Confidential
ADAS Final Report
Contents
Executive summary
Glossary
Acknowledgements
1.0Introduction
2.0Report layout and methodology
3.0The impacts of renewable energy technologies on biodiversity
4.0The impact of conventional energy technologies
5.0Summary of energy generation impacts on biodiversity
6.0Future developments in renewable energy technologies
7.0Future biodiversity impacts from renewable energy technologies
8.0Impact mitigation and policy interactions
9.0Conclusions and recommendations
Appendix 1 – Significance matrix
Appendix 2 – Reference Source Matrix
Appendix 3- Future technology scales
Appendix 4 - “Soft Law” biodiversity protection measures
Appendix 5 - EU Directives
Appendix 6 - Persons consulted and workshop attendees
Appendix 7 - References
The views expressed in this report are those of the authors and are not necessarily shared by Defra or SEERAD.
ADAS Final Report
Executive summary
Renewable energy (RE) sources are central to the Government’s energy strategy for the next 50 years (DTI, 2003). The UK is committed under the Kyoto Protocol to reducing greenhouse gas emissions by 12.5%, relative to 1990 levels, by 2010. The UK also has a domestic commitment to reduce carbon dioxide emissions by 20% by 2020 and by 60% by 2050. As part of a basket of other climate change-related policies and measures, the UK’s Renewables Obligation aims to supply 10% of electricity from renewable sources by 2010, 15% by 2015 and to reach an aspirational target of 20% by 2020.
This study has reviewed the potential impacts of renewable energy sources on UK biodiversity and assessed how biodiversity in the future may be affected by a growth in these types of technology. The renewable energy technologies considered are those where the energy source may be wholly derived from non-fossil fuel sources:
- Onshore wind,
- Biomass crops (including agricultural residues, forestry residues and energy crops),
- Small scale hydro (<5MW),
- Novel technologies (solar water heating (SWH), ground source heat pumps (GSHP), photovoltaic (PV) and hydrogen fuel cells),
- Offshore wind,
- Marine current, and
- Tidal energy sources.
The review has been undertaken using a risk assessment methodology to produce a series of impact matrices, with the effects summarised by Broad Habitat type to provide a comparison across the different technologies. A brief review of the impacts of conventional technologies has also been provided to set the context against which the impacts of renewable technologies may be assessed.
All the renewable energy technologies reviewed have some negative effect on the biodiversity of their locality. These effects may be slight and often temporary, such as disturbance of feeding patterns of fauna during construction operations, or they may be highly significant permanent and widespread impacts, such as loss of a habitat through flooding for small-scale hydroelectric schemes. Some technology types also have the capacity to enhance biodiversity and whilst such enhancements are generally slight and affected by the level of existing biodiversity, the changes can also be highly significant and they are usually permanent.
Of the renewable energy sources examined, novel technologies appear to present least risk to UK biodiversity, at least in terms of their operation (risks associated with materials sourcing need to be considered). Within this technology type, it is photovoltaics that provide least direct impact upon biodiversity, provided that mining, manufacturing and recycling are subject to stringent environmental requirements. But their rate of future development, even in a best-case assessment, suggests that this technology is unlikely to provide more than 10% of the renewables target by 2020 (i.e. 2% of national energy demand). Solar water heating and ground source heat pumps (GHSP) may also have indirect biodiversity benefits by reducing electricity demand (both through the provision of heat and, for GSHP, cooling).
However, biodiversity impact assessment needs also to consider the scale at which energy will be generated from each technology type, both in terms of the size of the power generation unit and the number in operation. The study considered scenarios for future levels of contribution from different renewable energy sources in order to assess possible biodiversity impacts of scaling up renewable energy output. The scenarios examined assumed major contributions from wind and biomass technologies to the 2020 target and examined cases where each of these energy sources was in turn further enhanced.
