Table 8.2 Environmental impacts of operating 1000-MW(e)-equivalent electric power plants for non-nuclear alternative generating

Table 8.2 Environmental impacts of operating 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) of which 3,000 acres occupied by turbines, rest available for agriculture (Pimentel 1994)	Bird collisions, loss of much of thousands of acres of habitat (Pimentel 1994); interference with animal migration routes (Pace 1991)	Substantial visual and some noise impact in any location (Pace 1991; SERI/TP-260-3674; Rader 1989)	Negligible (Pace 1991)	Negligible (Pace 1991)	Very minor amounts from maintenance of equipment, vegetation	Very minor risks from accidents, noise	Relatively low work force, assessed plant value—fewer potential long-term community benefits than large baseload plants	Relatively small unless important site-specific resource affected by plant or transmission lines
Photovoltaic cells	14,000 ha (35,000 acres); no other compatible uses (Pimentel 1994; Pace 1991)	Loss of 14,000 ha (35,000 acres) of natural habitat and some agricultural land (Pimentel 1994)	Substantial visual impact in any location (Hamrin and Rader 1993)	Small runoff from panels could cause sedimentation	Negligible	Very minor amounts from maintenance of equipment, vegetation; some toxics	Some risk to maintenance workers	Relatively small work force, assessed plant value—fewer long-term community benefits than large baseload plants	Relatively small unless important site-specific resource affected by plant or transmission lines
Solar thermal	5,700 ha (14,000 acres); no other uses (Pimentel 1994; Pace 1991)	5,700 ha (14,000 acres) of natural habitat lost and some agricultural land (Pimentel 1994)	Substantial visual impact; reflected sunlight (Pimentel 1994; Pace 1991; Hamrin and Rader 1993)	Minor amounts used except where water is cooling agent (Rader 1989); possible contamination from cleaning agents (Rader 1989); some runoff potential	Minor emissions of pollutants during normal operations, greater risks with accidents (Pimentel 1994)	Very minor amounts from maintenance of equipment, vegetation	Possible eye damage from reflected sunlight; occupational hazards from exposure to heat transfer fluids (Pace 1991); some risk to maintenance workers	Relatively small work force, assessed plant value—fewer long-term community benefits than large baseload plants	Relatively small unless important site-specific resource affected by plant or transmission lines

 

Table 8.2 (continued)
	Resource
Alternative	Land use	Ecology	Aesthetics	Water quality	Air quality	Waste	Human health	Socioeconomic	Cultural
Hydroelectric	400,000 ha (1 million acres); no other uses (Pimentel 1994)	400,000 ha (1 million acres) of natural habitat and agricultural lands lost; disruption of spawning, migration routes (Rader 1989); killing of fish thru eutro-phication, passage through dam, water temperature change (Moreira and Poole 1993); altered flora, fauna populations	1 million acres visually impacted (Pimentel 1994; Hamrin and Rader 1993)	Increased sedimentation (Moreira and Poole 1993); temperature changes, competition for water and arid regions (Rader 1989)	Negligible	Minor amounts from equipment replacement, reservoir clearing	Some risks for recreational boating, swimming deaths; risk of dam failure; some risk to maintenance workers	Small work force, high assessed value—some potential long-term economic/ community impacts, changes in recreation (free-flowing stream to lake)	Relatively small unless important site-specific resource affected by plant or transmission lines

 

