Table 8.1 Environmental impacts of constructing 1000-MW(e)-equivalent electric power plants for non-nuclear alternative generating technologies
| Table 8.1 Environmental impacts of constructing 1000-MW(e)-equivalent electric power plants for non-nuclear alternative generating technologies | |||||||||
| Resource | |||||||||
|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|
| Alternative | Land use | Ecology | Aesthetics | Water quality | Air quality | Waste | Human health | Socioeconomic | Cultural |
| Wind | 61,000 ha (150,000 acres) (Pimentel 1994) | Loss of thousands of acres of natural habitat (Pimentel 1994); some stream sedimentation; erosion | Substantial visual impact in any location (Pimentel 1994; SERI/TP-260-3674) | High potential for sedimenta-tion/erosion damage | Considerable vehicle exhaust, dust from earth moving | Considerable amount of vegetation debris from land clearing | Some accident risks for workers (Grubb and Meyer 1993) | No known estimates but believed to be relatively small peak work force—little potential for adverse impacts | High potential for impacts because of large land area |
| Photovoltaic cells | 14,000 ha (35,000 acres) (Pimentel 1994; Pace 1991) | Loss of 14,000 ha (35,000 acres) of natural habitat, some farm land (Pimentel 1994); some stream sedimentation; erosion is a particular threat to arid areas, fragile soil, and plant communities | Substantial visual impact in any location (Hamrin and Rader 1993) | High potential for sedimenta-tion/erosion damage | Considerable vehicle exhaust, dust from earth moving (Pace 1991) | Considerable amount of vegetation debris from land clearing | Some accident risks for workers | No known estimates but believed to be moderate size peak work force—little potential for adverse impacts | High potential for impacts because of large land area |
| Table 8.1 (continued) | |||||||||
| Resource | |||||||||
|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|
| Alternative | Land use | Ecology | Aesthetics | Water quality | Air quality | Waste | Human health | Socioeconomic | Cultural |
| Solar thermal | 5,700 ha (14,000 acres) (Pimentel 1994; Pace 1991) | Loss of 5,700 ha (14,000 acres) (Pimentel 1994); some stream sedimentation; erosion is a particular threat to arid areas, fragile soil, and plant communities (Pace 1991) | Substantial visual impact to 5,700 ha (14,000 acres) affected (Pimentel 1994; Pace 1991; Hamrin and Rader 1993) | High potential for sedimenta-tion/erosion damage | Considerable vehicle exhaust, dust from earth moving (Pace 1991) | Considerable amount of vegetation debris from land clearing | Some accident risks for workers | No known estimates but believed to be moderate size peak work force—little potential for adverse impacts | High potential for impacts because of large land area |
| Hydroelectric | 400,000 ha (1 million acres) (Pimentel 1994) | Loss of 400,000 ha (1 million acres) of natural habitat, farm land (Pimentel 1994); stream sedimentation, erosion | 400,000 ha (1 million acres) visually impacted (Pimentel 1994; Hamrin and Rader 1993) | Considerable sedimentation/ erosion | Considerable vehicle exhaust, dust from earth moving | Considerable amount of vegetation debris from land clearing | Some accident risks for workers; spread of diseases from reservoir filling (Moreira and Poole 1993) | Large work force, moderate potential for adverse community impacts; dislocation of residents (Hamrin and Rader 1993) | Almost unavoidable destruction of cultural sites, artifacts typically located on natural edges of water bodies |
| Geothermal | 2800 ha (7000 acres) (DOE/EP-0093) | Loss of 2800 ha (7000 acres) of natural habitat (DOE-0093); some stream sedimentation, erosion | Visual impacts to 2800 ha (7000 acres) (DOE-0093) | High potential for sedimenta-tion/erosion damage | Considerable vehicle exhaust, dust from earth moving | Considerable amount of vegetation, some construction debris | Some accident risks for workers | Moderate size work force; some potential adverse impacts | Moderate potential unless important site-specific resource affected by plant or transmission lines |
| Table 8.1 (continued) | |||||||||
| Resource | |||||||||
|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|
| Alternative | Land use | Ecology | Aesthetics | Water quality | Air quality | Waste | Human health | Socioeconomic | Cultural |
| Wood wastes | High variable and site specific, perhaps 160,000 to 320,000 ha (400,000 to 800,000 acres) for forest residue recovery. For plant, about 30 acres for each 20-MW facility | Considerable potential for loss of natural habitat and biodiversity; increased soil erosion and nutrient loss (ECO North-west et al.) | Substantial visual impacts from land clearing. Localized visual impacts with plant construction | High potential for sedimenta-tion/erosion damage. Small sedimentation/ erosion damage at plant site (ECO Northwest et al.) | Considerable vehicle exhaust and fugitive dust impacts from earth moving | Considerable amount of vegetation debris and some con-struction debris | Some accident risks for workers | Source of income and employment in rural areas. Moderate size work force at plant site | High potential for impacts because of large land area |
