Potential Impacts of future
Renewable Energy Policy on UK Biodiversity
Ref: CR0295
Final Report to the Department for Environment, Food and
Rural Affairs (Defra) and the Scottish Executive Environment
and Rural Affairs Department (SEERAD) as part of the Defra
Horizon Scanning Programme
Date: February 2006
Submitted to:
Prepared by:
Dr Andrew Stott
Dr Jo Hossell*, Bethan Clemence*
Defra
Barry Wright*, Rob Edwards* & Zana
Room 1/06,
Juppenlatz$
Temple Quay House
2 The Square, Temple Quay
*ADAS
Bristol BS1 6EB
$Ecoscape
Associates
ADAS Final Report
Contents
Executive summary ................................................................................................... 1
Glossary .................................................................................................................... 4
Acknowledgements ................................................................................................... 5
1.0
Introduction .................................................................................................... 6
2.0
Report layout and methodology ..................................................................... 8
3.0
The impacts of renewable energy technologies on biodiversity .................... 12
4.0
The impact of conventional energy technologies ......................................... 30
5.0
Summary of energy generation impacts on biodiversity ............................... 37
6.0
Future developments in renewable energy technologies.............................. 39
7.0
Future biodiversity impacts from renewable energy technologies ................ 51
8.0
Impact mitigation and policy interactions ...................................................... 56
9.0
Conclusions and recommendations ............................................................. 69
Appendix 1 – Significance matrix............................................................................. 75
Appendix 2 – Reference Source Matrix ................................................................... 76
Appendix 3- Future technology scales ..................................................................... 77
Appendix 4 - “Soft Law” biodiversity protection measures ....................................... 78
Appendix 5 - EU Directives...................................................................................... 79
Appendix 6 - Persons consulted and workshop attendees...................................... 81
Appendix 7 - References ......................................................................................... 83
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
1
ADAS Final Report
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, since heat 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
2
ADAS Final Report
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.
3
ADAS Final Report
Glossary
Acronym
AC
AMD
AUKEA
BAP
BWEA
CAP
CATF
CCL
CEGB
CHP
CO2
COWRIE
CPA
CRoW
cSAC
DC
Defra
DTI
ECA
ECM
EIA
EST
ESTIF
EWEA
GOSE
GSHP
GW
HECA
IdeA
IEA
IEEM
IPC
IPPC
kW
LAPC
LASP
LDF
LIHI
LPAs
LPG
LSP
MLWM
MLWS
MMSD
m/s
MW
NEF
NPPG
ODPM
odt
OFGEM
OSIR
PFA
PIU
Description
Alternating current
Acid Mine Drainage
Association of UK Energy Agencies
UK Biodiversity Action Plan
British Wind Energy Association
Common Agricultural Policy
Clean Air Task Force
Climate Change Levy
Central Electricity Company Board
Combined Heat & Power
Carbon Dioxide
Collaborative Offshore Wind Research into the Environment
Comprehensive Performance Assessment
Countryside and Rights of Way Act, 2000
Candidate SACs
Direct current
Department for Environment, Food and Rural Affairs
Department for Trade and Industry
Enhanced Capital Allowances
European Climate Menu
Environmental Impact Assessment
Energy Savings Trust
European Solar Thermal Industry Federation
European Wind Energy Association
Government Office South East
Ground Source Heat Pumps
Gigawatt (109 Watts)
Home Energy Conservation Act
Improvement and Development Agency
International Energy Agency
Institute of Ecology and Environmental Management
Integrated Pollution Control
Integrated Pollution Prevention and Control
Kilowatt (103 Watts)
Local air pollution control
Local Authority Support Programme
Local Development Framework
Low Impact Hydropower Institute
Local Planning Authorities
Liquid Petroleum Gas
Local Strategic Partnership
Mean Low Water Mark
Mean Low Water Springs
Mining Minerals & Sustainable Development Project
Metres per second
Megawatt (106 Watts)
National Energy Foundation
National Planning Policy Guidance
Office of the Deputy Prime Minister
Oven-dry Tonnes
Office of Gas and Electricity Markets
Oil Spillage Incident Report
Pulverised Fuel Ash
Performance and Innovation Unit
4
ADAS Final Report
Acronym
PPG9
PPS
PV
RCEP
RDP
Description
Planning Policy Guidance 9: Nature Conservation
Planning Policy Statement
Photovoltaics
Royal Commission on Environmental Pollution
Rural Development Programme
RE
RegenSW
REZ
RO
ROC
ROS
RPA
SA
SACs
SEA
SEERAD
SPAs
SRC
SSSI
SWH
TANs
UKCIP
UKCS
UKQAA
UNCLOS
W
WCI
WFD
Renewable Energy
Renewable Energy Agency for the South West
Renewable Energy Zones
Renewables Obligation
Renewables Obligation Certification
Renewables Obligation Scotland
Renewable Power Association
Sustainability Appraisal
Special Areas of Conservation
Strategic Environmental Assessment
Scottish Executive Environment & Rural Affairs Department
Special Protection Areas
Short Rotation Coppice
Site of Special Scientific Interest
Solar Water Heating
Welsh Technical Advice Notes
UK Climate Impacts Programme
UK Continental Shelf
UK Quality Ash Association
UN Convention on the Law of the Sea
Watts
World Coal Institute
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.
5
ADAS Final Report
1.0 Introduction
Renewable energy (RE) sources are central to the Government’s energy strategy for
the next 50 years1. 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 UK2 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 sources3). 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.
i
For example: Review of Power Production from Renewable and Related Sources,
Environment Agency, 2002. P4-097/TR, Guidelines on the environmental impacts of wind
farms and small-scale hydro, Scottish Natural Heritage
6
ADAS Final Report
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.
7
ADAS Final Report
2.0 Report layout and methodology
The project undertook to review available literature and consult with key stakeholders
in order to determine the impacts of renewable and (for contextual purposes) the
impacts of current conventional energy sources on UK biodiversity. To provide a
systematic assessment of the impacts of renewable energy technologies the
information was summarised into a series of matrices. Section 2.1 explains the
methodology behind the matrices.
The review focussed primarily on the impacts of renewable energy technologies
on biodiversity (Section 3) in the UK. This section concludes with a summary of
the cumulative effects of current renewable energy technologies on BAP Broad
Habitats and a discussion on reference sources used in the matrices.
To put these effects in context, a brief review was also undertaken of the impacts of
current conventional energy systems on biodiversity (Section 4). However, no
risk assessment has been made of these impacts and no consideration is given to
the future impacts as these technologies develop.
Section 5 provides a comparison of the two groups of energy generation
technologies.
One of the aims of this work was to assess how future biodiversity may be affected
by the growth of renewable energy sources. To this end, Section 6 provides a brief
assessment of the development of each of the renewable energy technologies
over the next 20 years. The net effect for future biodiversity (Section 7) of the
increased uptake of the different technologies is then considered, based on
scenarios for energy production to 2020.
The discussion of biodiversity impacts includes consideration of means to mitigate
the negative effects; there is also legislation in place to support biodiversity
conservation. The effectiveness of these measures and their interactions with
policy is discussed in Section 8, to provide the context against which the findings of
this work should be considered.
Finally the report concludes (Section 9) with recommendations on measures to
mitigate damage to biodiversity and by highlighting the gaps that exist in our capacity
to assess future impacts. Suggestions for further research to fill current knowledge
gaps are also presented.
2.1 Matrix methodology
The information from the impacts review has been summarised into a series of
matrices to analyse the significance of any affects and to enable impacts to be
compared across technologies. This has led to the development of two matrices:
 Significance matrix (Appendix 1) summarising the main impacts by technology,
their potential mitigation and the level of significance of any impact post
mitigation,
 Habitat impact matrix (Table 3) summarising the net effect of each technology
on species’ groups by Biodiversity Action Plan Broad Habitat.
The approach adopted in the assessment draws on the methodologies provided by
both Strategic Environmental Assessment (SEA) and Environmental Impact
Assessment (EIA). EIA is a tool for assessing the environmental impact of a specific
8
ADAS Final Report
development proposal, for example a wind farm, and identifying mitigation measures
for eliminating or reducing the impacts identified. SEA, as its name suggests, is
focused on the strategic level, and is used to assess the environmental impacts of
policies or plans, for example, a renewable energy policy. However, the report is not
intended to be a full SEA of renewable energy options; it merely draws on the
general approach of SEA. In accordance with the EIA and SEA approaches, as set
out in the respective European Directives4,5, the relative importance of environmental
impacts is discussed in terms of significance.
It is important to note that, at the national level being considered in this research, the
identification of potential impacts can only focus on the broad impacts associated
with the development of that energy option as a whole. Impacts associated with
specific development proposals will vary from site to site depending on the nature of
the proposed development and the baseline ecology of the receiving environment.
Such impacts cannot readily be accounted for at this scale, and would instead be
addressed by the EIA of each specific development.
2.2 Significance Matrix
The impacts of each energy option have been identified by means of a matrix
(Appendix 1) that logically follows through the different stages of the assessment in
as objective a fashion as possible. Importantly, the matrix also allows the
assessment process to be transparent and open to review by other parties. Each
column on the matrix represents a distinct stage in the assessment process. These
are discussed under the following sub-headings:

Process Stage - Impacts may arise during different stages of the development of
a particular energy source. These stages can be broadly categorised as shortterm, temporary impacts that occur during construction or decommissioning, and
long-term or permanent impacts occurring during the operation of that energy
source.

Receptors - For an impact to be identified, there must also be an entity that the
impact effects (known as a receptor). In the case of biodiversity, the two broad
receptor groups considered in the assessment are species and habitats. In the
context of this assessment, it is impractical to consider individual species, as it is
very difficult to narrow down the analysis to the species’ level without considering
a specific location, and the number of species potentially affected by future
energy policy would be almost limitless. Where possible, distinction is made
between different species groups (mammals, birds, invertebrates, fish, etc.). In
other cases, it is only possible to identify impacts at a very broad level, such as
on the habitat as a whole, or on flora or fauna in general.

Impact Description - Both EIA and SEA use scoping to focus on the most
important potential impacts, whilst avoiding producing superfluous information on
non-significant impacts. Scoping was carried out to identify the broad impacts
associated with different stages of the development of each energy option. The
data sources utilised in the scoping exercise were:



Scientific literature and papers,
Environmental Statements of specific renewable energy developments,
for example, wind farms,
Expert knowledge of the project team and key stakeholders.
9
ADAS Final Report
The review work involved consultation with renewable energy and biodiversity
experts across a wide range of organisations (see Appendix 6 for the consultation
list) and the draft matrices were discussed within a workshop as part of this
consultation process. The identification of impacts focused on broad cumulative
impacts that are likely to occur for each energy option. Hence site-specific
impacts arising from individual energy development proposals are not accounted
for in this matrix.

Scale of Impact - The ‘Scale of Impact’ column identifies whether the described
impact(s) will be Local, Regional, National or International in scale. This is based
on expert judgement, and any relevant monitoring information available from the
scientific literature.

Ecological Effect of Impact - This identifies the life cycle stages of the receptor
that will be affected by the energy option being assessed. It also provides a
description of how the identified impacts will affect each receptor. This may be in
terms of the impact on habitats, or in terms of the direct impact on the life cycle of
different species groups.

Duration of Impact - This considers whether the impact will be temporary or
permanent. If it is temporary, an indication of timescale is given.

Effect of Impact - The impact description, scale and duration are all used to form
a judgement of the impact magnitude. Impact magnitude is described as being
major, moderate, slight or none. The judgement on the category into which an
impact falls followed the Institute of Ecology and Environmental Management
(IEEM) Guidelines for Ecological Impact Assessment (Table 1).
Table 1: Impact categories used for Ecological Impact Assessment
Magnitude
Major
Moderate
Slight
Negligible
Criteria
The identified impacts are predicted to result in a change in the
integrity of a habitat or community or the ability of the species to
maintain a viable population.
The identified impacts are predicted to alter key attributes of a habitat
or community but without changing its overall integrity or result in
changes to the local populations of the species but without threatening
the viability of its population.
The identified impacts will have a discernible effect but will not alter the
key attributes of the habitat or community, nor change the distribution
or status of the species.
No discernible impacts.
A distinction is made within the matrix between positive (no shading) and
negative (grey shading) impacts. But the descriptions provided in the above table
apply regardless of whether the impact is positive or negative.

Mitigation - Mitigation options are proposed for each of the impacts associated
with each energy option. These are focused on measures that could address the
impacts in the broadest sense. Site-specific mitigation measures accounting for
local factors and specific features of individual developments cannot be
accounted for in the context of this report. Where mitigation is proposed, the
prospects of its success are assessed in terms of high, medium or low (the ‘Likely
Success’ column on the matrix). This was based on the expert judgement and
experience of the project team and information provided by the stakeholder
consultations.
10
ADAS Final Report

Significance - Significance is effectively the measure of how important each
impact is considered to be. Significance depends on two factors:


