An Environmental Life Cycle

Perspective on Wind Power

Bill Flanagan
Ecoassessment Leader
GE Global Research
Workshop on Next-Generation Wind Power
RPI Center for Future Energy Systems
May 12, 2010

We believe the worlds most

pressing challenges present an
opportunity to do what we do best:
imagine and build innovative
solutions that benefit our
customers and society at large

5/11/2010

GE Global Research Center

Niskayuna, NY

GEs world R&D headquarters

550-acre campus
1,800 technologists, majority
hold PhDs
Nearly 100 research lab teams

5/11/2010

Ecoassessment
Center of Excellence

A systematic way to assess environmental footprint

of selected GE products

Expertise and guidance

Tools and processes
Education and awareness
Policy and advocacy

Robust - Consistent - Credible

5/11/2010

Life Cycle Assessment (LCA)

Carbon footprint is
a subset of LCA

Assess overall environmental impact

throughout a products life cycle:

Quantify
ins & outs

Manufacturing

Material
processing

Material
extraction

Use

Energy
Materials
Emissions

Energy consumption
Water consumption
Solid waste
Global warming
Ozone depletion
Human toxicity
Summer smog
Acidification
Eutrophication
Aquatic ecotoxicity

Recycle

Waste
management

including packaging and transportation

ISO guidelines 14040-44

- Strict guidelines apply to public use of LCA
results when comparing competing products
- 3rd-party verification required

5/11/2010

Life Cycle Assessment

Life Cycle Model
Raw Material
Acquisition
Processing

Life Cycle Assessment Procedure

Inputs:

Goal & Scope

Definition

Raw matls, energy,

natl resource, etc

Interpretation

Inventory
Analysis

Inputs & Outputs:

Net Energy use, type
of energy used, Net
GHG generated, etc

Transport
Impact
Assessment

Manufacture

Classification
Characterization

Use
Emissions:

End of Life Disposal

Potential
environmental impact::
resource depletion
global warming
land use
eutrophication
acidification
etc

Weighting

Air, water, ground

ISO 14040-44
5/11/2010

GE Energy 2.5xl Wind Turbine

Life cycle GHG assessment
WRI / WBCSD GHG Protocol
Product Standard Road Testing

ghgprotocol.org

s
s
e
r
g
o
r
P
In

5/11/2010

Environmental life cycle assessment of wind power

Literature studies

1.
2.
3.
4.
5.

Environmental profiles
Payback times
Effect of scale
Comparison with other electricity production technologies
Onshore vs. offshore

5/11/2010

Environmental life cycle assessment of wind power

Process map
Raw material acquisition & preprocessing

Production

Distribution

Use

End of Life

Raw material acquisition and preprocessing

Transport
Vendor subcomponents

Vendor components

Vendor parts shipped to assembler

Transport

Transport
Manufacturing
& assembly

Site prep

Transport

Installation

Vendor parts shipped directly to installation site

O&M
Transport*

Decommissioning

Transport

Recycling/
Disposal

End of life not included in all literature studies

5/11/2010

Environmental profile

System Boundaries
80m rotor blade
70m height
Spain installation
Turbine lifetime 20 years
Generator replaced once during lifetime
Excludes connection to grid (medium voltage lines and
transformer substation)

2 MW onshore wind turbine

Manufacturing is cradle-to-gate and includes materials
extraction from nature and supply chain activities
60.0

50.0

Eco Indicator 99 (kPt)

40.0

Foundation
Rotor
Tower
Nacelle

30.0

20.0

10.0

0.0

Manufacturing

Transport

Use

Disposal

-10.0

Source
Based on data in: Martinez et al., Life cycle assessment of a multi-megawatt wind turbine,
Renewable Energy 34: 667-673 (2009).

5/11/2010

Environmental profile
2 MW onshore wind turbine
High respiratory inorganics largely
due to cement manufacturing
40.0

35.0

Eco Indicator 99 (kPt)

30.0

Fossil fuels
Minerals
Land use
Acidification/ Eutrophication
Ecotoxicity
Ozone layer
Radiation
Climate change
Resp. inorganics
Resp. organics

25.0

20.0

15.0

10.0

Carcinogens
5.0

0.0

Nacelle

Tower

Rotor

Foundation

-5.0

Source
Martinez et al., Life cycle assessment of a multi-megawatt wind turbine, Renewable Energy
34: 667-673 (2009).

