climate and energy policies and offers new opportunities for the wind energy industry both in and outside Europe.
The European Union has set itself targets for reducing its greenhouse gas emissions progressively up to 2050.The EU'sRenewable energy directivesets a binding target of 20% final energy consumption from renewable sources by 2020. Renewables will continue to play a key role in helping the EU meet its energy needs beyond 2020. EU countries have already agreedon a new renewable energy target of at least 27% of final energy consumption in the EU as a whole by 2030 as part of the EU'senergy and climate goals for 2030.
At EU level, several laws protect nature and biodiversity. In particular, the EU Birds andHabitats Directives has proven to be the cornerstone for protecting Europe’s natural capital. The wind industry is fully compliant with these laws. Moreover, through the European Commission’s guidance document ‘Wind energy developments and Natura2000’, regulatory bodies are further supported on how to ensure that the development of wind farms also in Natura2000 or adjacent areas is compatible with the objectives of the EU’s Birds and Habitats Directives.
“WindEurope is fully committed to step up its efforts in the fight against climate change and actively advocates for a 35% RES target to 2030 that would lead to the decarbonisation of the power sector, transportation and heating & cooling sectors. We fully recognise the need for further integration of nature conservation considerations into energy and climate policies, targets and objectives that would lead to a better planning and management of natural resources. Furthermore, this process would contribute to the reduction of consenting risks, to the development of wind energy projects in a timely and cost-efficient manner and to environmentally sustainable operations.”
Giles Dickson, CEO, WindEurope
1.2.Wind power today
Wind energy is a reliable and affordable energy source, which benefits European electricity consumers. It also makes an important contribution in reducing energy dependence, increasing energy security and reducing fossil fuel import bills.Wind energy is one of the most efficient solutions to reduce emissions in the power sector. It already provides for decarbonisation while contributing to economic growth in many countries proving it will continue to be a leading solution against climate change globally.
Wind energy already meets 11% of the EU’s power demand from a total of 154GW of installed wind power capacity at the end 2016, with high penetration levels in several countries (Denmark 42%; Spain 20%; Germany 13%; UK 11%).Wind power installed more than any other form of power generation in Europe in 2016 and accounted for 51% of total new power capacity installations. Technology costis expected to further decline in Europe provided there continues to be a robust market for RES in the EU (WindEurope, 2017).
Our relatively young industry is already the most competitive source of new power generation (onshore wind LCOE ranges from €52 to €110/MWh (Ecofys, 2014, 2017).
According to the third annual Cost Reduction Monitoring Framework (CRMF)issued by ORE Catapult in January 2017, the cost of energy from offshore wind at UK projects has fallen by 32% since 2012 and is now below the joint UK Government and industry target (Offshore Wind Cost Reduction Taskforce, 2012) of £100/MWh by 2020; the target was reached four years ahead of schedule.
Moreover, winning bids of auctions in the Netherlands, Germany and Denmark delivered up to 48% cost reduction compared to projects just 2 years ago. Delivering further cost reductions will require the deployment of significant volumes of new offshore wind. But most Governments in Europe have still to define clear plans for how much new offshore they intend to deploy, notably beyond 2023. The industry therefore calls on European governments to collectively ensure there is 60 GW, or at least 4 GW per year of new deployment in the decade after 2020. Going beyond 4 GW per year would enable the industry to become fully competitive with new conventional generation ahead of 2030(WindEurope 2017).
1.3.Wind power helps mitigate climate change – the single largest threat to biodiversity loss
Wind energy is one of the cleanest and most environmentally friendly energy sources with a long-term positive impact on the environment. Its life cycle greenhouse gas emissions is estimated at 23 g CO₂e/kWh, this low value is due to the fact that during the whole operational phase of a wind farm there is no CO₂ emitted, on the contrary wind helps avoid CO2 emissions released from the burning of fossil fuels. This value can be compared with the life cycle greenhouse gas emissions of coal and gas that reach the following values: 1,205 CO₂e/kWh and 523 CO₂e/kWh respectively(Timothy J. Skone, PE., National Energy Technology Laboratory, 2015).