Table 8.2 (continued)
	Resource
Alternative	Land use	Ecology	Aesthetics	Water quality	Air quality	Waste	Human health	Socioeconomic	Cultural
Geothermal	2800 ha (7000 acres)— possible subsidence; potential for other uses on unused land (DOE/EP-0093; OECD 1987)	Loss of much of 2800 ha (7000 acres) of natural habitat and some agri-cultural land (DOE/EP-0093)	Visual impacts to portions of affected areas (Rader)	Potential contamination of surface and groundwater from disposal of geothermal fluid (OECD 1987)	Potential release of various toxic gases to atmosphere, especially H2S; CO2 is greatest emission (Pace 1991, Brower 1992)	Minor amounts from equipment replacement, vegetation maintenance, heavy metals sludge (Brower 1992)	Very minor risks from toxic gas released, accidents to workers; noise (Brower 1992)	Relatively small work force, assessed plant value—fewer long-term community benefits than large baseload plants	Relatively small unless important site-specific resource affected by plant or transmission lines
Wood wastes	About 160,000 to 320,000 ha (400,000 to 800,000 acres) for forest residue recovery. About 12 ha (30 acres) per 20 MW of facility operated (OTA 1993)	Considerable potential for loss of natural habitat and biodiversity; increased soil erosion and nutrient loss (OTA 1993)	Some visual impacts from residue recovery. Limited visual impacts from plant structure	Approximately same water requirements as coal	Not significant with residue recovery. Emission of regulated pollutants, can be effectively controlled	Considerable fly ash, can be used as fertilizer and soil conditioner	Occupational risks high, same as for agriculture. Particulates important, but can be controlled	Source of income and employment in rural areas. Moderate size work force at plant site	Relatively small unless important site-specific resource affected by residue recovery area, plant or transmission lines
Municipal solid waste	About 12 ha (30 acres) per 20 MW of facility operated	Potentially positive impacts if landfills are displaced	Limited visual impacts from plant structure. Potential odors	Approximately same water requirements as coal	Emissions of regulated pollutants more significant than other technologies	Considerable fly ash, must meet regulations	Risks from toxics and particulates, safety of municipal solid waste handlers	Moderate size work force at plant sites	Relatively small unless important site-specific resource affected by plant or transmission lines

 

Table 8.2 (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. About 12 ha (30 acres) per 20 MW of facility operated	Impacts depend on prior land use, may either enhance or reduce biodiversity, habitat (Wright 1994; Ranney and Mann 1994)	Some visual impacts from harvesting. Limited visual impacts from plant structure	Irrigation not used for growing. Approximately same water requirements as coal	Not significant with production of energy crops. Emissions of regulated pollutants, can be effectively controlled (Wright 1994)	Considerable fly ash, can be used as fertilizer and soil conditioner	Occupational risks high, same as for agriculture. Particulate important, but can be controlled (Rader 1989)	Source of income and employment in rural areas. Moderate size work force at plant site	Relatively small unless important site-specific resource affected by cropping area, plant or transmission lines
Coal	700 ha (1,700 acres) for plant site (DOE/EP-0093) and 9070 ha (22,400 acres) for entire fuel cycle (WASH-1224)	Habitat loss (including nationally from acid precipita-tion; DOE/ EIS-0146); impingement, entrainment; waste heat to receiving water body; cooling tower drift, fogging; bird collisions	Limited visual impacts from plant structure, additional from plume	860,000 m3 (700 acre-ft) per quad (1012 Btu) energy produced (based on thermal efficiency relative to nuclear)	Emission of CO2, regulated pollutants, more than other technologies (Loftness 1984); also radionuclides	Large amounts of fly ash, scrubber sludge, other solid waste— must meet regulations (DOE/EP-0093)	Public risks (cancer, emphysema) from inhalation of toxics and particulates; safety risk to workers	250 workers— moderate long-term economic community benefits (UDI-021-89)	Relatively small unless important site-specific resource affected by plant or transmission lines

 