The character and magnitude of the impact,
The value of the receptor affected by the impact.
Significance was assessed using the categories in Table 2, which assigns a
description of significance based on the impact magnitude and the value of the
receptor. For the purposes of this assessment, a ‘Significant’ impact is one of
‘Moderate’ or ‘High’ significance, in accordance with this table. This is adapted
from a typical table that would be used in an EIA for evaluating significance.
The significance of each impact is considered before and after mitigation. This
gives an indication of how successful the proposed mitigation measures are likely
to be in reducing the impact significance, and hence whether the mitigation
measures suggested would be justified.
Table 2: Approach used to assigning significance categories based on level of impact and
receptor value.
Magnitude
of
potential impact
(Whether + or -)
Major
Moderate
Slight
Negligible
Receptor Value
Very High High
Medium
Low
Negligible
High
High
Moderate
Very Low
Moderate
Moderate
Low
None
Low
Low
Very Low
None
Low
Very Low
Very Low
None
High
High
Moderate
Very Low
The impact magnitude categories for each impact having been assigned in the
Effect of Impact column of the matrix, it was also intended to attribute values to
different receptors in accordance with the receptor value categories in the table.
However, it became apparent that this would involve analysis of impacts to be
carried out at a species level, and as already discussed, the assessment focuses
on the broad level of species groups and habitat types. It was therefore assumed
that for each broad habitat or species group identified, there will be at least one
species or habitat that is of very high value (i.e., afforded protection under
national and/or international law). In this way, the matrix significance
provides an extremely cautious assessment of the impact of the RE
technology on habitats and species, since even a slight impact on a very high
value receptor is given moderate significance in Table 2.
11
ADAS Final Report
3.0 The impacts of renewable energy technologies on biodiversity
All the renewable technologies considered here have some potential negative effects
on UK biodiversity. Most of the potentially serious effects listed in the significance
matrix in Appendix 1 can be classified under one of the following headings:
 Habitat loss or damage directly due to construction/planting of an installation/fuel
source (e.g. wind turbine on heathland, or short rotation coppice (SRC) crop on
wet grassland),
 Habitat alteration as a secondary consequence of construction/planting of an
installation/fuel source (e.g. altered river flow below a hydro-electric installation,
or a lowered water table due to a SRC crop),
 Collision of animals with structures (e.g. birds with wind turbines or fish with
marine current turbines),
 Displacement or barrier effect of arrays of structures (e.g. to birds in relation to
turbines or to fish and marine mammals in relation to marine current, wave and
tidal power),
 Risks associated with toxicity of materials required for production.
Most of these effects may produce highly significant impacts on the species and
habitats affected even after mitigation measures are accounted for. Risks associated
with toxicity of materials may be successfully mitigated against in the UK, but there
may be biodiversity impacts in other countries with less stringent environmental
regulations. All of these affects are also permanent in their nature.
However, some of the technologies also provide the opportunity for biodiversity
benefits. This is largely through the creation of new habitats, which if carefully
managed can allow for new species, and if replacing a low biodiversity environment
this can enhance biodiversity in an area. Again these positive benefits are
permanent.
A summary of the key effects of each technology is provided in the following
sections. The full matrix is given in Appendix 1. For the marine technologies a
number of the impacts are common to all technologies as they relate to
construction/operations that have to be undertaken regardless of the technology
used, for example laying power cable to link the structures to the land. These
impacts have been indicated in a separate part of the significance matrix but are
referred to in each of the relevant marine technology sections.
In identifying the impact of each technology on habitats and species (“receptors”) the
work has focused only on those receptors that are judged to be of high, or very high
conservation status as determined by IEEM guidelines (i.e. BAP species and habitats
and those protected by EU and international agreements). Hence the post mitigation
significance provides a worst-case analysis of the impact. It should be noted that
receptors of lower status would also be affected, normally in similar ways. Any
reduction in their viability would result in them becoming threatened and thus
elevated to a higher conservation status. A ‘medium value’ species could rapidly
become a ‘high value’ species if the widespread adoption of a particular option was
to its disadvantage.
3.1 Onshore wind farms
Onshore wind farms are typically found on coastal fringes or in the uplands. Figure 1
shows the distribution of both onshore and offshore wind farms in the UK at the end
of 2004. In both cases there are potential conflicts with sensitive grassland
communities and with peat bogs in upland areas.
The construction and
decommissioning of onshore wind farms is likely to have a temporary, short-term
12
ADAS Final Report
impact on a range of animal species, notably birds and mammals, reptiles and
amphibians6. There is also concern about the impact of construction of construction
roads7 on peat bogs, particularly through effects on water flow through peat. Careful
siting and design of access roads and cable routes within these developments can
mitigate against some of these adverse impacts of the technology but locally,
significance levels can still be moderate.
Figure 1: Onshore and offshore wind farms in the UK. 8
13
ADAS Final Report
The operation of onshore wind farms can produce significant permanent, negative
impacts particularly affecting birds and bats, through disruption of their daily and
seasonal movements7 and from collision with turbine blades9. Such effects can be
significant at a regional and international scale if migrating bird species are
affected10. As with offshore turbines, some of these effects may be reduced by
careful siting of the wind farms to avoid significant bird flyways and local bat
populations and by tailoring turbine layouts to provide flight corridors, but more work
is needed to determine the effectiveness of different layouts for different species.
3.2 Biomass
The main ecological impacts of biomass production and harvesting will depend upon
the nature of the process. The systems are divided into two broad types:
 Biomass produced from specifically planted crops, and
 Biomass derived from removal of straw from arable land and brashings and
timber from existing woodland.
Currently the two most commonly planted biomass crops are shrubs in the form of
short-rotation coppice (SRC) willow and grass in the form of Miscanthus. For both
crops the major impacts are due to the change of the land use into the biomass crop
from its current status. Habitats likely to be impacted upon by this change range
from lowland grassland through arable to unimproved acidic and calcareous
grassland (See Figure 2 for locations of existing biomass plants in the UK). Hence,
the ecological impact of any land use change varies considerably. Conversion from
arable is unlikely to significantly impact on vegetation unless there is an existing rare
arable weed population on the land to be converted. But the impact on biodiversity
from the conversion of grassland and arable varies with the degree of agricultural
improvement of the converted land. For example, with regard to farmland birds,
improved grassland with ditches and hedges may contain 1 breeding bird territory per
ha, but the highest farmland bird densities can be found in arable with tall hedgerows
and trees which can contain 6.5 species per 5 ha and 1.3 territories per ha11.
Species of open farmland such as Skylark and Lapwing, however, could be
negatively affected, though the final report on the ARBRE (Arable Bio Renewable
Energy) projectii commented that such species have been commonly recorded in cut
SRC.12
Similarly, conversion of improved grassland with low plant species diversity and low
associated invertebrate diversity is likely to be a less significant impact than
conversion of more species rich and semi-natural grassland swards. Indeed, positive
biodiversity benefits can be achieved through the careful replacement of improved
grassland of low species diversity with biomass crops. The results of various
studies13,14,15 illustrate that biomass crops can provide habitat opportunities for new
and existing plants, insect and vertebrate wildlife species on farmland in the UK.
Benefits are also likely, (though research has not been undertaken to confirm it) for
bat species that may feed over these areas if there are nearby roosting sites.
However, care needs to be taken on the location of SRC plantations. Whilst largely
beneficial when established on intensive arable farmland, imbalances between
conservation gains and losses may occur if existing scrub or woodland habitats were
to be removed or if there were special interests such as nationally important
populations of farmland birds (e.g. Corncrake and Corn Bunting)16.
ii
http://www.dti.gov.uk/renewables/publications/pdfs/rps001.pdf
14
ADAS Final Report
The timing of crop harvesting can adversely impact on birds and mammals as well as
terrestrial invertebrates17. Harvesting undertaken in early summer can potentially
affect breeding populations and if done during winter could remove shelter and food
resource. However, Miscanthus is normally harvested in February and for SRC
these adverse impacts can largely be avoided by careful timing of such operations14.
There is a potential risk that managing planted crops will require the use of pesticides
and herbicides. Though this is likely to be at lower levels than for the arable and
improved grassland that biomass crops replace, they may still adversely impact on
the biodiversity gains that this technology can potentially achieve. Biological controls
and the use of different tree varieties within the same plantation can help to reduce
the need for pesticide usage and hence reduce the impact15.
The planting of biomass crops can involve non-native species and cultivars. This
may impact on the range and variety of animal species that would become
associated with these plantings, particularly in the case of the coniferous woodland.
The harvesting of brashings from existing woodlands may have a negative impact on
biodiversity, particularly in sensitive broadleaved woodlands. However, this is
generally only a temporary effect and can be largely ameliorated by mitigation
measures, such as restricting the areas from which biomass can be removed and
avoiding key times of year. Harvesting during the summer can impact on breeding
bird populations and should only be undertaken if there is an assurance that nests
will not be destroyed during the process17. Harvesting during the winter period could
potentially impact on hibernating species of reptiles and amphibians and may reduce
the overwintering food resource for birds and small mammals17.
The receptors most likely to be impacted upon by these operations would be
woodland birds such as Woodcock, Nightjar and Tree pipit, small mammals and
invertebrate fauna, particularly those species dependent on dead wood. There would
also be a significant negative impact on fungi and saprophytic Invertebrates.
However the management of previously coppiced woodland for biomass may also
benefit species such as Nightingale and Dormouse.
3.3 Hydro-Electric
Small-scale hydro-electric developments can destroy terrestrial habitats in the
process of creating aquatic habitats in areas where they were previously absent72. In
particular, sensitive upland acidic grasslands may be lost in the construction of
hydro-electric plants in high rainfall areas (See Figure 3 for distribution of existing
hydro-electric schemes). This is a permanent negative impact but it can be
ameliorated by careful site selection to avoid existing valuable grassland
communities.
However, this technology has the potential to introduce a different habitat into the
local ecology. Large bodies of open water are uncommon in the uplands and
producing large dams will create a novel habitat locally. But the benefit of this habitat
will be dependent upon its scale, location and also on the contribution it can make to
the local complex of habitats within the area. The careful management of reservoir
margins may benefit wetland species such wildfowl and fish-eating predators such as
Osprey.
Dam construction and operation can negatively affect aquatic species both locally
and downstream, through changes in sedimentation rates and flow levels, as well as
creating obstructions to migrating fish species such as Salmon18. Changing water
15
ADAS Final Report
levels may also negatively affect breeding bird species such as Black-throated Diver.
However, mitigation measures may successfully reduce such impacts considerably.
Figure 2: Sites of biomass power stations in the UK8
16
ADAS Final Report
3.4 Novel technologies
The current novel technologies comprise photovoltaic cells, solar water heat panels,
hydrogen fuel-cells and ground source heat pumps. Figure 4 shows the current
distribution of photovoltaic systems across the UK. The effects of the operation of
these technologies and the range of habitats affected are relatively small since they
are mainly sited in urban areas. The Swiss Federal Office of Energy (2001)19
concluded that PV installations produce no emissions in operations and the cells and
components on the market are made of materials that can be disposed of without
harm to the environment. A project funded by the Netherlands Agency for Energy
and the Environment20 also concluded there are no major hazards from the
environmental point of view from the solar cell technologies. However, the
widespread use of photovoltaic cells and solar water panels on buildings may have
an impact by causing reflections affecting the movement and behaviour of birds, but
such effects are unconfirmed and have not been researched. The use of ground
source heat pumps may cause leakage into groundwater of salts and chemicals 21.
As shown by the summary matrix, this could adversely impact on a wide range of
sensitive habitats. However, sufficient regulatory provision should mitigate against
this impact.
3.5 Common marine technology impacts
The installation and use of all forms of marine renewable energy source can have
common impacts associated with their construction and the need to lay power cables
to link them to the terrestrial electricity grid22. These impacts affect both marine and
estuarine ecosystems. Negative effects may result from the construction of marine
energy structures through the loss of sea floor habitat in extraction of materials to
create structure bases, in the placement of installations themselves, in spoil disposal
from such operations23 and in noise disturbance during construction24. The
introduction of foreign materials and pollution from paints and lubricants may also
have a negative effect on the vegetation and fauna of the habitat, but such impacts
can be reduced through use of best practise guidelines.
These impacts affect sandbank habitats and marine benthos such as Sabellaria and
marine mammals. Even a single installation could have significant effects if a large
proportion of a species’ population or habitat area were to be affected. Cumulative
impacts may also be detrimental through the widespread development even of
different marine energy sources.
In laying power links, negative impacts can affect marine sediment habitats and
benthos. Marine mammals and fish can be disturbed by electromagnetic fields and
induced fields that occur through the transmission of power through these cables25.
The adoption of best practice for cable protection and deep burial to minimise
penetration to surrounding sediment and water may mitigate these effects to some
extent. There is also the need to take into account results of other ongoing research
such as that under the auspices of Collaborative Offshore Wind Research into the
Environment (COWRIE).
There are also some common benefits to biodiversity from most marine technologies.
The presence of such structures requires the establishment of a safety zone to avoid
collision from marine craft. These exclusion zones provide areas of low human
disturbance from ships and, in particular, they are “low take” areas for fishing, which
can provide a positive benefit for fish and the species that feed on them26.
17
ADAS Final Report
Figure 3: Large and small scale hydro-electric schemes in the UK 8
18
ADAS Final Report
Figure 4: Photovoltaic and wave and tidal power sites in the UK8
3.6 Offshore wind farms
Depending on location, the major impacts on wildlife can result from the physical
presence of offshore wind turbines affecting migration of birds and their use of a
19
ADAS Final Report
habitat (e.g. divers, gannets, swans, geese, seaducks such as common scoter), in
particular27, The sound and vibration during operation can also affect marine
mammals and fish28. The other main impact is through the collision by birds with the
turbines27. The significance of these impacts is strongly dependent on the siting of
the offshore wind farms in relation to known migratory flightpaths of sensitive
species. (Figure 1 shows the site of existing offshore wind farms in the UK and
Figure 5 shows the areas of preferred wind farm development in relation to water
depth.) Careful design of wind farm layouts may offer one possible solution to this
problem. Larger wind farms have larger spacing between turbines, but may occur in
much larger clusters. Within large turbine farms, allowing wider spacing between
clusters within the wind farm to provide "corridors" in alignment with main flight
routes, such as between feeding and roosting areas may reduce impacts. However,
further research is needed to test such designs.
3.7 Wave Power
Wave technologies impact on both marine and estuarine flora and fauna, with the
nature of the impacts depending partly on the type of installation (see Figure 3 for
current installation locations). Land based systems can affect shoreline vegetation,
mainly rocky shore habitats and their supporting species, through land take for the
installation and habitat squeeze27. These impacts may be reduced significantly by
siting installations within existing man-made structures such as seawalls and
harbours.
Offshore wave systems have similar impacts to offshore wind turbines, through a
reduction of habitat area and changes in sedimentation rates as a result of
attachment of structures to the sea floor. Disruption of marine mammal and fish
species movements and migrations29 and the effect of collision with the structure may
also be significant for this technology, but as with wind turbines the negative effects
could possibly be reduced by the inclusion of safe corridors in the design. However,
as with wind turbines the effectiveness of such measures needs further research and
further work is also needed to understand the movements of different species and
their use of different areas.
3.8 Tidal and Current Power
As with wave power technologies there are a number of forms that this energy
system can take and each has a number of different negative impacts on biodiversity.
Most of the impacts affect the flow rate within estuaries and the level of tidal surges30.
These in turn affect the accretion and erosion, particularly of saltmarsh and intertidal
gravel, sand and mud habitats. This could affect the overall resource for this habitat
and, whilst avoidance of sensitive sites is important, modelling of tidal range postinstallation is also important in recognising the least damaging design options.
As a consequence of the alteration of flow patterns within estuaries there may be
adverse impacts on the marine invertebrates using the inlets and mud flats and this
may impact upon the availability and quantity of food for overwintering and migrating
bird species31. The installation and operation of these technologies may also have
an adverse impact on the movement and migration of fish and marine mammals.
There are also suggestions that the presence of tidal barrages may have positive
benefits for coastal defence32, but the biodiversity benefits of this aspect are as yet
unclear.
20
ADAS Final Report
Figure 5: Preferred locations for future wind farm developments33
21
ADAS Final Report
3.9 Summary of impacts by habitat type and species group
The limitations of attempting to account for impacts on individual species are
discussed in earlier sections. However, it is possible to make predictions of the
impacts of renewable energy sources on habitat types, as certain energy options are
more likely to occur in certain locations than others. For example, on-shore wind
energy will tend to occur in upland or coastal areas, tidal energy in estuaries and
wave energy at coastal or marine location.
To identify those habitats most likely to be affected by a growth in energy generation
from renewable sources, an impact matrix was produced indicating which BAP Broad
Habitats are likely to be impacted by each renewable energy type. BAP Priority
Habitats associated with each Broad Habitat are also indicated in brackets where
relevant (see Table 3). The coloured symbols against each energy option in the
matrix identify those habitats, and the species groups within them, most likely to be
affected by that option. The symbols are assigned on the basis of the receptors and
post mitigation significance identified in the Significance Matrix (Appendix 1).
The grassland BAP habitats could be affected by all of the terrestrial renewable
energy technologies, though biomass may provide some benefits to biodiversity
where such habitats are currently intensively managed. Bogs and Fens are less
affected by the use of renewable power sources, whilst rivers and streams and
standing open water habitats may be affected by both marine technologies in
estuarine areas and hydro-electric schemes further up the catchment
Hydro-electric technologies have the capacity to affect the greatest range of
terrestrial and freshwater habitats since their location is largely independent of
existing land use. The impact of this technology type is also indiscriminate in terms
of species types affected, since it largely results in complete destruction of the
affected habitat. However, by their nature small scale hydro-electric schemes affect
only limited areas and hence their impact is generally localised, though obstruction to
fish migration can have national level impacts.
Biomass production can also impact on biodiversity over a range of existing habitat
types, with only wetland, urban and thin soil habitats excluded from potential use.
But it can also be beneficial for species in several of the more intensively managed
habitat types such as arable and lowland grassland.
Novel technologies appear to present least risk to habitats and species groups.
Although the table shows that they can negatively affect most of the terrestrial
habitats, the impact is restricted to one or two species groups, which may incur a
slight impact (following mitigation measures) from the introduction of the technology.
For the marine technologies the full range of marine habitats may be negatively
affected by each technology, with wave energy potentially providing disruption to the
widest range of species groups. However, this technology also has the greatest
potential to provide benefits to biodiversity through the creation of new habitats.
22
ADAS Final Report
Table 3: Impacts of renewable energy technologies summarised by BAP Broad Habitat
Energy Technology
Biomass
Terrestrial/
habitats
urban/
freshwater
Broadleaved, mixed and yew
woodland
(includes
Lowland
beech and yew woodland, Upland
mixed ashwoods, Upland oakwood
and Wet woodland)
Coniferous woodland
Native pine woods)
(includes
Arable and horticulture (includes
Cereal field margins)











Bogs
(includes Blanket bog and Lowland
raised bog)
On-shore
Wind
Off-shore
Wind
Hydroelectric





Novel
Technologies








Wave



Tidal





23
ADAS Final Report
Energy Technology
Biomass
Boundary and linear features
(includes Ancient and species rich
hedgerows)
Dwarf shrub heath
Bracken