The assessment of the size and scale required for renewable sources to meet the 2020 targets demonstrated that only a small area of UK land or seabed is required for each technology considered in the scenarios. Hence, it is anticipated that the future energy generation scenarios presented could be met with minimal impacts on biodiversity, if:
(a)Renewable energy developments avoid sites of high biodiversity interest,
(b)All the suggested mitigation measures for all energy sectors are implemented and effective, and
(c)Multiple sources of biomass fuel are utilised.
The issue of mitigation is critical and it highlights the need for research and post-construction monitoring at consented installations to test the effectiveness of mitigation measures. Such monitoring and assessment should be published to facilitate the spread of best practice.
The land take required for sufficient production of biomass fuels in the UK means that it is unlikely to make up more than 5-20% of the 2020 target, without having a major impact on the area of agricultural land needed, unless large quantities of fuel are imported. But the issue of scale of planting for biomass production is also important in determining the nature and, to some extent, the direction (positive or negative) of its impact on biodiversity. The provision of smaller scale plantings of biomass has a stronger positive effect on biodiversity than large-scale plantings. Small-scale Combined Heat and Power (CHP) generation through biomass burning would also provide an indirect biodiversity benefit through improved energy efficiency,sinceheat demand in the UK currently uses around 50% of primary energy. However, the economic viability of CHP plants may depend on the extent to which the heat energy produced can be used directly.
In cases where larger areas of biomass crop are required, guidelines aimed at ensuring biodiversity within the plantations may help offset the effect of plantation scale. Currently these are best developed for short rotation coppice (SRC) plantation design, with the specific aim of increasing the biodiversity value of the crop by including features such as rides, headlands and stands of different age-class to increase habitat heterogeneity. Further guidance is needed to maximise biodiversity benefits and minimise impacts for other crop types.
The biodiversity impact of importing biomass fuel depends upon the type of fuel sourced, the country of origin and the measures in place within that country to reduce biodiversity impacts. The use of international supplies may result in considerable biodiversity impact outside of the UK, with no potential for mitigation measures to be enforced. At the very least biomass fuel should be sourced from countries where minimum acceptable standards of biodiversity protection are ensured, to avoid “exporting” negative effects of this technology. Assessment of the biodiversity impacts of biomass fuels in potential source countries would help to guide sourcing of such materials if it is necessary.
Wind energy is likely to provide the largest proportion of the renewable energy target by 2020. But there remain some fundamental gaps in knowledge of the impacts on biodiversity and the effectiveness of some mitigation proposals, such as tailored turbine layouts to aid bird species’ movements. Post-construction monitoring is mostly in its infancy, with rather little UK experience on which to draw, so far, and most of that experience relates to small installations and/or small turbine size. Monitoring programmes now in place are starting to deliver results that will make an essential contribution to the knowledge base relating to impacts of wind energy generation on biodiversity, notably birds. These need to be analysed and summarised into guidelines for developers to provide an indication of best practice for effective mitigation measures. In particular, a comparison needs to be made of the impacts of different turbine sizes on biodiversity. The biodiversity impact of individual house turbines (particularly if widely used in urban areas) has not yet been assessed.
It has been suggested that the intermittency of wind power generation may be partially offset by importing electricity from Europe. However, this may only create biodiversity problems elsewhere. An assessment is needed of the biodiversity impacts of energy sources in other EU countries in order that such effects may be minimised internationally as well as in the UK.
There is considerable uncertainty about the potential impacts of marine energy generation on biodiversity. There is little evidence about the effects of the type and scale of wave and tidal technologies that are most appropriate for the UK. The effects of developing technologies, in particular, are unclear since many are still at the early experimental stages. The current understanding of impacts or potential impacts arises largely from large-scale tidal barrages, but the likely nature and scale of impacts arising from the new marine technologies are thought to be different and/or of a lower order of magnitude. It is important that potential impacts on biodiversity, as indicated in the significance matrices, are researched from an early stage and that these studies continue into the scaling-up phases of development of these technologies.
