Jimmy Oliapuram

Marc Thurnheer
Roman Gohl
Ramon Schnider
Alexander Bchi
Group B2
December 2014

TASS Report 3 Life Cycle Impact Assessment

Life cycle impact assessment of a wind farm

Figure 1: Alpha ventus wind park [3]

Group B2

TASS

ZHAW

1 TABLE OF CONTENTS
2

Abstract ................................................................................................................................................. 3

Eco-indicator99- and ecological scarcity (UBP)................................................................................... 4

3.1

Explanation of the Indicators [1]................................................................................................... 4

3.2

Assessment of the indicators ........................................................................................................ 5

Life cycle impact assessment ................................................................................................................ 6

4.1

Global warming potential ............................................................................................................. 6

4.2

Other relevant environmental impacts ........................................................................................ 7

4.3

Comparison with reference system .............................................................................................. 8

Sensitivity analysis ................................................................................................................................ 9

Sensitivity analysis ................................................................................................................................ 9

6.1

Changing lifetime .......................................................................................................................... 9

6.2

Changing amount of material for the wind turbine ...................................................................... 9

6.3

Changing transport distance ....................................................................................................... 10

6.4

Changing energy for production and recycling ........................................................................... 10

6.5

Evaluation ................................................................................................................................... 11

Comparison of co2-values with literature data ................................................................................... 12

Conclusion ........................................................................................................................................... 12

List of references................................................................................................................................. 13

10

List of figures ................................................................................................................................... 13

11

List of tables .................................................................................................................................... 13

12

Appendix ......................................................................................................................................... 14

Page 2 | 14

EU 13 b

Windpower

Group B2

TASS

ZHAW

2 ABSTRACT
Wind energy is currently one of the fastest growing renewable energy resources in the world. But there
are only limited locations which have suitable wind speeds. Wind turbines produce energy with virtually
no emissions, however, there are environmental impacts associated with their manufacture, installation,
and end of life.
This report describes the life cycle assessment of the alpha ventus wind park, which is located in the
North Sea about 60 kilometres from the German coast. Furthermore the report includes a description of
the purpose and scope, data, assumptions, methodologies, results and interpretation. The main goal is
to compare the results with the functional unit (1kWh electricity) to the Swiss electricity mix and to
identify which process leads to the biggest global warming potential.
Manufacturing, transportation, maintenance and end of life phase have been considered in the model
and are compared using the life cycle impact assessment method in the Software SimaPro. In addition,
the energy production was conducted based on that by the wind turbines over 20 years. In the end the
sensitivity of the assumptions has been verified.
The environmental impacts primarily derive from the manufacturing processes of the turbines and
foundation. A less degree is from the manufacturing of the submarine cables. The operation and transportation does not have a very large effect on the total environmental impacts of the offshore wind
farm.

Page 3 | 14

EU 13 b

Windpower

Group B2

TASS

ZHAW

3 ECO-INDICATOR99- AND ECOLOGICAL SCARCITY (UBP)

3.1

EXPLANATION OF THE INDICATORS [1]

The ECO-Indicator 99 is a life cycle impact assessment method, which calculates the score of the wind
park into three main stages over the entire life cycle:
Production (Production of raw material, processing and manufacturing of these materials)
Use (Transportation, energy and consumables during the life span of a product)
End-of-Life (Disposal and recycling)
The ECO-Indicator is quantified in points per unit (kg/kWh) and it consists of 10 different impact categories, such as land use, minerals, global warming or others.
3 damage categories:
-

Damage category Human health: Quoted in "number of years of life lost "and" invalid number
of years of life ". These are grouped into the following indicator : Disability Adjusted Life Years
(DALYs )

Category of damage ecosystem quality: As an indicator of ecosystem quality biodiversity is used.

Here, the percentage of species which are threatened with extinction or have already become
extinct are determined in a particular region and time period. A distinction is made in ecotoxicity,
acidification, eutrophication and land use.

Damage category resource pool: Shown as the additional energy needed in the future to promote minerals and fossil fuels.

The purpose of the Ecological Scarcity Indicator is the aggregation of raw materials and pollutants according to their politically defined lack and limits.
-

Comparable to the Eco-indicator the environmental impact of a product or system is specified in

the form of an aggregated measure, the environmental impact points.

Basis of the weighting:

Political objective
-

Compile the environmental objectives and laws.

Based on environmental protection act: no damage and disturbance to humans, flora and fauna.

Political objectives take into account not only the environment but also technical feasibility, affordability, social acceptance.