On-shore
Wind




Off-shore
Wind
Hydroelectric
















Tidal
Wave
Novel
Technologies



24
ADAS Final Report
Energy Technology
Biomass
Built up areas and gardens
Fen, marsh and swamp (includes
Aquifer fed naturally fluctuating
water bodies, Reedbeds and
Fens)
Improved grassland

Calcareous grassland (includes
Lowland calcareous grassland and
Upland calcareous grassland)








 



 



Neutral grassland
On-shore
Wind


Off-shore
Wind
Hydroelectric


Tidal
Wave
Novel
Technologies














25
ADAS Final Report
Energy Technology
Biomass
Acid grassland (includes Lowland
dry acid grassland)
On-shore
Wind
 






Inland rock (includes Limestone
pavement)

Montane habitats

Rivers and streams
Chalk Rivers)
Standing open water and canals
(includes
Eutrophic
standing
water, Mesotrophic lakes and
Saline lagoons)
Hydroelectric


Tidal
Wave





  

  

 
Novel
Technologies




(includes
Off-shore
Wind



26
ADAS Final Report
Energy Technology
Biomass
On-shore
Wind
Off-shore
Wind
Hydroelectric
Tidal
Wave

Urban
Marine/estuarine habitats
Continental shelf slope

Inshore sublittoral rock
Inshore
(includes
gravel)
sublittoral
Sublittoral
Littoral rock


sediment
sand and



Novel
Technologies




 


 
E

27
ADAS Final Report
Energy Technology
Biomass
Littoral
Mudflats)
sediment
Oceanic seas
Offshore shelf rock
Offshore shelf sediment
(includes
On-shore
Wind
Off-shore
Wind






Hydroelectric
Tidal
Wave
 
 


 


 

Novel
Technologies

28
ADAS Final Report
Energy Technology
Biomass



Supralittoral
rock
(includes
Maritime cliffs and slopes)
Supralittoral sediment (includes
Coastal
saltmarsh,
Coastal
vegetated shingle, Coastal sand
dunes and Machair)
Key:
Red = significant negative impact
predicted post-mitigation
Green (or lower cell, where
present) = significant positive
impact predicted post-mitigation
On-shore
Wind


= Flora:


= Amphibians:
Off-shore
Wind





Hydroelectric

= Terrestrial/freshwater mammals:

= Reptiles:
= Fish (Marine or freshwater):
Tidal
Wave
 
 

= Bats:
= Marine invertebrates:

= Birds:
 = Fungi:


Novel
Technologies
= Terrestrial invertebrates:
= Freshwater invertebrates:
= Marine mammals:
29
ADAS Final Report
4.0 The impact of conventional energy technologies
In reviewing the impact of conventional technologies, the work has considered the
effects of existing energy plants but given no consideration to how new technological
improvements may alter these impacts in the future. The conventional technologies
considered are fossil fuel (oil, coal and gas fired), and nuclear power stations.
References were not easily accessible, with many being ‘grey literature’. In the UK,
some reports are around 20 years old (reflecting the period of expansion in the power
industry). These reports, particularly those by the Central Electricity Generating
Board (CEGB) are particularly difficult to locate. Most papers are concerned with the
marine environment, particularly with the effects of water use and discharge, with few
paying attention to terrestrial biodiversity.
In 2002, coal accounted for 32% of UK electricity generation, only slightly behind gas
which provided 38% of electricity and nuclear, which provided 23%. Coal burn in
power stations increased by approximately 3 million tonnes in 2002 such that some
55% of UK coal demand in that year was from the electricity sector34.
A number of impacts are common to all conventional power stations and may also
affect some of the renewable technologies.
4.1 Construction issues
Power plants and related industries are frequently placed close to water and often
reclaim wetland and other marginal habitat, which may be a valuable biodiversity
resource. The construction of plants may lead to disturbance of sediments within the
marine environment with potential effects on sensitive fisheries or breeding grounds.
There may also be impacts from travel to and from the site and from dust generated
during construction. There is direct impact through the destruction to and altering of
habitats, due to construction, building of infrastructure, activities such as quarrying
and gravel extraction and the claiming of land for waste dumps. The construction of
large water storage bodies and chains of cascades can disturb the natural habitats of
terrestrial ecosystems, at the same time creating conditions for the development of
aquatic and water-loving species.
Construction and generation of power stations (including new transmission lines) can
result in the destruction or alteration of habitats - including breeding areas (nesting
and spawning), nursery, feeding, resting and wintering areas, wetlands or other
areas of seasonally high concentrations of important species. Seasonal or daily
migratory patterns can be disrupted as a result from partial or complete blockage of
migratory routes by structures, discharge plumes, entrapment in water intakes,
environmental alterations or human activities (e.g. transportation)35.
4.2 Coal extraction
Large-scale coal mining requires large amounts of land to be disturbed and causes
associated problems such as soil erosion, dust pollution and impact on biodiversity.
Surface mining can result in total clearance of vegetation and topsoil. The process
can also entail extraction of water, and its disposal on land or through water systems
can lead to soil erosion, sedimentation and alteration of flow in watercourses. This
can in turn affect spawning grounds of fish and the habitats of bottom-dwelling
aquatic species. Acid waste water from working or abandoned mine sites is often a
major source of pollution. The runoff dissolves heavy metals into ground and surface
waters and can disrupt growth and reproduction of aquatic plants and animals36.
However, according to a Minerals, Mining and Sustainable Development report,
mining can also create habitats and increase certain aspects of biodiversity through
disturbance37. For example, rare species of bats surviving because old mine tunnels
replace habitats destroyed by other human activities. Another example is part of the
Cornish peninsula flora, which owes its presence to mining37. Overall, however, the
30
ADAS Final Report
ability of ecosystems to provide biological benefits has often been significantly
impaired by mining and mineral processing.
4.3 Oil and gas extraction
Drilling and extraction for oil and gas carry acute and chronic hazards that can lead
to long-term harm to plant and animal communities38. Onshore, at the exploration
stage, there are particular risks for plant habitats and wildlife as exploration often
involves moving heavy equipment and building infrastructure in relatively untouched
environments. In all cases there is a risk of spillage and leakage from the point of
extraction to refineries and to the sites of consumption. The 1999 Oil Spillage Report
illustrates this risk, suggesting that approximately 32 million gallons of oil spilled
worldwide into marine and inland environments as a result of 257 transport incidents
that year39.
However, studies suggest that the effects of exploration have a greater impact (longterm) than large oil spills. The impact of drilling structure, discharge cuttings, artificial
islands and pipelines all impact on coastal habitats40. Furthermore, noise and
physical disturbances affect bird and mammal populations41. Much exploration takes
place outside of the UK, and hence more vulnerable species such as turtles, and
more fragile ecosystems (e.g. Arctic ecosystems) are at risk.
Impacts of power station operation relate largely to the need and use of water for
cooling within the operation. The principal environmental concern relates to the loss
of fish and the resulting damage to the local ecosystems. Impacts are caused by
impingement (the collision of organisms with the filter screens protecting the water
intakes) and entrainment of organisms drawn into the water extraction system with
the flow of water. Direct-cooled power stations also discharge large volumes of
heated water. The resulting thermal pollution can affect common shrimp and lobster
larvae42 amongst other marine species. Alteration of flow regimes and associated
physical variables (e.g. sediments) can also result in a shift in species composition43.
Such problems are likely to be particularly marked in small lakes or estuaries, and in
coastal regions where direct-cooled power plants are concentrated. In particular,
power stations are often sited in estuarine nursery areas or on migratory routes (e.g.
for sprat). The seventeen power stations in the southern North Sea are estimated to
kill sole and herring equivalent to about half of the British commercial landings for the
region44. It is estimated that over 100 different species of fish are killed (either in the
egg, larval or adult stages) during cooling water extraction. The commonest species
caught are sprat, whiting, flounder and sand goby. However, there is insufficient
information to determine if cooling water intakes are having a direct effect on inshore
fish abundance45.
Meshes used to protect water intakes typically have fine screens with a mesh size of
about 1 cm, which will retain most adult fish and crustaceans. Fish kills are typically
in the hundreds of thousands to millions per year, while shrimps and prawns are
impinged in millions of individuals per year. From an operational viewpoint,
impingement can be sufficient to cause screen blockage, damage to filtration
equipment and a disruption in the water supply. There have also been cases of
blockage by starfish, seaweed and bryozoans46.
Wedgewire screens can be placed at intakes to prevent impingement mortality.
These can be highly effective if properly designed. However, they have not been
used on the largest intakes and are unsuitable for marine and estuarine
environments where bio-fouling is a problem. Sound deterrent systems for fish have
also been used, but are rarely sufficiently effective. The most effective way of
31
ADAS Final Report
managing impingement is to reduce the volume of water pumped, and if necessary to
arrange partial or complete shutdowns at times of the year when large numbers of
fish and other marine species are regularly impinged47.
Entrained organisms such as larvae of common shrimp and lobster, and adult
copepods pass through the condenser circuits and are discharged back to the
environment. However, during passage through the cooling system, the entrained
organisms suffer sudden changes in pressure and temperature and may suffer
mechanical damage (e.g. copepods and lobster larvae respectively). It is now widely
recognised that the entrainment of fish eggs and larvae can be an important impact
on ecosystems by destroying primary producers and prey for juvenile fish. They can
also result in the release of large numbers of dead planktonic organisms with
discharge water, resulting in enhanced energy input into the decomposer system48.
As with impingement mortality, such impacts may be reduced to some extent by
constraints on pumping, or the imposition of seasonal outages. However, the
reduction of entrainment at direct-cooled power stations must overcome considerable
difficulties, and has yet to be fully demonstrated at large volume intakes. In general,
the scale of both entrainment and impingement impacts is influenced mostly by plant
size, though location is also an important factor for entrainment49. Evaporative
cooling towers extract much less water than once-through cooling systems and so
have a lower impingement and entrainment mortality50.
Measures to reduce bio-fouling themselves have an impact on biodiversity.
Compounds such as chlorine and bromine are frequently injected into cooling water
systems to prevent fouling. This can be damaging to various species such as
molluscs, shrimp larvae and adult copepods51.
There are many underwater structures involved with power generation and water
abstraction, which can affect the aquatic environment; effects can be negative or
positive. Bridges and pontoons can alter flow dynamics, leading to changes in
erosion and deposition, but can also enhance the range of available habitats and
shelters for aquatic species.
Weirs and sluices cause significant and long-lasting changes to the dynamics of
waterways, leading to increased siltation upstream, and greater scour and erosion
downstream, as well as forming a physical barrier to migratory species such as
salmon, shad and lamprey. These issues may need to be addressed with the
provision of fish ladders or passes to allow migration.
Acid rain and dry deposition have also been linked to coal fired power stations and
attributed to the decline in health of natural and managed woodlands52 in both the UK
and Northern Europe. Flue gas desulphurisation schemes have been proven to
reduce between 90 and 95% of sulphur dioxide emissions from power stations53,
which will be of some benefit to local air quality and hence, local ecology. However,
such systems are often retro-fitted in order to comply with European legislation.
Therefore, there may be short-term impacts on local ecology through noise and
disturbance during the construction phase, with an added risk of run-off from
suspended solids during heavy rainfall events54. Longer-term, there may be the risk
of spillages or leakages of chemicals, oils and fuels used during construction and
operation.
Flue gas desulphurisation schemes, using seawater and river water washing
methods, can result in the discharge of low pH water with elevated nitrate, phosphate
32
ADAS Final Report
and heavy metal levels. The effects of these discharges on aquatic flora and fauna
need careful monitoring and analysis, and there are also the additional impacts of
water abstraction as previously outlined.
Disposal of large quantities of pulverised fuel ash (PFA), otherwise known as fly ash,
which is produced as a bi-product of coal combustion, can be a major problem for
power stations, since it is bulky and has little intrinsic value55. However, it has been
used for many years for a wide range of construction applications and such usage
can be beneficial, since it replaces other natural resources (thereby potentially
lessening disruption to existing habitats and ecosystems). There are also some
indications that fly ash heaps have conservation potential. Studies have illustrated
the establishment of sand dune flora on such wastes56, the establishment of orchid
woods57,58 and successional changes in vegetation and soil development, as PFA is
replaced by woodland59,60. However, its use has declined with its categorisation as a
waste material61 leaving around 3,000,000 tonnes of PFA stockpiled (based on
annual production) 62.
Coal mining results in the production of large quantities of spoil, which must be
carefully managed to prevent contaminated run-off that may affect surface/ground
water quality. Mine wastes include the solid waste from the mine, refuse from coal
washing and preparation, and the sludge from treating acid mine drainage63. Acid
mine drainage (AMD) is one particularly severe problem that can arise, whereby a
reaction between water and sulphur-bearing materials can create acid runoff which
dissolves heavy metals such as copper, lead and mercury into ground and surface
water. One potential effect of AMD on biodiversity is the impact of water
contamination upon the disrupted growth and reproduction of aquatic plants and
animals64. Some metals bio-accumulate in the aquatic food chain and benthic
organisms can be smothered by iron that settles65.
Fossil fuel power stations also generate greenhouse gases as a waste product,
which are contributing to climate change. Around one-third of UK emissions come
from the energy supply industry itself66. Section 8.1 provides more information on the
impacts of climate change on biodiversity.
4.4 Nuclear power stations
Over 95% of radioactive material produced in the UK arises from the nuclear power
industry67. At the end of May 2003, 13 nuclear power stations were operational in the
UK. The main activities in the UK are reprocessing of used nuclear fuel, waste
management, defuelling and decommissioning. Nuclear power stations do not start
formal decommissioning until all the fuel has been removed from site.
4.4.1 General impacts
The biodiversity impacts of nuclear power in general result from power plant
construction and operations, radioactive discharge into marine environment, waste
disposal of radioactive material into terrestrial environment, aerial discharges and
from nuclear accident.
4.4.2 Operations
A number of the impacts of operations are similar to those of fossil fuel stations due
to the use a discharge of water for cooling. Marine monitoring in the UK currently
focuses on the following: molluscs (mussels, winkles, limpets, scallops, cockles,
whelk), fish, crustaceans (crabs, lobster, nephrops, shrimp), and seaweed (Fucus
vesiculosus, Porphyra umbilicalis).
In relation to terrestrial species/habitats, there is less information. The main impacts
will be through aerial discharges of radioactive effluents, the fallout of which, will
affect all habitats to some extent. There is extensive monitoring of milk production in
33
ADAS Final Report
the farming areas around some nuclear plants (at Sellafield this extends up to 4km
from site). There is also extensive monitoring of grass, soils and fluvial water
sources, wild and cultivated fruit and vegetables, which could impact on pathways to
local biodiversity68.
Chronic and acute exposure to radiation doses from radioactive waste may result in,
reproductive damage, behavioural change, larvae/juvenile survival and, in more
extreme cases, DNA damage and genetic mutation. There might be a threshold level
of exposure below which biological response does not occur but many studies
reviewed only report on problems in response to high doses of radiation.
There have been numerous studies on the impact of Chernobyl in 1986. However, it
must be considered that the nature of any nuclear accident and its subsequent
impact on the environment will be unique. In an earlier accident in 1979 at the Three
Mile Island reactor, USA, the containment building surrounding the reactor prevented
the release of all but trace amounts of radioactive gases. The Chernobyl reactor
lacked the containment feature. Following the explosions, an intense graphite fire
burned for 10 days. Under those conditions, large releases of radioactive materials
took place. Experimental studies and reviews of the Chernobyl exclusion zones
indicate possible impacts of DNA damage, genetic mutations, reproductive damage
and larval/juvenile survival.
4.5 Large-scale Hydro
For the purposes of this report, large-scale hydropower by stations providing a >5MW
is classified as conventional energy. This definition excludes stations within hydro
schemes where the individual station has a capacity of less than 5MW. The reason
for this distinction is that the principal effects of such energy sources on biodiversity
are related to the scale of an individual station. It should be noted though that for the
purposes of the Renewables Obligation Certification large-scale hydro only qualifies
as a renewable energy source if it was commissioned after 1st April 2002.
Hydro-electric power contributes 1.8% of the UK’s electricity69, with most of the
stations located in the Scottish Highlands. Hydro-electric is a proven technology; it is
efficient with the most modern plants having energy conversion efficiencies of up to
90%.
At the end of May 2003, there were 54 hydro power stations operational in the UK
that can be classified as ‘large-scale’ and 3 pumped storage systems70. The total
capacity in 2003 of existing large-scale hydroelectric sites was 1,531 MW, with the
pumped storage stations adding another 2,487MW. All are located in upland areas
in either Scotland or Wales, with the exception of one station in Northumberland.
Many use natural water bodies (e.g. lochs and upland lakes), although there are a
number of artificial reservoirs.
4.5.1 Impacts
Hydro-electric power is generally suited to upland areas. With much of the British
uplands located in National Parks or protected areas, upland waters are often of very
high amenity and conservation value. Whilst it is a relatively ‘green’ source of
electricity generation with respect to atmospheric emissions, consideration needs to
be given to the fact that upland regions are home to many unique, and often fragile,
ecosystems. Dams built on natural bodies of water can produce significant adverse
impacts on fish, wildlife and other resources71, whilst the slightest change to a fragile
habitat could endanger marginal native species.
Typically, uplands are characterised by naturally acidic geology and nutrient poor
soils, but with a good range of biodiversity. Upland areas often coincide with areas
34
ADAS Final Report
designated as National Parks, but they can also be classified according to different
ecological types (derived from lakes, rivers or wetlands), thus leading to the
designation of SSSIs and similar conservation areas. Biodiversity ‘cold spots’ are
also a common feature of uplands, due to higher altitudes and exposure to harsh
climatic conditions, however restricted or unique biodiversity is a naturally distinctive
feature and recognised by SSSI classification72.
There are three major habitat types associated with uplands: (1) oligotrophic standing
waters, (2) dystrophic lakes and ponds and (3) blanket bogs. Lake habitats can be
further divided into oligotrophic-mesotrophic standing waters or naturally dystrophic
lakes and ponds according to SAC criteria.
Upland areas are emerging as key definitive habitats under UK implementation of the
Water Framework Directive (WFD). There is also scope to use upland sites as
unimpacted ‘reference’ sites for the WFD, as by their nature, they are remote from
human activity.
4.5.2 Construction
The main impacts on terrestrial habitats are likely to be experienced during the
construction of reservoirs/dams, power stations and the associated infrastructure.
Impacts of construction are usually a result of the laying of pipelines, the creation of
access tracks and compounds. These can result in a loss of habitat, erosion
(normally in upland areas), changes to drainage patterns and disturbance to habitats
(normally in remote areas)73. Land taken up by buildings and roads would displace
any habitats existing there. However, the extent of such displacement may be quite
small and can be of a temporary nature, as the majority of the power plant
infrastructure is underground.
The noise and activity during construction may cause disturbance to local species,
but it is unclear how permanent this may be once construction has ceased. At many
hydropower stations, the only lasting infrastructure that may cause disturbance are
any external power housing and maintenance roads (which often double up as tourist
routes in summer).
4.5.3 Operation
A number of general impacts can be attributed to hydropower schemes, most of
which pose problems for aquatic habitats rather than terrestrial. General impacts
result from the effects on river flows, water quality and fish passage, and a large
majority of literature expresses concern for hydropower infrastructure impacts on
migratory fish species.