Further research
A number of areas have been identified from this assessment as requiring further research. Knowledge gaps are greatest within the marine environment for the relatively new wave and tidal technologies, particularly the developing technologies. The scale of energy production units and the number of units operating are both important aspects in determining biodiversity impacts, but there is insufficient understanding of their interaction for most renewable technologies. For onshore wind and biomass technologies, there is less known about the effects of widespread, small-scale developments than about the effects of large-scale production. Conversely for marine technologies there is a need to determine the impacts of scaling-up to large energy generation systems from the small-scale demonstration units. For novel technologies the impacts of widespread use of PV panels on the risk of bird collision needs further study.
On-going monitoring and analysis are required to assess the effectiveness of existing and evolving UK and country-level policy, land use planning and legal mechanisms to mitigate renewable energy impacts on biodiversity, with particular reference to the need for rationalising, coordinating and improving controls in the marine environment. Publication of such assessments is important to highlight and encourage best practice.
Glossary
Acronym / DescriptionAC / Alternating current
AMD / Acid Mine Drainage
AUKEA / Association of UK Energy Agencies
BAP / UK Biodiversity Action Plan
BWEA / British Wind Energy Association
CAP / Common Agricultural Policy
CATF / Clean Air Task Force
CCL / Climate Change Levy
CEGB / Central Electricity Company Board
CHP / Combined Heat & Power
CO2 / Carbon Dioxide
COWRIE / Collaborative Offshore Wind Research into the Environment
CPA / Comprehensive Performance Assessment
CRoW / Countryside and Rights of Way Act, 2000
cSAC / Candidate SACs
DC / Direct current
Defra / Department for Environment, Food and Rural Affairs
DTI / Department for Trade and Industry
ECA / Enhanced Capital Allowances
ECM / European Climate Menu
EIA / Environmental Impact Assessment
EST / Energy Savings Trust
ESTIF / European Solar Thermal Industry Federation
EWEA / European Wind Energy Association
GOSE / Government Office South East
GSHP / Ground Source Heat Pumps
GW / Gigawatt (109 Watts)
HECA / Home Energy Conservation Act
IdeA / Improvement and Development Agency
IEA / International Energy Agency
IEEM / Institute of Ecology and Environmental Management
IPC / Integrated Pollution Control
IPPC / Integrated Pollution Prevention and Control
kW / Kilowatt (103 Watts)
LAPC / Local air pollution control
LASP / Local Authority Support Programme
LDF / Local Development Framework
LIHI / Low Impact Hydropower Institute
LPAs / Local Planning Authorities
LPG / Liquid Petroleum Gas
LSP / Local Strategic Partnership
MLWM / Mean Low Water Mark
MLWS / Mean Low Water Springs
MMSD / Mining Minerals & Sustainable Development Project
m/s / Metres per second
MW / Megawatt (106 Watts)
NEF / National Energy Foundation
NPPG / National Planning Policy Guidance
ODPM / Office of the Deputy Prime Minister
odt / Oven-dry Tonnes
OFGEM / Office of Gas and Electricity Markets
OSIR / Oil Spillage Incident Report
PFA / Pulverised Fuel Ash
PIU / Performance and Innovation Unit
PPG9 / Planning Policy Guidance 9: Nature Conservation
PPS / Planning Policy Statement
PV / Photovoltaics
RCEP / Royal Commission on Environmental Pollution
RDP / Rural Development Programme
RE / Renewable Energy
RegenSW / Renewable Energy Agency for the South West
REZ / Renewable Energy Zones
RO / Renewables Obligation
ROC / Renewables Obligation Certification
ROS / Renewables Obligation Scotland
RPA / Renewable Power Association
SA / Sustainability Appraisal
SACs / Special Areas of Conservation
SEA / Strategic Environmental Assessment
SEERAD / Scottish Executive Environment & Rural Affairs Department
SPAs / Special Protection Areas
SRC / Short Rotation Coppice
SSSI / Site of Special Scientific Interest
SWH / Solar Water Heating
TANs / Welsh Technical Advice Notes
UKCIP / UK Climate Impacts Programme
UKCS / UK Continental Shelf
UKQAA / UK Quality Ash Association
UNCLOS / UN Convention on the Law of the Sea
W / Watts
WCI / World Coal Institute
WFD / Water Framework Directive
Acknowledgements
The project team is indebted to those stakeholders and steering group members who provided guidance and comment to the project during the consultation and workshop phases of this project. We are grateful to Zoë Crutchfield (JNCC), the anonymous peer reviewers, Jeff Kirby and Susan Anne Davis (both from Defra) who provided valuable comments on the initial draft of this report. Guy Anderson and Rowena Langston also contributed to early drafts of the significance matrices.