Page 4 | 14

EU 13 b

Windpower

Group B2

3.2

TASS

ZHAW

ASSESSMENT OF THE INDICATORS

Table 1 EI99 impact categories

Table 2 Ecological scarcity indicator impact categories

CO2-emissions are presented in different categories summarized with other emissions, global warming
(UBP) and climate change (EI99). Table 1 and 2 shows the evaluation of the two indicators EI99 and UBP.
The points of UBP cannot be directly compared with the points of EI99 because there are two different
units so there is no equivalence. In each method other specific loads dominate, because they are
weighted differently. But the relationship between categories can be compared.
The global warming (table 2) loads in UBP are more dominant compared to climate change (table 1)
impact in EI99. Therefore the impact category fossil fuel has a big influence in the EI99. This could mean
that the burden on global warming from the use of fossil fuels comes from. In addition, Global Warming
Page 5 | 14

EU 13 b

Windpower

Group B2

TASS

ZHAW

is obviously more weighted in UBP than in EI99.The impact category carcinogenic has the same weighing
in both indicators.
The goal to compare the CO2 emissions with the Swiss electricity grid is not implemented in the two
indicators because there is no comparison possible in the unit CO2 equivalent. But in chapter 4.3 Comparison with the reference system, the result to the goal mentioned below.

4 LIFE CYCLE IMPACT ASSESSMENT

4.1

GLOBAL WARMING POTENTIAL

Global warming potential results in a warming effect of the earths surface due to the release of greenhouse gases into the atmosphere and are measured in mass of carbon dioxide equivalents.
The total carbon dioxide equivalent emission for the whole alpha ventus wind park is 17 grams per kWh.
Figure 2 and 3 shows the potential impacts of global warming per kWh of electricity produced by the
power plant. The manufacturing stage dominates the life cycle, with the production of the wind turbines
RePower and Areva M5000 (tower, nacelle rotor) with 42% and the amount of both foundations are
39%. The end-of-life phase also has a significant contribution (-15%), providing environmental credits
associated with avoided metal production of iron, steel, copper and aluminium. The transformation
stations onshore and offshore have a small influence to the environment.
The emission to the air of carbon dioxide (92%) is the primary contributing substance, which results
from the combustion of fuels in production of the turbine raw materials, as well as methane (5%) resulting from steel production.

Figure 2 CO2-emissions itemised in components

Page 6 | 14

EU 13 b

Windpower

Group B2

TASS

ZHAW

Figure 3 CO2-emissions itemised in components without recycling

4.2

OTHER RELEVANT ENVIRONMENTAL IMPACTS

Table 3 0ther Impacts

In further consideration of the life cycle assessment were other identified environmental impacts are
shown in the table 3 above. If there is an excess supply of nitrogen oxides and phosphorus in water or
air the ecosystem gets out of balance. Sulphur dioxide oxidizes and forms as a consequence strong acids
that enter in the environment where they lead to acidification of waters and soils.

Page 7 | 14

EU 13 b

Windpower

Group B2

4.3

TASS

ZHAW

COMPARISON WITH REFERENCE SYSTEM

As examined in report 1, one goal is the comparison of CO2-emissions and other environmental impacts
between the alpha ventus wind park and the electricity mix of Switzerland. The following process is used
for the comparison:

Electricity, high voltage {CH} | production mix | Alloc Def, S

Figure 4 shows that the emissions of carbon dioxide (CO2-Equ.) in the Swiss electricity mix are 64.7%
higher than the emissions of carbon dioxide due to the alpha ventus wind park. As expected the Swiss
electricity mix has a higher CO2 emission because of 39% of the energy is produced in nuclear power
plants, which have plenty of radioactive waste.
The alpha ventus wind park has a smaller impact in all three damage categories than the Swiss electricity
mix.

Figure 4 Comparison between alpha ventus and swiss electricity mix

Page 8 | 14

EU 13 b

Windpower

Group B2

TASS

ZHAW

5 SENSITIVITY ANALYSIS
Sensitivity analysis provides a purposeful evaluation of the underlying assumptions, parameters and
methodological choices of the LCA, which aims to provide an understanding of the importance and scale
of the choices made in the LCA. Table 4 shows the results of the sensitivity analysis, which assess the
following five scenarios.

6 SENSITIVITY ANALYSIS
The whole influence of the project has been calculated in the LCA. But some of the assumptions were
doubtful. The sensitivity analysis shows the effect when the process dimension changes. Table 4 contains the most doubtful assumptions, their possible variation and their impact. The entire analysis has
been calculated repeatedly including the varying values.
Table 4: Sensitivity analysis

Scenario
normal
1

lifetime

steel for the windmills

other materials for
the wind turbines
whole transport
energy for production and recycling
3 and 4

3
4
5

6.1

process

variation

+ 5 years =
1.25 * 20
years
- 20 %
new proportion
+ 50 %
+ 50 %

co2-eq (g)
17
13.6

change
UBP (Pt)
21.5
18

ECO 99 (mPt)
1.5
1.2

17

21.5

1.5

17.1
24.5

22.5
33

1.5
2.2

24.6

34

1.5

CHANGING LIFETIME

Changing lifetime from 20 to 25 year is possible for a new wind turbine construction. This variation reduces the carbon dioxide equivalent from 17 grams to 13.6 grams. This would be a reduction of 20 percent. The gain of lifetime would also decrease the carbon dioxide equivalent in the same rate. The
change of maintenance has no major effect on the final value.

6.2

CHANGING AMOUNT OF MATERIAL FOR THE WIND TURBINE

The material input for the wind turbine were calculated with a reference system. As mentioned in the
report 2, the reference system contains a deviation from our system. Namely it has a concrete basement,
Page 9 | 14

EU 13 b

Windpower

Group B2

TASS

ZHAW

which includes a certain amount of steel. That means the proportion of used steel is bigger than the
normal value. But the LCA just has a small variation due to the new material proportions. So these insecure assumptions can be neglected.