The damming of rivers can change the ecology of the region e.g. water is colder
downstream, water levels are often higher or lower than the rivers natural state
which effects riparian vegetation and sedimentation. However, where lakes are
natural as is the case at Dinorwig and Ffestiniog, some impacts may not be
experienced74.
Changes to the flow below abstraction points has impacts on sensitive species
e.g. salmon, pearl mussel. The key ecological considerations are migratory fish.
One method to combat this is the use of freshets, by which generation can be
ceased during key migratory times and can mimic natural fluctuations of flow73.
Weirs can result in a loss of habitat behind the weir due to localised flooding, in
addition to the impacts from flow variations. There is also an issue of pollution
during construction73. Weirs may restrict downstream movements, disrupting
natural distribution patterns and the 'restocking' of depleted 'downstream'
populations from more robust 'upstream' populations.
35
ADAS Final Report
Mitigation techniques to combat the effects of hydro schemes do consider the
impacts on land as well as the river. Any new hydro scheme will involve ecological
surveys, environmental management plans and construction method statements. In
addition to this, a number of techniques are employed to reduce any impacts, such
as fish screens, compensation flow and freshets. The impacts of construction can be
addressed through minimising pipeline and track length/width, avoiding shallow soils,
using existing tracks. The timing of construction, careful replacement of soils and
use of native species in re-seeding can help in minimising disturbance to surrounding
habitats. Where possible, ecologically sensitive areas are avoided.
One of many examples of the implementation of mitigation measures is within the
Affric/Beauly hydropower scheme in Scotland75. The waters of the Affric/Beauly
Scheme are recognised as being important for salmon and compensation water is
released down all the main salmon rivers, the flow of which is kept above agreed
levels. Borland fish lifts have been installed at Kilmorack, Aigas and Beannacharan,
the one at Aigas being open to visitors during the summer months. Culligran Falls
have also been made easier for fish to pass. In order to conserve the outstanding
scenic beauty of the area, the level of Loch Benevean is not allowed to vary greatly
and the level of Loch Affric remains largely unaffected by the hydroelectric
developments.
36
ADAS Final Report
5.0 Summary of energy generation impacts on biodiversity
The impact of both conventional and renewable energy sources is dependent upon
siting; any power station sited in a vulnerable habitat is likely to cause extensive
damage during both its construction and operational phases. The construction of any
energy source type can result in biodiversity impacts, but the land area required for
some renewable sources is considerably larger than that for conventional power
sources of the same capacity.
For conventional energy sources, the impacts are reasonably similar across all power
stations of a technology type, since generally power stations are sited in similar
locations, close to water sources. But for renewable energy technologies the impacts
are highly site and species specific. Aspects of location and scale of the energy
development, together with the species and habitats present will determine the likely
scale of impacts. Hence, appropriate site selection is a key mitigation measure to
avoid the potentially most deleterious impacts on biodiversity.
There are some positive effects associated with the different renewable and (to a
lesser extent) conventional technologies. These relate largely to the provision of new
habitats, such as short-rotation coppice woodland in biomass production, especially
where these replace biodiversity poor habitats such as intensively managed cereals
or grassland.
The production of greenhouse gases as part of conventional energy production is of
particular concern because of the potential effects of climate change upon UK
biodiversity. Whilst biomass energy sources also produce carbon dioxide during
energy generation, the amount emitted is balanced by absorption of the gas during
the growth of the biomass crop. Greenhouse gases are also produced in the
transportation of fuels to power stations (both in biomass energy and conventional
sources). Hence the sourcing of such fuels is also an issue (see section 7.2.2.1 for a
discussion on sourcing of biomass fuels).
It is important to note that it is easier to identify the effects of conventional energy on
biodiversity than to predict the effects of renewable energy technologies. Both the
significance matrices and the analysis of the literature have highlighted the lack of
knowledge of the impacts of renewable technologies on the marine environment.
This relates both to a lack of information on the detail and understanding of the
operation of marine ecosystems and to a lack of information on the biodiversity
impacts of some of the technology types (particularly marine current, tidal and wave
power). The effects of the use of forest residues and wood fuel sourced from outside
of the UK are also not clear. The following section highlights the information sources
used for the literature review in this project. These are detailed in the reference
source matrix in Appendix 2, which shows also the geographical area covered by
each source and its relevance to this study.
5.1 Information sources
Information sources accessed and their relevance for UK biodiversity impacts
differed by energy technology. For conventional technologies (fossil fuels and
nuclear) references were not easily accessible, with many being ‘grey literature’. In
the UK, some reports are around 20 years old (reflecting the period of expansion in
the power industry).
These reports, particularly those by Central Electricity
Generating Board (CEGB) are particularly difficult to locate. Most papers were
concerned with the marine environment, particularly with the effects of water use and
discharge, with few paying attention to terrestrial biodiversity. Of the information
used, the majority were derived from web-based sources.
37
ADAS Final Report
Reflecting the recent growth of onshore wind technologies, information on the
biodiversity impact for these systems is generally of high relevance to this study.
However, whilst there is some data available from observation/monitoring of impacts,
there is still a lot of information only available from expert opinion and review work.
This information reflects a body of work specifically targeted at the impacts on
biodiversity – primarily birds, but mammals and fragile ecosystems are also
considered. The information was very relevant to the UK, and was complemented by
European information and some from North America. Similarly, for biomass energy,
there has been a substantial amount of work carried out on the impacts of energy
crops on UK habitats and ecosystems, the majority of which was based on
observation and monitoring of sites. Information was derived from journal articles or
commissioned reports, and was generally of high relevance to this study. However,
for forest biomass and co-firing and the more technical aspects (e.g. fuel conversion
efficiency), most of the information found derived from personal communication and
expert opinion, with little published work detailing impacts on biodiversity.
Information for the marine technologies derived from a mixture of published papers,
web sites and personal communication, with some specifically assessing UK sites,
others from outside the UK. Predominantly expert opinion or observation/monitoring,
this information was very generic in terms of impacts (i.e. fish, birds, benthic
communities). This also appears to be the case with hydropower, where practically
all the information was derived from web-based resources. This information was
often based on observation/monitoring, but often only outlined generic environmental
impacts. Where information could be found on specific sites, there was slightly more
information on species level impacts, both aquatic and terrestrial. With a restricted
amount of UK information (perhaps reflecting the smaller scale of this technology in
this country), a lot of information used was from outside of the UK. However,
hydropower production occurs on a much bigger scale in Europe and North America,
and so the impacts highlighted may not be wholly relevant to the UK situation.
For novel technologies, the information consisted of a mixture of expert opinion,
review and observation/monitoring. This information (derived largely from published
reports and journals) was generally focused on the technical issues surrounding
novel technologies (reflecting the relative newness of the industry) and the impacts
on biodiversity were often inferred rather than being based on modelled or observed
evidence.
38
ADAS Final Report
6.0 Future developments in renewable energy technologies
The development of renewable energy resources in the UK is being encouraged both
by tax breaks for renewable generation under the Climate Change Levy (CCL) and
by the Renewables Obligation (RO) in England and Wales and the Renewable
Obligation Scotland (ROS). The RO and ROS require electricity suppliers to
increase their proportion of supplies from RE sources by 3% per year from 2002/3, to
10.4% by 2010. Suppliers not reaching this target are required to pay a penalty
charge per unit shortfall. The CCL is an energy tax on business consumption of
electricity, coal, natural gas and liquid petroleum gas (LPG). Electricity from
renewable sources is exempt from this tax.
The key policy drivers for UK renewable electricity generation are the RO and ROS
schemes and their key feature, as far as the development of RE technologies is
concerned, is that they encourage the least-cost renewable technology. At present,
and for the short-term future, the least-cost technology is wind power, with onshore
being cheaper than offshore. Dedicated biomass burning power stations have similar
capital costs to wind but, of course, require ongoing fuel costs. Most other potentially
large-scale technologies are at an early stage in their development. Generation from
municipal solid waste, landfill gas and sewage gas are already cost effective under
the RO but are limited in their potential scope. Landfill is being phased out under the
Landfill Directive. Even considering the investment that is underway into the
development of wave and tidal technologiesiii, to 2010 (and most probably beyond
that) the main renewable generation sources will be onshore and offshore wind.
The technical reviews in the following sections aim to show the state of development
within each of the renewable energy technologies and the way the technologies may
develop over the next 20 years. For all energy source types the scale of
development is likely to be critical to their impact upon biodiversity. For onshore wind
and biomass power sources there is also the potential for the size of power units to
vary greatly, from locally based systems to large-scale power sources. The potential
for such developments has also been considered.
6.1 Onshore Wind
Wind turbines produce electricity by using the natural power of the wind to drive a
generator. The wind is a clean and sustainable source of energy, it does not create
pollution and it will never run out. Wind energy technology is developing quickly,
turbines are becoming cheaper and more powerful, bringing down the cost of
renewably generated electricity. Europe is the world leader in wind energy, with
more installed capacity than any other region of the world. Over the past decade,
global installed capacity has increased from 2,500 megawatts (MW) in 1992 to just
over 40,000 MW at the end of 2003, at an annual growth rate of near 30%. Almost
three quarters of this capacity has been installed in Europe. This growth trend is
expected to continue.
Wind energy has numerous advantages; it is widely distributed as more countries
have sizeable wind power potential than have large resources of hydro-power or
fossil fuel reserves. It is also ideal for generating electricity at a local level; European
wind schemes are typically clusters of around 10 - 40 turbines, providing enough
electricity for 4,000 to 16,000 households. Some countries such as Denmark and
Germany also have a high proportion of single turbines.
iii
E.g. Carbon Trust
39
ADAS Final Report
In the UK at present there are more than 90 operating wind farm sites. These consist
of a total of more than 1100 turbines with a capacity of over 880 MW. Wind power
produced 1,286GWh of electricity in 2003 (the total UK electricity production was
395,886GWh). Therefore, wind power accounted for 0.32% of production in 2003.
The two biggest onshore wind farms in terms of capacity in the UK are Crystal Rig
(20 turbines) in the Borders and Carno (56 turbines) in Powys. Between them, they
have an installed capacity of 83.6MW. This is the equivalent of a small fossil-fuel
power station. Assuming all the generation from these two wind farms replaces the
same amount of fossil fuel generation, their operation will save about 30,000 tonnes
of carbon (110,000 tonnes of carbon dioxide) per year.
As with nearly all forms of electricity generation, wind power can have an impact on
the environment. Poorly sited wind farms can pose problems for birds and bats in
the form of disturbance, habitat loss or damage, and collision. By their nature, wind
farms have to be sited in areas with a good wind resource and this is often in upland
and coastal areas that are highly valued for their landscape quality. Proposed wind
farms are often opposed on grounds of their impact on landscape. Noise is often a
cause of concern for local residents close to a proposed wind farm development.
6.1.1 Wind Turbine Design
There are many different turbine designs, with plenty of scope for innovation and
technological development. The dominant wind turbine design is the up-wind, three
bladed, stall controlled, constant-speed machine. Maximum efficiency may normally
be expected at wind speeds between 10–15 m/s. Commercial turbines range in
capacity from a few hundred kilowatts to over 2.5 MW. The crucial parameters are
the diameter of the rotor blades (the longer the blades, the larger the area 'swept' by
the rotor and the greater the energy output) and the height of the hub (since wind
speed increases logarithmically with height). The trend is towards larger machines
as they can produce electricity at a lower price; the first 3MW machines are already
being installed.
Small-scale wind energy applications range from individual battery charging units to
those providing power to homes or businesses. They are particularly suitable for
remote off-grid locations where conventional methods of supply are expensive or
impractical.
Most small wind turbines generate direct current (DC) electricity. Off-grid systems
require battery storage and an inverter to convert DC electricity to AC (alternating
current - mains electricity). A controller is also required to ensure the batteries are
not over or under-charged and can divert power to another useful source (e.g. space
and/or water heaters) when the battery is fully charged. It is common to combine this
system with a diesel generator for use during periods of low wind speeds. This gives
greater efficiency and flexibility than a diesel-only system, as the generator can be
used at optimum load for a short period to charge the batteries, rather than by
constant direct use of the diesel generator at varying loads. For off-grid systems, the
size of the battery bank determines the time appliances can be run if there is no
wind. The size of the inverter installed determines the number of appliances that can
be run at the same time from the stored electricity.
Systems can also be installed where there is a grid-connection. A special inverter
and controller converts DC to AC at a quality and standard that is acceptable to the
grid. No battery storage is required. Any unused or excess electricity can be
exported to the grid and sold to the local electricity supply company. Turbines vary in
40
ADAS Final Report
size; typical sizes (or ratings) are 0.6kW - 8kW and above, with a cut-in (starting)
wind speed of around 2.5-4m/s, and a rated (optimum) wind speed between 1012m/s. Smaller applications include small turbines, usually less than 100W that will
charge 12V or 24V batteries. The uses include low voltage household lighting,
remote weather stations, electric fencing, or in caravans or boats.
Systems for households or businesses can cost between £5,000-£25,000, including
turbine, mast, inverters, storage (if required) and installation; depending on the size
and type of system installed. A 6kW system can provide 12,000-15,000 kWh per
year depending on site and location.
There are a number of companies producing small wind turbines of less than 20kW.
The total rated capacity of commercially installed turbines in the UK may be over
1MW.
The most important factor affecting performance of wind turbines is the windiness of
the site. The power available from the wind is a function of the cube of the wind
speed. Therefore, a doubling of the wind speed gives eight times the power output
from the turbine. All other factors being equal, a turbine at a site with an average
wind speed of 5 m/s will produce nearly twice as much power as a turbine at a
location where the wind averages 4 m/s.
Another key factor is the availability of the equipment. This is the capability to
operate when the wind is available - an indication of the turbine's reliability. This is
typically over 98% for modern machines. Also critical to performance is turbine
arrangement. Turbines in wind farms must be carefully arranged to gain the
maximum energy from the wind - this means that they should shelter each other as
little as possible from the prevailing wind.
Turbines are rated to a certain capacity. The size of the wind turbine determines the
total amount of energy generated each year. However this output is only achieved
for the short time that wind speed is at its optimum level. As a rough guide, a good
wind site will produce an average output of 30% of the rated capacity of the turbine.
This figure is known as the load, or the capacity, factor. In 2003, the load factor for
onshore wind turbines was 24.1%76. Capacity values may increase further in the
future, as the technology develops to allow turbines to operate at lower and higher
wind speeds.
6.1.2 The future of wind energy
The DTI has recently estimated that 3,000 to 5,000 turbines will be needed to supply
the 7 or 8% of generation that will be met by wind, assuming large turbines of
between 2MW and 3MW. Such turbines would probably have rotor diameters of up
to about 80m and hub heights of about 100m. This is about 3 to 5 times the number
of turbines that are currently operational (but will also include offshore turbines).
The area covered by 3000 or 5000 turbines would be about 750 or 1,250 square
kilometres (75,000 or 125,000 hectares), respectively, or between 0.3 and 0.5% of
41
ADAS Final Report
the UK land area, if all placed on land77, which is unlikely. Most of this area is,
however, not “lost”. Nearly all of it could be used for agriculture or another purpose.
Wind power is not a constant method of producing electricity, as turbines do not
generate electricity when there is no wind, though when the turbines are running they
can displace fossil fuel generation. However, intermittent and fluctuating electricity
from wind generation does not pose problems for the UK electricity system at low
levels of supply and certainly does not require any significant changes to the supply
system. Indeed, being generally “nearer to demand” than conventional power
stations, it offers potential benefits in reduced transmission losses.
Although locally intermittent and fluctuating, over the UK as a whole, variation in
supply generally tends to cancel out, although there are clearly occasional days
when the entire UK and its offshore waters are becalmed. Such events can,
however, be forecast with a reasonable degree of certainty but if the proportion of
wind power in the UK were to near 20% then it might well pose difficulties for the UK
distribution system as it stands. However, it could be accommodated by a
combination of energy storage, more interconnections to mainland Europe to allow
imports of renewable energy sources, greater use of demand management or by
using a mix of renewable energy sources (including non-intermittent renewables (e.g.
biomass), together with some of the more efficient fossil fuel technologies. The most
likely solution is a combination of all four measures.
6.1.3 Costs of wind energy
Electricity generation from wind is the nearest to-market (i.e. the cheapest) of the
renewable sources for electricity generation. Like many renewable technologies, the
main costs associated with the technology are those of construction, because fuel
costs are zero and maintenance costs are low. It is not yet fully competitive with
existing energy sources (largely fossil fuel generation), but costs are coming down
and are likely to continue to do so.
According to extensive research conducted for the Performance and Innovation Unit
(PIU) for the 2001 Energy Review to inform the 2003 Energy White Paper, the
current cost of onshore and offshore wind power is 2.5-3.0p/kWh and 5-6p/kWh
respectively, expected to fall to 1.5-2.5p/kWh and 2-3p/kWh respectively by 2020.
Recent Government analysis conducted for the Innovation Review put these figures
somewhat higher, at 3-4p/kWh for onshore wind now, falling to 2.5-3.00p/kWh by
2020; and 6-7.5p/kWh for offshore wind now, falling to 3-4.5p/kWh by 2020.
These numbers compare with about 6p/kWh for nuclear power, expected (by the
nuclear industry) to fall to about 3-4p/kWh by 2020; with about 2p/kWh for efficient
combined cycle gas turbines, with little reduction forecast; about 7p/kWh for biomass,
falling to 2.5-4p/kWh; and about 40-70p/kWh for solar PV, falling to 10-16p/kWh.
However, what is not clear from these costings is the extent to which different
aspects of power systems are included in the calculations (e.g. do the costings for
nuclear energy include full costs for storage of waste and decommissioning)
6.2 Biomass Energy Crops
Currently, biomass fuels providing electricity and heat are small scale and operate
only on very local levels. However, there is a theoretical potential for fuel chains to
be developed, using more advanced technologies. Current opinion points to four
primary chains78, each of which could be based on more than one conversion
technology, including smaller scale combined heat and power (CHP):
42
ADAS Final Report