1.0Introduction
Renewable energy (RE) sources are central to the Government’s energy strategy for the next 50 years[1]. The UK is committed under the Kyoto Protocol to reducing greenhouse gas emissions by 12.5%, relative to 1990 levels, by 2010. The UK also has a domestic commitment to reduce carbon dioxide emissions by 20% by 2020 and by 60% by 2050. As part of a basket of other climate change related policies and measures, the UK’s Renewables Obligation aims to supply 10% of electricity from renewable sources by 2010, 15% by 2015 and to reach an aspirational target of 20% by 2020. The current level of market penetration is 3.1% in the UK[2] as a whole and 14% in Scotland. This higher level of uptake in Scotland is also reflected in the higher Scottish national target of 18% of energy from renewable sources by 2010 and the aspirational target of 40% by 2020. The EU also has a target for 12% of energy generation to be from renewable sources by 2010.
The renewable energy technologies considered in this study are those where the energy source may be wholly derived from non-fossil fuel sources (power plants generating electricity from waste are generally assumed to provide only 50% of their output from renewable sources[3]). Hence the work has focused on the key energy sources:
- Onshore wind,
- Offshore wind,
- Marine current and tidal energy sources,
- Biomass crops (including agricultural residues, forestry residues and energy crops),
- Small scale hydro (<5MW), and
- Novel technologies (solar water heating, ground source heat pumps, photovoltaic and hydrogen fuel cells).
All of these energy systems will have impacts on the immediate and wider environment during fabrication, construction, operation and decommissioning phases. Some of these impacts will be associated with biodiversity and they can be positive or negative. Many of the renewable energy developments will be sited away from human settlements in natural or semi-natural areas, where by definition the potential for perturbation to biodiversity is high. Scale, setting, point-specific effects, and dispersed effects (installation of roads, power lines etc) are all key factors affecting the nature and extent of the impact on biodiversity. There is concern that as renewable energy systems increase in scale there may be catchment level, as well as micro-level impacts, on the environment generally and biodiversity specifically. Whilst some sectors have been reviewed ([i]) there has been no systematic and consistent assessment of the biodiversity impacts of all forms of renewable energy. Recent concerns have focused on the lack of due process and control associated with licensing of offshore wind sites. There may also be a lack of integration between climate change mitigation driven targets for renewable energy deployment and habitat protection, and /or local and regional planning policy.
Hence the aims of this project were to:
1.Consider the positive and negative impacts of the current energy policy on UK biodiversity, and
2. Provide a detailed assessment of the potential impact of future energy policies on biodiversity.
Under these aims the specific objectives were defined to:
A. Agree the scope of work required with Defra, including the extent of indirect impacts to be considered and the definitions of biodiversity/habitat classification system to be used,
B. Identify important drivers and mechanisms for impacts on biodiversity,
C. Identify planning and environmental policy and legislative provisions that aim to remove/modify negative impacts of different energy options,
D. Review the evidence for impacts, both positive and negative, plus their likely strengths, scale, location and timing,
E. Report on the impacts, individually and collectively,
F. Identify gaps in knowledge where impacts on biodiversity could be significant,
G. Make recommendations for further research and policy or practical measures to minimise and manage the projected impacts on UK biodiversity.
The work was undertaken by a consortium led by ADAS (leading the work on biomass, conventional energy and hydro-power sources), which included Acorus (onshore wind), National Energy Foundation (novel technologies), and Plymouth University (offshore wind and other marine technologies). The project was jointly funded by Defra and SEERAD, under the Defra Horizon Scanning Programme.