Water is an important input in nearly all forms of energy. Within the energy sector, the power sector is by far the largest source of withdrawals, although in terms of consumption, primary energy production is larger (see table 1). Thermal power plants withdraw significant amounts of water, mostly from surface water sources, after which much of it is returned in the ecosystem but often at a different temperature; this phenomena is also known as “thermal pollution”. The type of cooling technology[1], as well as the overall efficiency of the thermal power plants are the key determinants of how much fresh water is withdrawn and consumed (World Energy, Outlook, 2016).
In the case of direct cooling, impacts of thermal pollution include the amount of water withdrawn and the effects upon organisms in the aquatic environment, particularly fish and crustaceans. This latter includes both kills due to impingement (trapping of larger fish on screens) and entrainment (drawing of smaller fish, eggs and larvae through cooling systems) and the change in ecosystem conditions brought about by the increase in temperature of the discharge water(World Nuclear Association, February 2017).
Table1The water-energy nexus
Energy sector / Water withdrawals (bcm) / Share of total water energy withdrawals (%) / Water consumption (bcm) / Share of total water energy consumption (%)Power generation / 351 / 88% / 18 / 37%
Fossil fuels / 230 / 58% / 13 / 28%
Nuclear / 112 / 28% / 4 / 8%
Renewables* / 9 / 2% / 1 / 1%
Wind / 0 / 0% / 0 / 0%
Primary energy production / 47 / 12% / 30 / 63%
Coal / 11 / 3% / 10 / 22%
Oil / 8 / 2% / 6 / 13%
Natural gas / 2 / 0% / 2 / 3%
Biofuels** / 26 / 7% / 12 / 25%
Total / 398 / 100% / 48 / 100%
Source:World Energy Outlook, 2016
*Renewables include: wind, solar PV, CSP, bioenergy and geothermal
** Refers to irrigated crops grown as feedstock for biofuels
During the operational phase, solar PV and wind power plants use very little to virtually no water to produce electricity, as they do not require heat to produce electricity and therefore do not need water to cool down reactors. Some water might be needed to wash the solar panels or wind turbine blades for example, nonetheless, in many cases rain water is enough.
Wind turbines produce renewable energy, replacing fossil fuel energy and they do it efficientlywhen also considering the life cycle perspective. Over its life cycle, a wind power plant will return 30 to 40 times more energy back to society than it consumed. This is equivalent to a 6-12 months energy payback time depending mainly on site conditions and turbine type(Vestas, 2016).
Wind farms and Wildlife can co-exist
1.4.Proper planning for avoiding or reducing wind turbine impacts on wildlife
As mentioned earlier in the paper wind turbines have a potential impacts on wildlife(i.e. birds, bats or marine mammals). Potential site-specific impacts on birds are minimised by careful planning and siting. Mitigation measures by avoidance are the the first step in the mitigation hierarchy. National (and sometime regional) strategic impact assessments at plan level for wind development is a very strong tool to manage the risk of wind power and wildlife conflicts, and the industry supports the responsible authorities tostart adopting this to its full potential. Governments and appropriately licensing authorities should step up its efforts in achieving this objective.
The wind industry is allocating considerable resources into pre-studies to clarify nature conservation interest in and around wind farm development areas, forming the basis for Environmental Impact Assessments (EIAs). In close dialogue with authorities and stakeholders, this forms the basis for decisions on necessary and appropriate mitigation measures. Examples of this includes a span of avoidance going from withdrawing the development altogether (e.g. because of risk to the viability of a regional red kite population), over taking out parts of the development area (e.g. due to collision risk to breeding golden eagles) to micro-sitting of individual turbines (e.g. to keep safe distances to breeding bats).
After avoidance the next step in the mitigation hierarchy is impact reduction. There are a number of measures available, and more are under development, that can be and areimplemented to reduce wind farm effects, where a need has been identified. Proper wind farm planning and siting can reduce impacts on birds and their habitats (see Beinn an Tuirc onshore windfarm case study), wind turbine operational curtailment when commonly agreed with industry and used as a last resort mitigation option has proven to be an effective measure to reduce bat collision (Edward B. Arnett,et al., Synthesis of operational mitigation studies to reduce bat fatalities at wind energy facilities in North America, 2013).
When it comes to underwater noise from impact piling of offshore wind farm foundations into the seabed, measures exists to markedly reduce the risk of injury to marine mammals (acoustic deterrent devices, soft-start/ramp-up), as well as reducing the extent of disturbance (reduction of noise propagation) (Miriam J. Brandt. Et al., Effects of offshore pile driving on harbour porpoise abundance in the German Bight, 2016).