Short Rotation Coppice (SRC), mainly willow, through both combustion and
gasification,
Miscanthus and straw, currently through combustion, but possible gasification in
the future,
The organic fraction of municipal solid waste, through gasification, anaerobic
digestion and combustion,
Sewage sludge, through gasification, anaerobic digestion and combustion.
Project ARBRE was the first commercial example of a biomass fuel chain
contribution to renewable energy and involved a sustainable electricity generator that
used renewable fuel from forest residues and new willow coppices. The combined
cycle plant was built at Eggborough, North Yorkshire and was completed in 2001-2.
The site created 20 local jobs and was expected to export 8MW to the local grid. It
received a lot of local community support. However, the sale of the founding
company forced the closure of Project ARBRE, although the wood fuel is currently
being utilised with coal at a co-fired plant nearby79.
Forest biomass currently derives from conventional forestry and is predominantly
used for co-firing. There are currently 16 co-fired plants in the UK80, many of which
use forest biomass. However, there is no control over where forest biomass is
derived from, with many smaller renewable projects/companies, as well as
generating plants, potentially importing from overseas (e.g. Scandinavia). Forestry
Commission statistics suggest that softwood use in the UK is not at a maximum,
whilst sawlog prices are dropping81,82.
Combined Heat and Power (CHP) plants using biomass are currently providing
around 100 MW to the electricity grid. However, energy crops are only currently
grown on around 5000 acres in the UK, providing around 5 MW of electricity. They
are entitled to numerous grants and ROCs83. Other biomass plants operate using
poultry manure (e.g. the plant in Thetford, which generates around 30MW) and straw
(e.g. plant in Ely which generates around 36MW).
6.2.1 The future of biomass energy
Biomass growth (as a whole) by 2010 is estimated to be about 30MW. In the future
the aim should be to make better use of the biomass already available rather than
growing new crops – this will increase the ecological value to the countryside83. The
expansion of biofuels and energy crops in general is currently very much dependent
on government policy and initiatives. For example, nationwide schemes such as the
Bio-Energy Infrastructure Scheme and the Energy Crops Scheme (England) are in
place to help develop and provide grants for biomass producers. Meanwhile, the
Renewables Obligation Order 2002 places an obligation on all licensed electricity
suppliers in England and Wales to source a growing percentage of total sales from
eligible renewable sources84.
The Renewables Innovation Review85, undertaken to identify key targets and
innovation processes for renewables, as well as the barriers to development,
recognises that technology and market options are needed to maximise biomass
benefits. The review proposes that biomass could be a material resource by 2020,
assuming successful technological development and the removal of market barriers.
To this end, it suggests that such success could develop biomass as a key energy
sector, potentially meeting between 15 and 20% of the UK electricity demand.
Technological advances (e.g. gasification) underpin this development, and may have
added benefits of improved carbon savings (compared to conventional technologies
such as combustion).
43
ADAS Final Report
Currently, biomass heat from forests are an available resource, but with very limited
uptake. The DTI review suggests that through exploiting this resource, there could
be a locally wide-scale usage in the future with the establishment of fuel chains and
up to 1mtCO2/yr savings. One particular growth area is the harvesting of forest
residues (side branches, ‘brash’ & tops). This is a practice that is not currently
widespread in the UK, but may be revisited86. In many countries (e.g. Scandinavia,
Germany, France and North America) woods pellets, made from wood wastes arising
from either the lumber industry or packaging, are widely used. As this industry is
relatively undeveloped in the UK, electricity generators do have the option of
importing wood pellets. The Government's recent decision to extend the eligibility of
co-firing under the Renewables Obligation to 2011 increases the prospect of
significant amounts being imported into the UK87.
Currently in the UK, woodland certification under the UK Forestry Standard is
mandatory for all Forestry Commission approved planting/felling, and there is
potential to extend this to agricultural and planning approved forestry. Additionally,
the more rigorous voluntary UK Woodland Assurance Standard is internationally
compliant against the Forest Stewardship Council (FSC) requirements; this would
allow UK forest biomass to be FSC certified. However, an increase in imports could
mean reduced control over standards/certification and therefore potential for greater
harm to habitats outside of the UK.
The development of forest biomass however, needs to take account of the
infrastructure available for processing timber. The present sawmill industry is based
on a few large plants that are set up for specific tree species, such as Sitka Spruce.
Furthermore, these plants are not generally located close to forests, thus creating
transport and infrastructure requirements. It is questionable whether these plants
would contribute to good management of native woodlands, or for the processing of
non-timber products. Further issues, such as competition from imports of cheaper
forest products (e.g. olive pips, Scandinavian timber) and adverse environmental
impacts from harvesting residues, suggest that wide-scale exploitation of UK forest
biomass may be limited for some time to come. One additional issue is that of cofiring, which is due to be phased out by 2011. As there is currently no control over
biomass imports for co-firing, there is no guarantee of support for sustainable forestry
in the UK. This raises questions concerning the state of the forest biomass industry
once co-firing stops88.
Similarly, with energy crops, currently the development is slow with uneconomic
yields and advanced technologies in their early stages. It may be possible for this
sector to develop towards wide-scale planting, which will provide clarity on yields and
costs85. The scale of production appears very much dependent on the type of energy
crop available. For example, a recent report cites willow and Miscanthus-based fuel
chains as having the most potential to provide significant electricity at the utility scale,
with the potential to reach as much as 8.8% (willow) and 11.8% (Miscanthus) of the
2020 renewables total78. However, the scale of production is very much dependent
upon the rate at which plants can be built, the choice of technology and being able to
plant over a large scale. Issues surrounding transportation and infrastructure, as well
as prices and costs, will further impact upon production levels.
October 2004 saw the launch of a new Biomass Study Task Force, which aimed to
help the Government and industry develop biomass energy in support of renewable
targets and sustainable objectives. The study planed to look at supply chains,
technical issues, planning restrictions and environmental factors89. The outcome of
this study was intended to boost the production and consumption of biomass-based
fuels. Additionally, the government has launched a new £3.5 million, nationwide Bio-
44
ADAS Final Report
Energy Infrastructure Scheme that will offer grants to help harvest, store, process,
and supply biomass for energy production89. Together, these may increase the scale
of biomass development over the next few years. However, these measures will
focus on a smaller, potentially regional scale, over the next few years through
mechanisms such as the capital grants scheme, research and development into crop
breeding/husbandry, and equipment grants.
6.3 Small-scale Hydro
Small-scale is defined as a hydro energy plant producing less than 5 MW of
electricity. A further distinction is made in the use of the term “micro” for systems
providing less than 100kW. Useful power may be produced from anything upwards
of a small stream; the likely range is from a few hundred watts (possibly for use with
batteries) for domestic schemes, to a minimum of 25 kW for commercial schemes.
The power available depends on the volume of water flowing, the flow rate, the
height through which the water falls (the head). Maximum conversion efficiencies
can be up to 80% but 50% is a more reasonable expectation.
If the small-scale hydro-electric power from all the streams and rivers in the UK could
be tapped it would be possible to produce 10,000GWh (1GWh = 1,000,000kWh) per
year90. As a rule, the capital cost per kW of installed capacity falls in proportion to the
size of the scheme, varying from around £1,000 to £3,000. Hence, the economic
potential is somewhat lower with estimates ranging from 500GWh to 2,000GWh per
year. At present, only a fraction of this is being exploited, with just 18 commercial
small-scale hydro systems in operation in the UK with a capacity of 43MW 91. This
figure includes stations that form part of larger hydro schemes, whose total scheme
capacity is greater than 5MW.
6.4 Novel Technologies
The potential for solar thermal technologies (SWH, PVs and GSHP) to contribute to
the reduction of greenhouse gas emissions is significant, particularly as heat energy
is currently the main source of CO2 emissions. However the main focus of current
Government policy is on electricity generated from wind, PV and combined heat and
power from biomass.
6.4.1 Photovoltaics (PV)
The main concern people have with PV is “does it produce more energy than is used
in its manufacture?” This varies according to the type of PV, how efficiently it is
produced and where it is located (which will affect the output). However all the
references to PV reviewed for this research have shown that there is a positive
energy payback92,93,94,95,96. Siemens summary analysis of their ‘ First Solar CdTe
Manufacturing Model at 20 MW/year’ predicts that the energy payback (heat,
electricity and water) will be less than three months for energy added during the
manufacturing process97. However, with current production, it may be more realistic
to quote a more typical figure of 2 to 4 years. As the modules have a productive life
of 20 years or more, the energy payback is very positive. Current installation is 4.1
MW (IEA, 2004) (3,300MWh/y) and is expected to rise to around 500,000 MWh/y by
202598.
There are two PV manufacturing plants in the UK, both of which have opened in
2004: Sharp Corporation in Wrexham, North Wales and BP/Romag in Durham. The
Sharp factory assembles monocrystalline and polycrystalline solar modules. The
annual production for 2004 was predicted to be 20MW and it is planned to double the
capacity in order to meet the expansion of the demand for photovoltaics in Europe99.
45
ADAS Final Report
PV may be economically viable after 2020100 leading to a greater market share of
electricity production. Building integrated PV has the economic potential of 0.5
TWh/y, technical potential of 266 TWh/y and a practicable potential of 37 TWh/y101.
PV is one of the top five renewable energy technologies with the greatest potential in
the UK. The cost in 2025 is expected to be around 7.0p/kWh with wind between 2.5
and 3.0p/kWh. PV is currently around 70p/kWh. The cost of PV has fallen around
50 fold since the mid 1970’s. The reduction is due to a market growth of around 20%
a year for PV.
6.4.2 Fuel Cells
Fuel cells enable hydrogen and oxygen fuel to be converted to electricity. The
process is potentially more efficient than burning them in a heat engine102. Fuel cells
are effectively batteries as they store hydrogen. Hydrogen and oxygen (or air) are
pumped in to the fuel cell and DC electricity is the product. There is much interest in
hydrogen, as storage of energy is a problem with all forms of energy generation.
The only by-product of fuel cells is water and they are quiet in operation. There is
some waste heat but less than that produced by conventional combustion processes.
Installed capacity is currently around10 MW/yr using hydrogen from gas103 and is
expected to rise to 100 MW/yr using hydrogen from gas103. But fuel cells are only
considered to be a renewable energy source if the hydrogen has been created using
electricity from PV or wind.
6.4.3 Ground Source Heat Pump (GSHP)
Ground source heat pumps collect heat from the ground and raise the temperature to
a useful level for space and water heating. In the UK, the constant ‘ground source
heat’ temperature is typically between 11ºC and 13ºC all year round. For every kWh
of electricity used to power the system, 2.5-4 kWh of heat are produced. The first
ground source heat pump system was installed in the UK over 50 years ago, and this
type of heating is used in hundreds of thousands of applications across the USA and
Europe. Industrial use is widespread: only in the domestic sector in the UK is it
perceived as being a relatively new concept.
A ground source heat pump system comprises three basic elements; a ground loop,
the heat pump and a heat distribution system. The ground loop is a pipe buried
underground in either a horizontal trench or in a vertical borehole. Horizontal
trenches are dug between 1 and 2 metres below ground level, and although using
more land than a borehole they are usually cheaper. Boreholes are drilled to
between 15 and 100 metres depth and benefit from higher ground temperatures than
trenches.
A heat exchanger extracts heat from the water/anti-freeze mixture in the ground loop
and transfers it to a refrigerant in the heat pump. The refrigerant evaporates to a
gaseous state and is passed through a compressor. The compressor increases the
pressure on the gas, which raises its temperature to between 40ºC and 55ºC,
depending upon the application. This heated refrigerant gas is then passed through
a condenser where the heat is transferred to the heat distribution system. As the
refrigerant gas cools, the refrigerant gas expands and condenses, and is returned to
the start of the heat pump cycle. The third basic element of a ground source heat
system, the heat distribution system, can be either low temperature wet radiators or,
preferably, wet underfloor heating. It may also include domestic hot water storage.
Although usually used for heating in domestic applications in the UK, the heat pump
can also be used for cooling by including an additional ’reversing valve’. This
46
ADAS Final Report
reverses the direction of the water/anti-freeze fluid, thereby also reversing the
direction of the heat transfer, taking it away from the house and into the ground.
The market for GSHP is very new in the UK with only a few hundred installations
across the country. However, the potential is huge for both heating and cooling. In
Sweden there are some 80,000 installations. Estimated installed heating capacity is
around 2 MW in the UK, equivalent to 4400 MWh/y and is expected to rise to 5000
MW, equivalent to 11 million MWh/y. There are also large numbers of GSHP
applications in North America. As with other renewable energy technologies, energy
savings through life cycle analysis is likely to become a deciding factor in determining
the number of GSHPs that are installed.
6.4.4 Solar Water Heating (SWH)
Solar water heating is not a new technology: systems were commercially produced
around the 1900’s in America where the industry flourished for over 50 years until
fossil fuels became so cheap they out competed solar collectors. The solar water
heating market was revived in Europe in the 1970’s when western countries sought
alternatives to oil. The technology is now well proven and sophisticated. With
selective coatings, solar water heating collectors can harness energy from not just
the visible light spectrum but also ultraviolet and near infrared wavelengths. The
systems will collect heat from sunlight and from a diffused (cloudy) sky. In northern
Europe around 50 to 70% of annual domestic hot water demand can be met by a
typical, well-installed system.
Domestic systems available in the UK range from unglazed collectors for swimming
pools to flat plate collectors and evacuated tubes for domestic hot water. The
orientation and angle of inclination are important considerations in harvesting the
maximum solar gain; south facing at 30 to 40 degrees is ideal however, facing SSW
or SSE will only reduce the energy yield by 4 or 5%.
The technology used to meet all or part of a building’s hot water needs through solar
heat is well proven and sophisticated. A solar water heating system will typically
produce up to 1350 kWh a year. This is a considerable saving on fossil fuels and
associated carbon dioxide and also a useful tool for meeting Kyoto targets as a
typical house will save between 250kg and 1 tonne of CO2 a year. Whilst the solar
water heating market thrives in many European countries, Britain has a track record
of being relatively slow to adopt the benefits of solar water heating.
Savings on fossil fuel use and greenhouse gas emissions are clear objectives of
Government aims to fulfil carbon dioxide reduction commitments.
The UK
Government has provided incentives by lowering the VAT (purchase tax) for installed
solar systems in line with energy efficiency products, from 17.5% to 5%. Solar has
also been added to the list of equipment that qualifies for Enhanced Capital
Allowances. An average system may save between £30 and £150 a year. Space
heating is technically feasible but usually uneconomic in the UK.
Some companies are now designing antifreeze out of their collectors, particularly the
Dutch drainback method, which incorporates specially graded pipes in the collector,
allowing untreated water to simply drain back into the cylinder under gravity when the
pump stops. This not only allows frost protection, but also permits integral
thermostatic control of domestic hot water.
There is currently a small, established market for active solar systems in the UK, with
fairly steady sales since the mid-1980s. UK production, however, has been
increasing since 1989, reflecting the importance of the export market; the European
market, for instance, has been growing during the 1990s. There are some
47
ADAS Final Report
indications that costs and prices of systems are falling. This will increase the
economic attractiveness of systems and the range of attractive applications.
A typical system involves a solar panel on a house roof of 3 to 4m 2, if it is a flat plate
collector or 2m2, if it is an evacuated tube system. The current market is around
208,420 m2 (77,674 MWh/yr)104 and is expected to rise to about 10 million m2 (4
million MWh/y) by 2020105.
6.5 Marine Technologies
At the end of the 1990’s offshore renewables were seen as the technology of
tomorrow but in the last 3 years they have been classed as a new and rapidly
developing industry. The gradual decline of oil and gas in North West Europe has
forced suppliers to reassess their potential market and diversify. This has enhanced
the development of marine (offshore) renewables and thus progressed the marine
renewables industry.
Government support has increased through the provision of policy to create market
pull and financial grants to push academic and industrial research and development
projects. This has enabled even greater development of the industry, although its
three technology sectors (wind, wave and tidal) are experiencing different individual
rates of development.
The UK Government originally planned to have joint wind and oil and gas SEAs but
this idea has been shelved during SEA5 (which was produced only for oil and gas) as
no plan or programme had then been developed for renewable energy technologies.
Instead, the DTI is collecting data to allow an SEA for marine renewables to be
completed in the future once the UK government has developed a programme for
offshore renewables. However this process is not assessing the environmental
impacts of offshore wind. Therefore, any further rounds of offshore wind leases will
still need to complete an SEA first.
6.5.1 Offshore Wind Power
The development of the offshore wind sector has been the most rapid of the marine
energy technologies, as the technology itself has not required such a major design
process as wave or tidal. Rather it has required an adaptation of the existing
onshore systems.
Since 2001, 33 offshore wind farm sites have been granted a lease (subject to
environmental impact assessment and consents from the appropriate authorities) by
the UK’s Crown Estate Commission (the land owner of much of the seabed within UK
Territorial Waters). The 33 sites were made available through two ‘tendering’ rounds;