5/11/2010

Payback times
2 MW onshore wind turbine
Payback assumptions:
2000 full-load hours per year (~22%)
Annual output estimated at 4GWh

Energy
"Carbon"
Carcinogens
Resp. organics
Resp. inorganics
Ozone layer
Ecotoxicity
Acidification/ Eutrophication
Fossil fuels
Land use
Minerals

Payback time (days)

146
93.9
22.53
396.56
386.47
393.42
209.62
205.61
168.32
never
never

% of 20 years
2.0%
1.3%
0.3%
5.4%
5.3%
5.4%
2.9%
2.8%
2.3%
-

Carbon payback occurs within ~3 months

Energy payback occurs within ~5 months
Source
Martinez et al., Life cycle assessment of a multi-megawatt wind turbine, Renewable Energy
34: 667-673 (2009).

5/11/2010

Effect of scale

System Boundaries
End of life not included
Connection to grid included
Lifetime of moving parts 20 years
Lifetime of fixed parts 40 years

Four Swiss installations

Environmental impacts analyzed per kWh to grid
12.0

Eco-Indicator 99 (mPt)

10.0

Fossil fuels
Minerals
Land use
Acidification/ Eutrophication
Ecotoxicity
Ozone layer
Radiation
Climate change
Resp. inorganics
Resp. organics
Carcinogens

8.0

6.0

4.0

2.0

0.0

Simplon 30kW

Grenchenberg
150kW

Mont Crosin
600kW

Mont Crosin
800kW

Method: Eco-indicator 99 (H) V2.06 / Europe EI 99 H/A / single score

Source
Life cycle assessment comparison based on data in ecoinvent 2.0 database as described in:
Jungbluth et al., Life cycle assessment for emerging technologies: Case studies for
photovoltaic and wind power, Int J LCA 10(1): 24-34 (2005).

5/11/2010

Comparing electricity generation technologies

Global warming potential (ecoinvent 2.0)
Environmental impacts analyzed per kWh

Global Warming Potential - kg CO2eq/kWh

1.4

1.2

0.8

0.6

0.4

0.2

0
Lgnite

Hard coal

Oil

Natural gas

Photovoltaic

Nuclear

Wind

Hydropower

Method: Eco-indicator 99 (H) V2.06 / Europe EI 99 H/A / single score

Source
Life cycle assessment comparison based on data in ecoinvent 2.0 database

5/11/2010

Comparing electricity generation technologies

Global warming potential (Denholm and Kulcinski)
Environmental impacts analyzed per kWh

Global Warming Potential (kg CO2eq / kWh)

1.2

1.

0.8

0.6

0.4

0.2

0.

Coal

Natural gas

Nuclear

Wind (no
storage)

PV (no
storage)

Wind
(pumped
hydro)

Wind
PV (lead acid
(compressed
batt)
air)

Source
Denholm, Paul and Gerald Kulcinski, Net energy balance and greenhouse gas emissions from
renewable energy storage systems, Energy Center of Wisconsin Report 223-1, University of
Wisconsin Madison, June 2003.

5/11/2010

Comparing electricity generation technologies

Energy payback ratio

20.

15.

10.

5.

ba
tt)
(va
na
diu
m
PV

ba
tt)
ac
id
(le
ad
PV

W
ind
(p
um
pe
dh
yd
ro
)
W
in
d(
co
m
pr
es
se
da
ir)

sto
ra
ge
)
(n
o
PV

W
ind

(n
o

sto
ra
ge
)

Nu
cle
ar

Na
tu
ra
lg
as

0.

Co
al

Energy Payback Ratio (GJe / GJt)

25.

Source
Denholm, Paul and Gerald Kulcinski, Net energy balance and greenhouse gas emissions from
renewable energy storage systems, Energy Center of Wisconsin Report 223-1, University of
Wisconsin Madison, June 2003.