| Municipal solid waste (MSW) | For plant, about 12 ha (30 acres) for each 20 MW facility | Small impact— few acres affected and in urban area. Potentially positive impacts if landfills displaced (ECO North-west et al.) | Localized visual impacts with plant construction | Small sedimentation/ erosion damage at plant site (ECO Northwest et al.) | Considerable vehicle exhaust and fugitive dust impacts from earth moving | Moderate amount of vegetation and construction debris | Some accident risks for workers | Moderate size work force at plant site | Relatively small unless important site-specific resource affected by plant or transmission lines |
| Table 8.1 (continued) | |||||||||
| Resource | |||||||||
|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|
| Alternative | Land use | Ecology | Aesthetics | Water quality | Air quality | Waste | Human health | Socioeconomic | Cultural |
| Energy crops | About 400,000 ha (1 million) acres for crop production. For plant, about 12 ha (30 acres) for each 20 MW facility | Impacts depend on prior land use; if conversion of cropland, then more environ-mentally benign and would improve biodiversity (OTA; Ranney and Mann) | Minor visual impacts with energy crop establishment. Localized visual impacts with plant construction | Energy crops lower sedimentation, soil erosion, and chemical use relative to agriculture (Ranney and Mann). Small sedimentation and erosion damage at plant site | Moderate vehicle exhaust and fugitive dust impacts from earth moving at plant site | Considerable amount of vegetation debris and some con-struction debris at plant site | Some accident risks for workers | Source of income and employment in rural areas. Moderate size work force at plant site | Relatively small impacts if cropland and pasture converted to energy crops |
| Coal | 700 ha (1,700 acres) for plant site (DOE/EP- 0093) | Loss of 700 ha (1,700 acres) habitat; some erosion, stream sedimentation | Localized visual impacts from land clearing | Potential sedimentation/ erosion damage | Moderate vehicle exhaust, dust from earth moving | Considerable construction debris | Accident risk for workers | 1,200–2,500 peak work force (UDI-021-89) | Relatively small unless important site-specific resource affected by plant or transmission lines |
| Natural gas | 45 ha (110 acres) for plant site (DOE/EP-0093) | Loss of 45 ha (110 acres) varied habitat; some erosion, stream sedimentation | Localized visual impacts from land clearing | Potential sedimentation/ erosion damage | Some vehicle exhaust, substantial dust from earth moving | Considerable construction debris | Accident risk for workers | 1,200 peak work force (UDI-021-89) | Relatively small unless important site-specific resource affected by plant or transmission lines |
| Oil | 50 ha (120 acres) for plant site (DOE/EP-0093) | Loss of 50 ha (120 acres) varied habitat; some erosion, stream sedimentation | Localized visual impacts from land clearing | Potential sedimentation/ erosion damage | Some vehicle exhaust, substantial dust from earth moving | Considerable construction debris | Accident risk for workers | 1,700 peak work force (UDI-021-89) | Relatively small unless important site-specific resource affected by plant or transmission lines |
| Table 8.1 (continued) | |||||||||
| Resource | |||||||||
|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|
| Alternative | Land use | Ecology | Aesthetics | Water quality | Air quality | Waste | Human health | Socioeconomic | Cultural |
| Advanced light-water reactor | 200–400 ha (500–1,000 acres) for plant site plus exclusion area | Loss of 200–400 ha (500–1,000 acres) of habitat; some erosion, stream sedimentation | Localized visual impacts from land clearing | Potential sedimentation/ erosion damage | Moderate vehicle exhaust, dust from earth moving | Considerable construction debris | Accident risk for workers | 2,000–5,500 peak work force (UDI-021-89) | Relatively small unless important site-specific resource affected by plant or transmission lines |
| Conservation | Unquantified land lost to resource extraction for conservation technologies | Adverse impacts from resource extraction | Minimal for resource recovery and processing | Minimal for resource recovery and processing | Minimal for resource recovery and processing | Minimal for resource recovery, processing | Some risks from resource recovery | Minor employment, tax revenues from conservation industry | Minimal |
| Imported power | If excess Canadian capacity is insufficient, impacts will be similar to U.S. coal or hydro plants | If excess Canadian capacity is insufficient, impacts will be similar to U.S. coal or hydro plants | If excess Canadian capacity is insufficient, impacts will be similar to U.S. coal or hydro plants | If excess Canadian capacity is insufficient, impacts will be similar to U.S. coal or hydro plants | If excess Canadian capacity is insufficient, impacts will be similar to U.S. coal or hydro plants | If excess Canadian capacity is insufficient, impacts will be similar to U.S. coal or hydro plants | If excess Canadian capacity is insufficient, impacts will be similar to U.S. coal or hydro plants | If excess Canadian capacity is insufficient, impacts will be similar to U.S. coal or hydro plants | Same impacts as U.S. except northern Canada, where social conflict between tribes and government is substantial |
| Delayed retirement | Very few acres affected (DOE/EIS-0146) | Very few acres affected—no impact (DOE/EIS-0146) | Minimal changes | Incidental use | Small exhaust, fugitive dust (DOE/EIS-0146) | Moderate construction debris | Potential accidents to workers | Estimated one-half of normal construction work force | Minimal impact |
Page Last Reviewed/Updated Wednesday, June 10, 2020
Page Last Reviewed/Updated Wednesday, June 10, 2020