Round 1 – 18 proposed wind farm projects each consisting of no more than 30
wind turbines with a minimum generation capacity of 2MW each. Sites were
limited to a maximum 10km2,
Round 2 – 15 proposed wind farm projects within “strategic” areas, NW England
(Liverpool Bay), the Greater Wash and the Greater Thames.
Of the 33 wind farm projects106;
 Three are operational,
 Two are under construction and due for completion at the end of 2005,
 Three more have submitted application for consent, and
 Up to six other Round 2 projects could enter the consent process before the end
of 2005.
48
ADAS Final Report
The wind energy associations such as BWEA and EWEA are confident that the
sector is building momentum, although the rate of construction is perhaps not as fast
as initially anticipated.
Wind farm installations could be constructed around the majority of the UK coast
however; there are limits to the capabilities of the technology. The systems are
presently restricted to water depths less than 50m due to physical constraints.
Before the Energy Act, 2004, which provides for the declaration of Renewable
Energy Zones (REZ) out to the 200nm limit of the UK’s jurisdiction, sites were not
permitted outside the 12nm (UK Territorial Waters) limit. However, Round 2
anticipated the development of deeper water structures and the “strategic” areas
covered by the tendering round, extended beyond the Territorial Waters limit where a
number of leases were awarded.
6.5.2 Wave and Tidal Power
These technology sectors can be discussed in parallel, as they are at a similar stage
in their overall development. As yet, neither has reached commercial maturity but
installations are expected to achieve such status within the next 6-8 years107.
Tidal currents are one of most potentially productive forms of renewable energy,
especially around the UK. They are predictable and less weather-dependent than
wind, solar or wave energy systems. They are still intermittent but this can be
engineered to a minimum and intermittency is typically far less than for wind. Like
hydroelectric generation, tidal generation comes in a number of forms:
 Tidal barrages – harness energy from the rise and/or fall of the tide through a
barrage or dam, usually in a estuary,
 Tidal lagoons – creation of an impoundment structure in a shallow sea area that
produces energy with the ebb and flow of the tide, and
 Tidal stream – underwater turbines produce energy from tidal currents, no
artificial impoundment is required.
Like tidal, there is no shortage of potential solutions on offer in terms of harnessing
the energy from waves but few installations have been built and those that have are
primarily demonstrators. There are three main types of wave technology, although
there are others:
 Electricity generated from the bobbing or pitching action of a floating object. The
object can be mounted to a floating raft or to a device fixed on the ocean floor.
 Electricity generated from wave driven oscillation of water in a column or
chamber. The oscillating water column (OWC) drives air into and out of the top of
the column or chamber via an air turbine. The OWC principle can be applied to
shoreline, near-shore and offshore wave energy systems.
 A tapered channel has also been used to concentrate sea waves, driving them
into an elevated reservoir. Water flow out of this reservoir is used to generate
electricity, using standard hydropower technologies. This type of system can be
shore-based or free-floating.
Within the Energy White Paper the Government stated its commitment to support the
industry in the development of prototype technologies in the Western Isles and
Devon. In line with this they are supporting the Scottish Executive and others with
the establishment of the European Marine Energy Centre in Stromness, the Orkney
Islands.
The renewable energy agency for the South West, RegenSW, has recently
commissioned a feasibility study for the potential installation of a wave energy test
facility off the north Cornish coast108. This facility will be the next progressive step for
49
ADAS Final Report
developers of wave energy systems who have deployed and successfully tested a
full-scale prototype. They will be able to deploy up to 5 energy systems to test
device interaction in an array both with each other and the surrounding environment.
It must be noted that this test centre is still at the concept stage.
Due to the relative infancy of wave and tidal technology development, it is very
difficult to forecast the rate of the sector growth over the next 25 years. As yet only
one wave energy system has been connected to the National Grid in the UK. It is
providing power, although not at a commercially viable level.
The DTI commissioned an “Atlas of the UK Marine Renewable Energy Resources”109,
which spatially quantifies the potential marine renewable energy resources (offshore
wind, wave and tidal)iv. The Atlas has maps (both hardcopy and interactive GIS
database) illustrating areas within the UK Continental Shelf that have viable marine
renewable resources:
 Wave Resource – Areas that can be identified from the DTI’s Marine
Renewable Energy Atlas as having suitable resource are south west England
(Isles of Scilly, north and south Cornwall), southwest Wales (Pembrokeshire),
north and west of Scotland (Shetland, Orkney and Western Isles) and east of
Scotland (North Sea).
 Tidal Resource - It is perhaps easier to identify areas lacking suitable
resource for the deployment of tidal generation systems. West and east
Scotland, west Wales and northeast England appear to have low tidal energy.
Those areas that have higher energy tidal resource generally occur near
headlands (Anglesey, Pembrokeshire), estuaries (the Severn) and between
land masses (the Shetland Isles, the Pentland Firth between Orkney and the
Scottish mainland).
Swansea Bay has been identified as a potential location for a tidal lagoon. If the
project goes ahead, it has been suggested that a total area of approximately 5km 2
(predominantly in water depth of 1-5 metres at mean low water springs) will be
impounded.
iv
http://www.dti.gov.uk/renewables/renew_atlaspages.htm
50
ADAS Final Report
7.0 Future biodiversity impacts from renewable energy technologies
Based on the findings of the information review of current impacts of renewable
energy on biodiversity a future scale matrix (Appendix 3) has been developed to
show the effect of “scaling up” selected technologies to the levels required to meet
the UK renewable energy targets to 2020.
Scenarios of future levels of output from the different renewable energy technologies
have been considered. These scenarios110 were generated by Oxera as part of the
Renewables Innovation Review85. They provide a range of potential contributions
from each RE technology derived from models that project energy generation based
on assumptions about future new build rates, atmospheric emissions, technology
prices and UK employment.
They start from the baseline assumption that that 9.8% of energy will be supplied by
renewable resources by 2010 and 15.14% by 2015, but that the 20% target by 2020
will not be reached110, which is the model assessment based on existing trends.
Further scenarios have then been considered based on the introduction of different
policy measures. These provide, for wind and biomass, the possibility of the full 20%
target being derived from each technology alone. The impact assessment for
deriving a low (5%), medium (10%) and high (20%) proportion of the renewable
energy target from each of the technologies is presented in the future coverage
matrix. For novel technologies a best-case scenario has been considered to
examine the scale of installation that would possible by 2020 for PV, SWH and
GSHP. All assessments assume that all appropriate mitigation options are adopted
and effective. In the absence of effective mitigation the net effect would be highly
dependent on site, species and scale and type of renewable energy development.
7.1 Scaling up the impacts - Assumptions
In the future scale matrix (Appendix 3), it has been necessary to make several
assumptions in attempting to assess the likely scale of occupancy of UK land or sea
area, as a precursor to assessing the impacts of the different proportional
contributions from each energy technology. It has not been possible to provide
detailed information about the scaled-up impacts arising from the different scenarios
because impacts are so site and species specific and the precise locations and scale
of future energy developments are not known.
It has not been possible to quantify impacts for wave, marine current or tidal power
systems. These technologies are at the development stage; whilst there are several
small-scale prototypes, mostly operating as single units, there is generally little
information about their potential impacts on biodiversity, or the likely future size of
arrays. These energy sources are some years from commercial viability and hence
from holding much in the way of market share, and they are likely to provide only a
very low proportion of the renewable energy output in the timescale under
consideration in this report. Similarly, much of the information presented in the
significance and habitat summary matrices is based on expert judgement and an
understanding of some of the processes and resulting impacts common to other
activities in the marine environment. The principle value of this approach is in
identifying, at an early stage, the need to investigate potential impacts on biodiversity
associated with these marine technologies and to provide some direction as to the
most likely aspects that merit study.
7.1.1 Wind Energy
For onshore wind, turbines of 2MW have been assumed, whilst for offshore wind,
turbines of 3MW and 4MW have been assumed. Clearly, in the 20 year time period
under consideration, it is likely that turbine size will increase further, for example
5MW turbines are probably not far from commercial reality. If larger turbines than
51
ADAS Final Report
those assumed are installed, there will be a requirement for fewer turbines for a given
energy output, but at increased spacing between turbines (of the order of 1 turbine
per km2). These changes in turbine specification are likely to lead to differences in
impact, which may be either greater or lesser than those for the assumed turbine
sizes. Offshore, the present technical constraints necessitate water depths not
greater than 30mv, whilst for onshore it is assumed that the observed patterns of
siting will continue, i.e., principally on upland moorland and lowland agricultural land
including coastal districts.
In estimating the potential area needed for wind farms onshore and offshore to meet
the various percentage contributions represented in the different scenarios, the
relative areas of apparently suitable habitat have been used. This approach
specifically considers the likely impacts on biodiversity. There are other factors such
as existing land use, other developments and offshore navigation that also influence
the locations of wind farms, but it has not been possible to consider these fully in this
assessment. The main purpose of the exercise is to determine whether the
anticipated levels of each energy source can, in theory, be accommodated without
detrimental impacts upon biodiversity.
7.1.2 Biomass Energy
For biomass technologies, the average land take is estimated as 670ha of biomass
crop (SRC or grass energy crop) required per MW of generating capacity. This figure
relates specifically to SRC111, and assumes an average annual yield of 10 odt per
hectare. This figure is likely to be similar for grass energy crops, as the average yield
of dry matter per year is within the same order of magnitude (figures from
experimental Miscanthus plots suggest typical annual yields of 10-20 odt per
hectare112). The estimate of land take used here should be viewed as an average,
representing a potentially wide range of values. As accurate quantitative assessment
of biodiversity effects of biomass crop development is not possible due to unknown
future plantation site selection, the uncertainty in this land take figure is not of great
concern here.
The theoretical availability of land for biomass crops is based on the area of
agricultural land within the UK (185,000 km2, Agricultural and Horticultural Census
data, available on DEFRA web-site). RCEP (2004)113 estimate that biomass crops
are most likely to be planted on medium to poor quality agricultural land (Agricultural
Land Classes 3 and 4 in England and Wales, and equivalents elsewhere in the UK),
avoiding both very poor quality land (Land class 5 in England and Wales) and high
quality land most likely reserved for higher value crops (Land classes 1 and 2 in
England and Wales).
Two alternative scenarios are presented for the spatial arrangement of biomass crop
plantations. One is based on the assumption that all power plant facilities will be in
the form of large (30MW) power stations, and the second based on development of
small (1MW) power stations, more typical of small-scale CHP developments
(capacities taken from RCEP, 2004113)
7.1.3 Novel technologies
Current predictions of development and build rates of ‘novel’ renewable technologies
do not envisage a significant contribution from these technologies to UK electricity
supply by 202070. However, if these rates were increased, for example by favourable
policy, financial and planning instruments, their contribution could be much greater.
v
However, Talisman are already planning to install two demonstrator turbines in the Moray
Firth
in
40m’s
water
depth
by
2006
For
further
information
see
europa.eu.int/comm/energy/res/.../doc/2004_06_02_bonn_mac_askill.pdf
52
ADAS Final Report
A best-case estimate of the maximum development level of these technologies by
2020 has been assumed as illustrated in Table 4. These values have been used to
estimate the number of properties/commercial installations that would be necessary
to achieve this level of energy provision (Appendix 3).
Table 4: The development of PV, SWH, GSHP and Fuel cell installations between 2003 and
2020
2003
Technolog
y
Solar PV
SWH
GSHP
Fuel Cells
No. of
installations
2020
Installed Installed
Output
No. of
area capacity
(GWh) installations
2
(m )
(GW)
1,250 50,000
55,000 208,725
1,200
1
0.005
0.139
0.005
0.001
4
104
11
2
Installed
Installed
Output
capacity
area (m2)
(GWh)
(GW)
1,000,000 25,000,000
3,000,000 11,250,000
2,000,000
50,000
2 1,600
8 5,625
10 21,900
1 2,190
7.2 Scaled impacts
7.2.1 Wind Energy
There has been a surge in the development of wind technology and in the numbers
of applications coming forward, combining to produce proposals for larger wind
farms, comprising larger turbines. However, offshore the industry is very young. It is
envisaged that most of the target for energy generation from wind will be met by
large arrays of large turbines. But small-scale wind also has an important
contribution to make, via individual or small clusters of turbines, notably for remote
settlements for which the technology could provide electricity close to where it is
required rather than incurring losses in transmission. Individual roof-mounted
turbines are being developed for the domestic market.
The area of most relevant land types in GB, based on the existing distribution of wind
farms, totals 160,000km2 114. Generation of 5% of UK electricity supply from onshore
wind would require c.0.6% (885 km2) of this total area. Generation of 20% supply
from onshore wind would require c.2% (3250km2) of this total area. If the area of
SSSIs, 229 km2, is taken as an indication of the size of the area providing a high
biodiversity interest, it suggests that the availability of suitable sites for renewable
energy generation should not be limiting in terms of minimising the impacts on
biodiversity. The actual land-take for turbine bases, access roads and associated
infrastructure is a small proportion of the total area occupied by a wind farm.
For offshore wind farms the maximum seabed take that has been calculated would
be for 20% supply from 4MW turbines sited outside of territorial waters. This would
require 14% of the available seabed at between 5 and 30 m depth. The equivalent
figure for turbines of this size within territorial waters is 8%. A smaller proportion
would be required for 3MW turbines (9 and 5 % respectively).
Whilst representing a very small proportion of the GB land area or area of seabed,
impacts on biodiversity relate to location rather than simplistic total area.
Furthermore, impacts may apply at different spatial scales. Collision risk for birds
and bats is dependent largely on the rotor swept area and so extends to considerably
more than the footprint occupied by the turbines. If displacement exclusion applies to
the whole wind farm then the impact is over the total area occupied and not just that
occupied by the turbine bases. Impacts on hydrology or sediment transport may also
have far-reaching consequences beyond the footprint of the development.
53
ADAS Final Report
7.2.2 Biomass
The land area most likely to be used for biomass crops is roughly 90,000 km2
(extrapolating from Countryside Survey 2000 and DEFRA Agricultural Census data).
It is assumed that no new land take is required for the use of forestry wood and straw
as biomass fuel, as the areas already exist. The amount of forestry and straw
biomass available is estimated at 12.5 odt per year by 2020 (50% of available wood
from forestry and 32% of available straw113). At these rates of availability, the use of
wood from forestry and straw alone could provide up to 2.2% of total UK electricity
generation demand.
The large areas required for biomass crops make it clear that some scenarios, as
illustrated in Appendix 3, are unrealistic in terms of required land take (red text), or
will have, at least, very major impact on farming land use change (orange text). If
biomass crops alone are developed, it is unlikely that more than 5-10% of total UK
electricity demand could be met by biomass sources, this itself entailing huge scale
land use change on farmland. However, using a greater proportion of existing
forestry and straw biomass may increase this figure to 15-20%.
In terms of impacts on biodiversity, the poorer agricultural land classes are also those
likely to retain most biodiversity value on agricultural land (e.g. wet grasslands, or
nutrient poor calcareous grassland). Wholesale conversion of these habitats to
biomass crops may have overall negative effects on biodiversity, compared to the
conversion of intensively managed more productive farmland with limited biodiversity
value. If the development of biomass crops is likely to result in land use change on
farmland that has greatest current biodiversity value, then it is likely to be
advantageous to maximise the use of existing biomass fuel sources (forestry coproducts, timber and straw) in situations where their use has relatively little effect on
biodiversity. Knowledge of the effect on biodiversity of wood removal from forestry
systems is, however, currently poor and further research is required.
7.2.2.1
Influence of plantation scale
Current economic drivers may encourage the development of woody and grass
biomass crops on farmland to supply large power stations. The economics of scale
and high transportation costs of harvested biomass material are likely to lead to the
development of biomass crops in concentrated areas of limited radius around power
station facilities. Indeed, the current UK Energy Crops (grant funding) Scheme
specifies that crops should be grown as close as possible to the end user, usually
within 25 miles.
There is considerable evidence that loss of farmland habitat heterogeneity, on a
range of scales from the within-crop vegetation structure to the landscape scale,
through the economically and technologically driven processes of agricultural
‘intensification’, has been detrimental to biodiversity115,116. The biodiversity benefits
of increased landscape and habitat heterogeneity are typically at odds with economic
benefits of landscape and habitat simplification, through the economies of scale. The
same principles will apply to biomass crops. Large monoculture areas are likely to
provide poorer biodiversity resource than smaller blocks within a mosaic of other
farming types but greater economies of scale for production purposes. Large-scale
SRC plantations, established to supply the ARBRE power station, held lower
densities of breeding birds than smaller (pre-commercial) plantations117. In addition,
the edges and field boundaries of large-scale SRC plantations hold higher densities
of butterflies, other invertebrates and birds in the breeding season than plantation
centres117.
Where large plantations are developed, blocks can be broken up by the inclusion of
margins and rides in the plantation design and the use of several crop varieties with
54
ADAS Final Report
each plantation. British Biogen111 provides guidance on maintaining vegetation
heterogeneity within SRC plantations. Further crop variation could be introduced by
the combination of different biomass crop types (e.g. SRC and Miscanthus) within
one land holding.
An alternative (or complementary approach) to large biomass-powered generating
stations is the development of a larger number of smaller scale CHP installations,
capable of using a variety of fuel types from the local landscape. Small scale CHP
installations have the benefits of (i) reduced fuel transport costs (as lower fuel
requirements per development mean that fuel can be sourced closer to the end
user), (ii) maximised energy efficiency from the use of heat generated during the
combustion process (and therefore greater economic viability); good quality CHP has
the benefit of much greater efficiency (70% or more) than electricity generators using
energy crops (30-35%)66, and (iii) biodiversity benefits from the development of
smaller scale biomass crop plantations within the farmland landscape113. Another
potential benefit of CHP plants is the greater opportunity to use low volumes of
dispersed fuel stocks, such as woody material from local council land management
work (termed ‘municipal arisings’).
7.2.3 Novel Technologies
The only novel technologies directly capable of producing electricity are PV and fuel
cells. The best estimate of the maximum capacity by 2020 is around 2GW for PV
and 1GW for fuel cells, around 10% of the total renewable energy contribution
required by 2020. This is unlikely to affect the level of development required from
wind and biomass technologies. However, if heat produced by GSHP and SWH can
significantly reduce the demand for electricity-generated heat, these technologies
may also reduce the total generating capacity required from other renewables to
meet the 2020 target. As about 50% of all primary energy consumption in the UK is
used to generate heat for buildings and water (the figures breakdown to 82% for
domestic use and 64% in commercial use)118, the potential contributions of GSHP
and SWH are large, and they could possibly reduce the risks of biodiversity conflicts
associated with increased wind and biomass power developments.
55
ADAS Final Report
8.0 Impact mitigation and policy interactions
In light of the analysis of biodiversity impacts from renewable energy sources, this
discussion considers how such impacts may be reduced or exacerbated by other
factors.
The policy on increasing renewable energy sources is largely driven by the concerns