1.5.Wind energy developments in Natura2000
The European Commission’s guidance document ‘Wind energy developments and Natura2000’ clearly states that the Birds and Habitat Directives a priori, do not exclude wind farm developments in or adjacent to Natura2000 sites. However, many Member States choose the view that designated Natura2000 areas are per definition ‘no-go areas’ for the development of wind farms. The document does not contain enough guidance on assessing the potential impacts of wind farm developments in designated areas, in most cases this is dealt with at a country level and based on the relevant species.
Where sites are predicted to have a likely significant effect on the objectives of Natura2000 sites, a Habitats Regulations Assessment (HRA) is done by the authority determining the permit. Where necessary, additional mitigation measures may be required to permit the wind farm to be constructed and operated.
According to the above mentioned guidance document, paragraphs 3 and 4 of Article 6 of the Habitats Directive set out a series of procedural and substantive safeguards that must be applied to plans and projects that are likely to have a significant effect on a Natura2000 site. The first step, called screening, is to determine whether a plan or project should undergo an Appropriate Assessment (AA). If it cannot be excluded that there will be a significant effect upon a Natura2000 site then an Appropriate Assessment must be undertaken.
The purpose of the Appropriate Assessment is to assess the implications of the plan or project in respect of the site’s conservation objectives, individually or in combination with other plans or projects. The conclusions should enable the competent authorities to ascertain whether or not the plan or project would adversely affect the integrity of the site concerned.
The Appropriate Assessment should focus on the species and habitats that have justified the site’s designation as a Natura 2000 site and should also consider all the elements that are essential to the functioning and the structure of that site. The appraisal of effects must be based on objective information.
The outcome of the AA is legally binding. If it cannot be ascertained that there will be no adverse effects on the integrity of the Natura 2000 sites, even after the introduction of mitigation measures or conditions in the development permit, then the plan or project cannot be approved unless the conditions of Article 6 (4) are met. Article 6(4) refers to opening a derogation procedure in the absence of alternative solutions and for imperative reasons of overriding public interest(IROPI): If no alternative solutions exist and the adverse effects cannot be removed through mitigation, then, in exceptional cases, the authorities can decide if the plan or project should still be allowed to proceed on the grounds of imperative reasons of overriding public interest.If so, then appropriate compensation measures must be identified and implemented to ensure that the overall coherence of Natura 2000 is protected.
The wind industry abidesto all good planning practices and thorough environmental assessments at plan and project level. In the case of multiple site developments in designated areas, the industry also engages in the assessment of cumulative impacts. Nonetheless, in some Member States high precautionary criteriahinder the efforts of project developers to assess appropriate mitigation measures. The European Commission should therefore, step up its efforts in offering appropriate adviceand guidance to the interpretation that Member States give to the EC guidance document. This would help in conciliating the achievement ofclimate, energy and biodiversity targets.
1.6.Anthropogenic activities and bird fatalities
Kimberly Bay and Shay Howlin from Western Ecosystems Technology, Inc. an Environmental & Statistical Consultancy in the USA have recently put forward an analysis concerning the development of a quantitative assessment of the direct effects of wind energy on small passerines and diurnal raptors in North America. In this assessment, they used advanced statistical analyses to estimate the annual rate of small passerines and diurnal raptor fatalities and provided an understanding of how wind energy directly effects species populations(Kimberly Bay, Shay Howlin,Understanding the Population Impacts between Birds and Wind Turbines, September 2017).
Moreover the analysis also compares wind energy bird fatalities with other anthropogenic causes. As showed by the analysis the highest anthropogenic cause of bird mortality were cats with 1.4 – 3.7 billion fatalities registered in North America, followed by buildings and windows with 365 – 988 million fatalities. Wind turbines bird estimated fatalities had the lowest levels amongst the different anthropogenic sources analysed, between 291,500 and 494,800. By showing these numbers we would like to show the order of magnitude of different anthropogenic sources that are responsible for bird fatalities. Nonetheless, the information above should be read carefully as amongst the fatalities generated by wind turbines there are also species of concern and therefore the industry stay committed to fully apply the mitigation hierarchy (Avoid – Reduce – Compensate - Offset), as prescribed in the European legislation, that serves in general as a guarantee that adverse impacts are avoided or minimised. This is a principle the industryfully endorses.