Table 8.2 (continued)
	Resource
Alternative	Land use	Ecology	Aesthetics	Water quality	Air quality	Waste	Human health	Socioeconomic	Cultural
Natural gas	45 ha (110 acres) for plant site (DOE-EP-0093) and 1500 ha (3,600 acres) for entire fuel cycle (WASH-1224)	Habitat loss, impingement, entrainment; waste heat to receiving water body; cooling tower drift, fogging; bird collisions	Limited visual impacts from plant structure, some from plume	817,000 m3 (662 acre-ft) water used per quad (1012 Btu) energy produced (based on thermal efficiency relative to nuclear)	Emissions of CO2 and NOx regulated pollutants, radionuclides less than coal, no SO2 (Loftness 1984)	Some solid waste produced— must meet regulations (DOE/EP-0093)	Some public risks (cancer, emphysema) from inhalation of toxics and particulates; safety risk to workers	150 workers— moderate long-term economic, community benefits (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) and 650 ha (1,600 acres) for entire fuel cycle (WASH-1224)	Habitat loss (including nationally from acid precipita-tion; DOE/EIS-0146); impingement, entrainment; waste heat to receiving water body; cooling tower drift, fogging; bird collisions	Limited visual impacts from plant structure, some from plume	860,000 m3 (700 acre-ft) water per quad (1012 Btu) energy produced (based on thermal efficiency relative to nuclear)	Emissions of CO2, SO2, and NOx, regulated pollutants, radionuclides less than coal (Loftness)	Moderate (<coal) amounts of scrubber sludge, particulates— must meet regulations (DOE/EP-0093)	Some public risks (cancer, emphysema) from inhalation of toxics and particulates; safety risks to workers	200 workers— moderate long-term economic community benefits (UDI-021-89)	Relatively small unless important site-specific resource affected by plant or transmission lines

 

Table 8.2 (continued)
	Resource
Alternative	Land use	Ecology	Aesthetics	Water quality	Air quality	Waste	Human health	Socioeconomic	Cultural
Advanced light-water reactor	80–200 ha (500–1000 acres) for plant site, plus exclusion acres and 400 ha (1500–2000 acres) for entire fuel cycle	Habitat loss, impingement, entrainment; waste heat to receiving water bodies; cooling tower drift and fogging; bird collisions	Limited visual impacts from plant structure, some from plume	910,000 m3 (740 acre-ft) water per quad (1012 Btu) energy produced (based on thermal efficiency relative to nuclear)	Very little CO2 or regulated pollutants— from vehicles not facility	Some spent fuel, slightly more mixed waste and low-level waste than license renewal	<1% of natural radiation sources; safety risks to workers	700 workers— substantial long-term economic, community benefits (UDI-021-89)	Relatively small unless important site-specific resource affected by plant or transmission lines
Conservation	Minimal	Minimal	Minimal	Minimal	Minimal	Minimal	Minor impacts regarding radon, perhaps other contaminants (Pace 1991)	Increased jobs in conservation technologies	Minimal
Imported power	Operating impacts of hydro and coal plants similar to those in U.S.	Operating impacts of hydro and coal plants similar to those in U.S.	Operating impacts of hydro and coal plants similar to those in U.S.	Operating impacts of hydro and coal plants similar to those in U.S.	Operating impacts of hydro and coal plants similar to those in U.S.	Operating impacts of hydro and coal plants similar to those in U.S.	Operating impacts of hydro and coal plants similar to those in U.S.	Operating impacts of hydro and coal plants similar to those in U.S.	Cultural impacts to tribes in northern Canada could produce more social conflict than in United States

 

Table 8.2 (continued)
	Resource
Alternative	Land use	Ecology	Aesthetics	Water quality	Air quality	Waste	Human health	Socioeconomic	Cultural
Delayed retirement	Very few acres affected (DOE/EIS-0146)	Very few acres affected—no impact	Minimal changes unless cooling tower installed	Substantial improvement if closed-cycle system replaces once-through (Bretz 1994), otherwise little change. Improvement to distant water bodies adversely affected by acid precipitation (DOE/EIS-0146)	> 90% SO2 and NOx emissions of conventional coal plant removed (DOE/EIS-0146, Bretz 1994)	For integrated gasification combined cycle: 40% waste of pulverized coal plant; for atmospheric fluidized bed: possibly double the amount from pulverized coal plant (DOE/EIS-0146)	Substantial public health improvement compared with conventional, pulverized coal plant; safety risks to workers	Moderate employment and tax revenue from first coal plant extended for longer period	No change