5/11/2010

Onshore vs. offshore

Properzi and Herk-Hansen, 2002

Source
Properzi, Scott and Helle Herk-Hansen, Life cycle assessment of a 150 MW offshore wind
turbine farm at Nysted/Roedsand, Denmark, Int J Environment and Sustainable Development,
Vol. 1, No. 2, 113-121, 2002.

5/11/2010

Onshore vs. offshore

Jungbluth et al., 2005

Source
Jungbluth, N., et al., Life cycle assessment for emerging technologies: case studies for
photovoltaic and wind power. Int J Life Cycle Assessment, 2005. 10(1): p. 24-34.

5/11/2010

Wind power environmental profile

Observations
Literature in agreement
+ Wind power has a very attractive life cycle environmental profile
compared to other electricity generation technologies
+ Materials supply chain tends to dominate life cycle impacts
+ Larger scale units tend to have lower specific environmental impact
Decreased material consumption per kWh of electricity produced

o May need to consider big picture if also adding backup power to grid
Literature unclear
Offshore vs. onshore?
o Difficult to compare
+ Offshore units tend to be larger scale with higher site capacity factors
Depending on design, offshore units can involve larger foundation
materials, more complex installation, and shorter part lifetimes

5/11/2010

Ecoassessment
center of excellence

Bill Flanagan
Ecoassessment Leader
GE Global Research
1 Research Circle
Niskayuna, NY 12309
flanagan@ge.com
(518) 387-5070

5/11/2010

Bibliography
Selected
1.

Jungbluth, N., et al., Life cycle assessment for emerging technologies: case studies for photovoltaic and wind power. International Journal of Life
Cycle Assessment, 2005. 10(1): p. 24-34.

2.

Denholm, P. and G. Kulcinski, Net energy balance and greenhouse gas emissions from renewable energy storage systems, in Energy Center of
Wisconsin Report 223-1, June 2003, Fusion Technology Institute - University of Wisconsin, Madison.

3.

Lenzen, M. and J. Munksgaard, Energy and CO2 life-cycle analyses of wind turbinesreview and applications. Renewable Energy, 2002. 26(3):
p. 339-362.

4.

Martnez, E., et al., Life cycle assessment of a multi-megawatt wind turbine. Renewable Energy, 2009. 34(3): p. 667-673.

5.

Martnez, E., et al., Life-cycle assessment of a 2-MW rated power wind turbine: CML method. The International Journal of Life Cycle
Assessment, 2009. 14(1): p. 52-63.

6.

McCulloch, M., M. Raynolds, and M. Laurie, Life-cycle value assessment of a wind turbine, in Alberta, Canada, The. 2000, Pembina Institute.

7.

Meier, P.J., Life-cycle assessment of electricity generation systems and applications for climate change policy analysis. 2002, University of
Wisconsin - Madison. p. 147.

8.

Pehnt, M., Dynamic life cycle assessment (LCA) of renewable energy technologies. Renewable Energy, 2006. 31(1): p. 55-71.

9.

Programme, S.F., Final report on offshore wind technology. 2008, NEEDS: New Energy Externalities Developments for Sustainability. p. 60.

10.

Properzi, S. and H. Herk-Hansen, Life cycle assessment of a 150 MW offshore wind turbine farm at Nysted/Roedsand, Denmark. International
Journal of Environment and Sustainable Development, 2002. 1(2): p. 113-121.

11.

Rule, B.M., Z.J. Worth, and C.A. Boyle, Comparison of Life Cycle Carbon Dioxide Emissions and Embodied Energy in Four Renewable
Electricity Generation Technologies in New Zealand. Environmental Science & Technology, 2009. 43(16): p. 6406-6413.

12.

Tremeac, B. and F. Meunier, Life cycle analysis of 4.5 MW and 250W wind turbines. Renewable and Sustainable Energy Reviews, 2009. 13(8):
p. 2104-2110.

13.

Weinzettel, J., et al., Life cycle assessment of a floating offshore wind turbine. Renewable Energy, 2009. 34(3): p. 742-747.

5/11/2010