6.3

CHANGING TRANSPORT DISTANCE

The transport distance was assumed as 300 kilometres. It is possible that the distance could vary. The
new analysis was made with 50 percent longer transport distances. With this assumption the carbon
dioxide equivalent would change from 17 grams to 17.1 grams. The European Scarcity and Eco-Indicator
shows minor changes.

6.4

CHANGING ENERGY FOR PRODUCTION AND RECYCLING

The energy consumption for the production and recycling was expected with overall average values. So
this assumption could diversify up to 50 percent. The new analysis was made with 50 percent more energy consumption. The carbon dioxide equivalent changes from 17 grams to 24.5 grams, which is a big
shift. European Scarcity and Eco-Indicator show a meaningful variation.

Figure 5: Sankey diagram with 50% more energy

Page 10 | 14

EU 13 b

Windpower

Group B2

TASS

ZHAW

Figure 6 Comparison between the different scenarios

6.5

EVALUATION

The insecure assumptions are the transport distance and energy consumption for the producing and
recycling process. That is why they have been varied to 50 percent. The analysis only considers an increment of the values although that is adequate to represent the sensitivity.
The sensitivity analysis shows that some of the changing assumptions have no huge impact on the resulting value. The minor effecting factors are the transport distance and the modified material inputs for
the wind turbine. But some of the process elements, like lifetime and energy consumption, have a significant influence. The variation of energy indicates the biggest change to the LCA and to both indicators.
So it is very important to identify the correct value for a reliable analysis.
To gain a better ecological assessment, the energy use should be scaled down and the life time should
be increased. It also depends on the used materials and their amount.

Page 11 | 14

EU 13 b

Windpower

Group B2

TASS

ZHAW

7 COMPARISON OF CO2-VALUES WITH LITERATURE DATA

Brown coal
Hard coal
Gas
Photovoltaics
Biomass
Water power
Wind power
Atom power
Solar thermal energy
Figure 7 CO2 emissions of different energy sources in [g CO2/kWh] [2]

This graphic is an overview of the results obtained from all studies. In addition, the plausibility areas
mark the result area. For biomass it was not possible to indicate a plausibility area due to lack of information.
To sum up, the wind farm alpha ventus has neither particularly high or low CO2 emissions compared to
other renewable energy technologies. However, it can be seen that fossil fuels have approximately 10fold higher total emissions, which was to be expected.

8 CONCLUSION
The results of the life cycle impact assessment correlate with the expectations. Compared to the Swiss
electricity mix, the alpha ventus wind park has a smaller CO2 emission. Based on these results, all states
of the world should throw an eye on the wind power technology to solve the global warming problem.
The tower, rotor, and nacelle are found to have the greatest contribution to the environmental impact
in each case. For the tower and the foundation, the large amount of steel required is the major contributor to cradle-to-grave environmental impact. One of the outcomes from this LCIA study is the confirmation that the main life cycle environmental impacts of a wind turbine originate from the manufacturing stage. The results lead to a conclusion that environmental impacts are driven by the material consumption, especially steel.

Page 12 | 14

EU 13 b

Windpower

Group B2

TASS

ZHAW

9 LIST OF REFERENCES
[1] D. C. Zipper, Indikatoren aus der kobilanzierung, ZHAW, Winterthur, 2014.
[2] P. D.-I. H.-J. Wagner, Co2 Emissionen der Stromerzeugung, 2007. [Online]. Available:
http://www.vdi.de/fileadmin/vdi_de/redakteur_dateien/geu_dateien/FB4-Internetseiten/CO2Emissionen%20der%20Stromerzeugung_01.pdf. [Accessed 10. 12. 2014].
[3] A. ventus, Techfieber, 2012. [Online]. Available: http://photos.techfieber.de/wpcontent/uploads/2010/06/windpark-alpha-ventus.jpg. [Accessed 10. November 2014].

10 LIST OF FIGURES
Figure 1: Alpha ventus wind park [3] ............................................................................................................ 1
Figure 2 CO2-emissions itemised in components ......................................................................................... 6
Figure 3 CO2-emissions itemised in components without recycling ............................................................ 7
Figure 4 Comparison between alpha ventus and swiss electricity mix ........................................................ 8
Figure 5: Sankey diagram with 50% more energy ...................................................................................... 10
Figure 6 Comparison between the different scenarios .............................................................................. 11
Figure 7 CO2 emissions of different energy sources in [g CO2/kWh] [2] ..................................................... 12

11 LIST OF TABLES
Table 1 EI99 impact categories ..................................................................................................................... 5
Table 2 Ecological scarcity indicator impact categories................................................................................ 5
Table 3 0ther Impacts ................................................................................................................................... 7
Table 4: Sensitivity analysis........................................................................................................................... 9

Page 13 | 14

EU 13 b

Windpower

Group B2

TASS

ZHAW

12 APPENDIX

Page 14 | 14

EU 13 b

Windpower