about climate change. Hence there is a need also to examine briefly how climate
change may itself impact upon biodiversity. This is not an attempt to “trade off” one
cause of impacts against the other, since some level of climate change is inevitable
even if all greenhouse gas concentrations were to be stabilised at current levels119.
Rather it is important to consider climate change as another driver that may affect the
siting and impact of renewable energy sources upon biodiversity.
Given the uncertainty about the exact locations of future renewable energy
applications, the availability of policy, planning and legislative measures to protect
vulnerable habitats and species is crucial to reducing the impacts of both
conventional and renewable energy technologies on biodiversity. The discussion
also considers the issue of future energy demand and how energy efficiency
measures may be used both to reduce carbon dioxide emissions and allow
renewable developments to reach their targets.
8.1 Climate change impacts on biodiversity
There are two strands to the research in the UK of the effects of climate change on
biodiversity; one focusing on the effects on species distributions and using this as
surrogate for assessing effects on habitats, and the second monitoring trends in
species distribution and phenology. Quantitative modelling assessments include
projections of changes in the “climate space” of terrestrial plants and animals120,121.
The overall impacts on species distributions are mixed with predicted reductions in
the ranges of some species (e.g. wood cranesbill, beech) but increases in others
(Spanish catchfly, sea purslane) (Figure 6). Some species such as the Nuthatch
show an extension in their northern limits by the 2020s but then a contraction in their
southern limits by the 2050s. Even for perceived vulnerable habitats such as
montane122, the dominant species appear to maintain some climate space, but
rarities such as the mountain ringlet butterfly may lose suitable climate areas under
the 2050s High scenario121.
56
ADAS Final Report
Figure 6: The distribution of climate space for Spanish Catchfly and Nuthatch under the
UKCIP98 scenarios121
The main caveat on species future distributions is the availability of suitable habitat to
allow dispersal as climate changes. Holman and Loveland (2001)120 have highlighted
a loss of coastal grazing marsh in response to coastal flooding, whereas the
SPECIES modelling within the same project suggested that individual species within
the habitat might actually benefit from the changes to the climatic conditions through
a potential increase in their suitable climate space.
At a global scale there is concern that climate change may result in the extinction of a
large number of species123. However, little work has yet been done to relate changes
in species distribution to habitat quality. Harrison et al, (2001)121 and MONARCH 2
have included statistical regression based assessments of wading bird densities in
estuaries but these have suggested that climate change will not greatly affect
population densities on the estuaries studied. Biodiversity studies do not seem to
address the impact of climate change on populations or the links between observed
phenological changes and species/habitat health.
Observations of species’ phenology suggest that some responses to climate change
are already being observed (e.g. Crick and Sparks, 1999124). There is also some
indication of a shift in distribution of species ranges, particularly of mobile species
such as butterflies (e.g. Parmesan, 1999125) and birds (e.g. Rehfisch and Austin,
1999126). However, species are expected to respond “individualistically” to climate
change127 so predicting the net response upon habitats and communities is
problematic. However, it is likely that conservation directives, legislation and policy
will need to be adjusted to take account of climate change impacts128. There is also
a need to facilitate the adjustment of species and habitats to climate change through
ensuring that existing protected habitats are robust and by attempting to reduce the
fragmentation of habitats. Whilst there are strong safeguards in place to restrict
damage to protected species and habitats, climate change means that there is also a
need to examine the requirement for new protected areas in the future.
57
ADAS Final Report
The UK marine environment has been less well studied in relation to climate change
impacts but this omission is currently being addressed by the MarClim (Marine
biodiversity and climate change) project, which is deriving both baseline monitoring
data and models of species populations. The project aims to focus on a robust set of
temperature sensitive, readily observed intertidal climate indicator species. Already
the analysis has indicated a strong spatial and temporal trend in population
distribution, density and structure of species such as barnacles. Extensions of
species’ ranges have been observed, with many extending their range beyond
historical limits129. General increases in the abundance of a variety of marine biota
(including invasive species) have also been recorded130. Such changes have been
related to warmer sea temperatures and allowed several indicator species (e.g.
Osilinus lineatus or toothed topshell) to be proposed.
8.2 Policy, Planning & Legislative Mechanisms
Many, but not all, of the potential impacts of renewable energy sources on
biodiversity can be mitigated by avoiding sensitive sites. The impacts of renewable
energy technologies on UK biodiversity, in common with other land use and
development, may be constrained by a wide range of policy, planning and legal
provisions. Some of these mechanisms, such as Environmental Impact Assessment
requirements131, were in force when conventional power supply projects were
initiated, while others have emerged recently or are currently emerging, such as the
Directive on Liability for Environmental Damage132.
However, the existence of policy, planning and legislative measures intended to
mitigate biodiversity damage does not in itself ensure biodiversity protection. Such
mechanisms do not operate in isolation and their effectiveness in mitigating
biodiversity impacts depends upon the nature of the proposals and the level of
understanding of the systems they impact and the prevailing political, social and
economic context (including public acceptance) in which potentially damaging activity
takes place, which in turn influences the interpretation of policy and legal provisions
by decision-makers133. Crucially, the effectiveness of policy and regulatory mitigation
also depends on political commitment and effective surveillance and enforcement.
Surveillance and enforcement present particular problems in the marine environment
partly because of the scale of the environment combined with the limited resources
made available for policing. Ineffective application and enforcement of domestic and
EU environmental legislation, and in particular biodiversity protection measures, has
long been recognised as a problem in the UK134 and within the EU more widely135.
Policy and law constantly evolve in response to changing priorities and knowledge.
Such policy and legislative changes will be necessary to respond to future knowledge
and experience of the biodiversity impacts of renewable energy, many of which are
currently unknown or uncertain. In relation to the protection of the marine
environment, in particular, there is recognition of the need to address issues raised
by the complexity and multiplicity of regulations and agencies involved, and to
reinforce the efficacy of policy and regulation to control impacts from pressures on
marine biodiversity136,137,138.
The impacts on biodiversity of renewable energy systems cannot be considered in
isolation from the cumulative effect that may result when combined with other land
and marine use and development activities. Hence the impacts of renewable energy
cannot be minimised solely through ‘biodiversity’ policy and legal measures; a wide
range of other sectoral and cross-sectoral policy and legal provisions e.g. land use
planning, water policy, agriculture policy, etc, must be applied to support the control
of biodiversity impacts. In the marine environment, the individual and combined
58
ADAS Final Report
impacts of many activities, such as the fishing industry, remain to a large extent
uncontrolled in practical terms. However, Strategic Environmental Assessment
(SEA) and Environmental Impact Assessment (EIA) are designed to assess such
combined effects and, given sufficient political commitment, they should be of
significance in attempting to limit the totality of biodiversity impacts, particularly of
renewable technologies.
8.2.1 International Commitments
Many policy and legal mechanisms with the potential to control impacts originate
from the UK’s international commitments, including those resulting from membership
of the EU. However, devolution within the UK of certain policy and law making fields
to the country level can result in different implementation mechanisms (because of
limits of space will not be described in detail here). In principle, substantive
differences in the effect of such provisions should not be significant, as the UK has
committed itself to ensure that its obligations under international treaties and EU law
are met. However, the inadequate transposition (and enforcement) of international
and EU law by the UK and others remains a recognised weakness. Further detailed
analysis of the operation of the UK and country-level mechanisms would be needed
to assess their effectiveness in the control of future renewable energy impacts.
The key international treaties are briefly described in Appendix 4 and include the
Convention on Biological Diversity, the Ramsar Convention on Wetlands of
International Importance, the UN Convention on the Law of the Sea (UNCLOS), the
Convention on the Protection of the Marine Environment of the North East Atlantic
(OSPAR), the Bern Convention on the Conservation of European Wildlife and Natural
Habitats and the Bonn Convention on the Conservation of Migratory Species of Wild
Animals.
These treaty provisions have limited legal reinforcement in international law and
depend largely on the unwillingness of the signatories to be subject to the
opprobrium of the international community for failure to meet the obligations they
have undertaken. In contrast, the commitments made under EU law are enforceable
through the EU’s compliance procedures, including hearings in the European Court
of Justice and associated sanctions for non-compliance. However, the very long
timescales involved in implementing such proceedings and the difficulties of securing
subsequent compliance are recognised as weakening the effectiveness of EU
legislation.
8.2.2 EU Policy & Law
The EU’s commitment to halting the continuing decline of biodiversity by 2010 is
reflected in both UK conservation and non-conservation policy areas and the
mechanisms outlined in Appendix 5 are intended to assist its achievement. They
include the Habitats Directive, the Birds Directive, Strategic Environmental
Assessment Directive, Environmental Impact Assessment Directive and the Water
Framework Directive.
The effectiveness of such mechanisms in mitigating biodiversity damage varies
between individual sites and is affected by the interpretation put on the legal
provisions and previous case law decisions. The effectiveness of legal provisions is
also strongly influenced by the level of political commitment applied to their
implementation.
59
ADAS Final Report
8.2.3 Emerging EU Policy & Regulation
8.2.3.1
Common Agricultural Policy
The current latest round of Common Agricultural Policy (CAP) reforms are likely to
facilitate the cultivation of energy crops as the decoupled subsidy allows farmers
more freedom to cultivate crops as dictated by the market, rather than those which
command the highest subsidy. In addition the reform includes a new subsidy of €45
per hectare for energy crops (EC No1782/2003). However, the cross compliance
requirements associated with the new Single Payment should prevent the cultivation
of semi-natural habitats or large areas of permanent pasture.
The requirement to set aside land remains under the new subsidy regime and will
remain the most attractive area for cultivation of energy biomass crops. Set-aside
provides benefits to wildlife, particularly in the most intensive arable areas139. An
increase in the area of set-aside cultivated for non-food crops would have a negative
impact on biodiversity particularly species such as ground nesting birds. Agrienvironment schemes could provide a mechanism to off set negative impacts but this
is likely to require the design and incorporation of new measures into existing
schemes where funding is already stretched. At present, agri-environment schemes
are also entirely voluntary.
8.2.3.2
Integrated Pollution Prevention & Control (IPPC)140 (1996)
The Directive applies to a range of industrial installations and must be fully
implemented by 2007, at which time it will fully replace the current systems of
Integrated Pollution Control (IPC) and separate local air pollution control (LAPC). It
will be implemented by Regulations141 in England and Wales and separate
Regulations in Scotland142 and Northern Ireland143. Emissions to air, water and land,
in addition to other effects, will all be considered when applications for permits to
operate a relevant process are made and conditions may be imposed on permitted
activities based on ‘best available techniques’ (BAT).
8.2.3.3
Environmental Liability Directive144 2004
The Directive is to be transposed into UK law by 2006 and is intended to prevent and
remedy environmental damage. It introduces liability for damage to biodiversity
within the Natura 2000 network and other protected sites and species that can be
determined by the UK and requires restoration of damage. European Protected
Species will be covered by this directive and member states may also include their
nationally protected species should they choose to do so.
8.2.3.4
Soil Resource Protection
Awareness is growing of the need to protect soil ecosystem services, including their
role in primary production, water resource management, biodiversity conservation,
and in ameliorating climate change through CO2 absorption. A thematic Strategy for
Soils is being developed under the EU’s 6th Environmental Action Plan and a draft
Directive on soil monitoring is anticipated; Defra has produced a Soil Action Plan for
England 2003 and the Environment Agency produced “State of Soils in England &
Wales”. Further development in this field is underway, including Defra’s work linked
to CAP reform initiatives. On agricultural land, cross compliance requirements
include a number of measures designed to avoid inappropriate cultivation, or
management, of vulnerable soils.
8.2.4 UK Context: Environment & Planning Policy & Legislation
The land use planning system plays the central role in determining
whether/where/how much and what type/form of renewables are allowed in terrestrial
areas, as a result of both its land use planning and its development control functions.
However, management arrangements are generally divided for coastal areas above
and below the mean low water mark (MLWM).
60
ADAS Final Report
Above MLWM local authorities have powers to control development145 and land use
plans apply. Below MLWM statutory controls are mainly sector-based, e.g. fisheries,
oil and gas and aggregate extraction. In common with marine areas, coastal areas
have been recognised as lacking coordinated policy and regulation146, and such
weaknesses will need to be addressed in order to mitigate potential impacts of
renewable energy on biodiversity147,148. A group of Marine Habitat Regulations is
currently being developed to address some of these shortcomings149 and calls have
been made for, inter alia, the creation of a planning system to control impacts on the
marine environment and for a Marine Act to clarify the legislation99.
On land, renewable energy projects that come within the definition of ‘development’
are subject to the anticipatory and discretionary development control system
administered by planning authorities. Development is widely defined and may
include both physical development and changes of land use. Planning permission is
required150 on the basis of preventing environmental harm and balancing the rights of
individuals against competing economic, social, political and environmental factors.
A wide range of primary and secondary legislation and ‘soft law’ exists to support
biodiversity protection both within and outside the planning system. Key primary
legislation includes the Wildlife & Countryside Act 1981 as amended, the Nature
Conservation (Scotland) Act 2004, Countryside & Rights of Way Act 2000 and Town
& Country Planning Acts. Key secondary legislation includes the Conservation
(Natural Habitats etc) Regulations 1994, Hedgerow Regulations 1997 and the family
of Environmental Impact Assessment Regulations, including EIA for Use of
Uncultivated Land Regulations 2002. ‘Soft law’ includes Codes of Practice e.g. Good
Practice Guide on Planning and Renewable Energy, PPG9 Nature Conservation and
Scottish and Welsh equivalents and Codes of Good Practice on Water, Soil & Air etc.
A hierarchy of statutory and non-statutory protection exists for species and habitats in
the UKvi and it would be reasonable to expect that such mechanisms should assist in
mitigating the impacts of renewable energy projects. However, policies and law are
only as effective as their enforcement and political, economic and social priorities
also influence the effectiveness of policy and legal protection. Applications have
been made for renewable energy projects in protected and sensitive areasvii. The
recent Planning Policy Statement 22 on Renewable Energyviii, for example, directs
that decisions regarding the acceptability of renewable energy projects should be
based on criteria designed to remove or minimise impacts, but that applications
should not be rejected exclusively on the basis of an area’s designated status.
It may be expected that pressures for renewable energy development may in future
be greatest in areas recognised as being subject to the lowest levels of legal
protection and scrutiny, since they provide the prospect of faster processing of
applications and fewer objections. Although for marine renewables much marine
policy as well as consenting processes are already in place, the marine environment
vi
SPA; SAC; pSPA; cSAC; Ramsar; SSSI; National Nature Reserve; National Park; Local
Nature Reserve; Marine Nature Reserve; Areas of Special Protection (AoSP) applied from
high water mark to 3nm from baseline of the territorial sea; non-statutory local authority
wildlife sites.
vii
E.g. Eight 2 MW wind turbines have been permitted on appeal within the Forest of Bowland
AONB; they replace ten smaller turbines Planning, 5 Nov 2004; application made for 26
turbines near Brookland on Romney Marsh, Kent which are considered may harm protected
wildlife areas and species, Planning Resource 15 October 2004.
viii
www.PlanningResource.co.uk
61
ADAS Final Report
is particularly vulnerable to such pressures as a result of the currently complex but
not comprehensive, system of marine policy and designated/protected marine sites,
the lack of ready public scrutiny and difficulties in effective surveillance and
enforcement at sea, compounded by the lack of understanding of the nature and
extent of impacts on the marine environment. Greater pressures may also be
expected in terrestrial areas without statutory protection. Thorough SEA and EIA of
renewable technology proposals, in combination with other land use and
development controls, will be needed to ensure that the ecological capital of such
unprotected areas, upon which ultimately protected sites and species also depend, is
not fatally eroded.
The UK planning system has been undergoing reformix. Differences exist at country
level but common themes, which may influence the assessment and mitigation of the
impacts of renewable energy proposals, have been adopted including the
introduction of:
 A sustainable development obligation on planning bodiesx,
 A regional tier of planning and replacement of County Structure Plans,
 A spatial planning approach to land use with national spatial plans in Scotlandxi,
Walesxii and Regional Spatial Strategies in England and Northern Irelandxiii, and
 SEA and Sustainability Appraisal requirements for land use plans and
programmes.
SEA, Sustainability Appraisal (SA) and EIA are the mechanisms that should be used
to assess and minimise potential impacts of renewable energy plans, programmes
and projects. Sustainability Appraisal requires assessment of social and economic,
as well as the environmental, effects of plans and programmes.
The development of regional strategies for renewable energy development has been
identified as being necessary to guide renewable energy development away from
sensitive locations and to take account of the potential cumulative impacts through
SEA151. Such an approach is being adopted in Wales where seven strategic areas
have been identified as suitable for wind farm development, taking wildlife and other
constraints into account152. An SEA has been proposed to support a survey of
Scotland’s coastline to identify potential renewable energy locations153 and a
Strategic Energy Framework has been developed for Northern Ireland154.
Planning policy guidance issued by central governmentxiv plays an important role in
directing planning authorities decisions and current guidancexv clearly directs LPAs to
seek to support renewable energy projects. Such developments are, however,
ix
Including Planning & Compulsory Purchase Act 2004; a Planning Bill for Scotland is
anticipated in 2005
x
E.g. Planning & Compulsory Purchase Act 2004 s.39 introduces statutory obligation to
contribute to achieving sustainable development, applies to England & Wales
xi
National Spatial Plan for Scotland http://www.scotland.gov.uk/library5/planning/npf04-00.asp
xii
Welsh Assembly (2004) People, Places, Futures - The Wales Spatial Plan,
http://www.wales.gov.uk/themesspatialplan/content/spatial-plan-e.htm
xiiiDepartment
for
Regional
Development
(2000)
Shaping
http://www.drdni.gov.uk/DRDwww_Strategies/current.asp?id=str16
our
future.
xiv
English Planning Policy Guidance (PPG) being replaced by Planning Policy Statements
(PPS), Welsh Technical Advice Notes (TANs), Scottish National Planning Policy Guidance
(NPPG)
xv Including England Planning Policy Statement 22 Renewable Energy
62
ADAS Final Report
intended to be consistent with other protective policies and law such as policies on
coastal planningxvi.
Planning Policy Statements (PPSs) set out the Government's national policies for
different aspects of land use planning in England and Scottish National Planning
Policy Guidance (NPPGs) and Welsh Technical Advice Notes (TANs) perform
equivalent functions in Scotland and Wales. For example, PPS22 sets out policies in
relation to renewable energy. The policies set out in the statement need to be taken
into account by regional planning bodies in the preparation of regional spatial
strategies and by local planning authorities in the preparation of local development
documents. PPS22 sets out a number of key principles to guide the planning system
in respect of renewable energy developments. There are eight key principles in total,
these include:


Renewable energy developments should be capable of being accommodated
throughout England in locations where the technology is viable and
environmental, economic, and social impacts can be addressed satisfactorily.
Regional spatial strategies and local development documents should contain
policies designed to promote and encourage, rather than restrict, the
development of renewable energy resources. Regional planning bodies and local
planning authorities should recognise the full range of renewable energy sources,
their differing characteristics, locational requirements and the potential for
exploiting them subject to appropriate environmental safeguards.
The public response to renewable energy projects is a major factor in determining the
achievement of renewable energy objectives.
The Royal Commission on
Environmental Pollution (RCEP) and others have consequently highlighted the need
for planning process to be open, transparent, flexible and inclusive if the potential of
renewable energy is to be realised155.
8.2.5 Summary of formal mitigation measures
A wide range of policy, planning and legal tools exist or are being developed which
may be used to assist mitigating potential biodiversity damage from renewable
energy systems, of which EIA and SEA are key mechanisms. However, the
effectiveness of such tools will have to be judged on a case-by-case basis, as their
effectiveness will depend on how they are applied and interpreted in individual
situations. This, in turn, will depend on a complex mix of the following interacting
factors:
 The level of political commitment and public support applied to the biodiversity
issues affected,
 The economic and social priorities prevalent in the area affected,
 The extent of understanding of the potential impacts that may arise from
renewable energy systems, including their cumulative impact when combined
with similar activities and with completely different activities that may affect the
biodiversity resources concerned, and
 The level of resources committed to monitoring, surveillance and enforcement.
Policy and legislation does not in general aim to prevent development or activities in
sensitive areas per se and instead generally aims to protect such areas from
damage, with variable success. Current renewable energy policy indicates that
designation as a sensitive area, while a major consideration, in itself will not be
sufficient grounds for automatic rejection of renewable energy schemes and that
xvi
E.g. in England Planning Policy Guidance 20 Coastal Planning; in Wales Technical Advise
Note 14 Coastal Planning
63
ADAS Final Report
decisions in such areas will need to be based on assessment of the anticipated
extent of potential impacts. Such assessments are inevitably limited in effectively
predicting impacts as a result of the limits of knowledge and understanding of the
ecosystems concerned and of impact interactions.
8.3 Energy efficiency and reducing energy demand
UK demand for primary energy is projected to grow by around 0.7-0.8%/yr to 2010156.
The targets set for the development of renewable energy sources take account of
such a growth in demand. However, an alternative and/or complementary approach
to achieving this target would be through reducing energy demand. The interaction
of government policies to increase the supply from renewable energy sources with
those aimed at energy efficiency has largely not been explored.
Energy demand can potentially be lessened through reducing usage via energy
efficiency measures. Improving energy efficiency is now a key issue within several
Government policies (climate change, energy and sustainable development) and
there is a wide range of organisations targeting this issue, from community schemes
through to independent advice organisations.
8.3.1 Central Government
The recently published five-year plan, ‘Delivering the Essentials of Life’, aims to
encourage long-term policy-making, with one of the key aims to promote strategies
which boost energy efficiency157). The plan confirms the government’s commitment
to energy efficiency and sets out a number of new initiatives and additional funding.
These include continuing the Community Energy Programme; undertaking a high
level Energy Efficiency Innovation Review; developing a new approach to climate
change communications; improving social housing; and advising and supporting
individuals, businesses and the public sector through the Energy Savings Trust and
the Carbon Trust.
Table 5 details additional measures that underpin the
government’s sustainable energy remit.
Table 5: Government plans and initiatives focussed on energy efficiency158.
Plan/Initiative
Energy
Efficiency:
The
Government’s Plan for Action.
Home
Energy
Efficiency
Scheme
Fuel Poverty Strategy
Sustainable Buildings Initiative
Energy Efficiency Commitment
Description
A delivery plan for energy efficiency goals to 2010 and
beyond.
Now marketed as Warm Front, this is the Government’s
main grant-funded programme for tackling fuel poverty.
The scheme was launched in June 2000 and provides
packages of insulation and heating measures depending
upon the needs of the householder and the construction of
the property.
Published in November 2001, the Strategy sets out the
framework for delivery of the Government's overall goal of
seeking an end to the problem of fuel poverty, with the first
target being to reach those most vulnerable to cold-related
ill health by 2010.
Following the Better Buildings Summit, 2003, a
Sustainable Buildings Task Group was established,
consisting of key stakeholders and industry experts. The
task group recommends specific improvements in the
quality and environmental performance of buildings.
These were made through the Better Buildings-Better
Lives report, with the task group reconvening in 2005 to
take stock of progress.
Electricity and gas suppliers are required to achieve
64
ADAS Final Report
Plan/Initiative
2002-05
Climate Change Levy and
Energy Efficiency Agreements
Combined Heat
Strategy to 2010
and
Power
Community Energy Programme
DTI Sustainable Energy Policy
Network
Description
targets for the promotion or improvements in domestic
energy efficiency.
The Levy came into force on 1st April 2001 and applies to
energy used in the non-domestic sector. The aim of the
levy is to encourage industry, commerce and the public
sector to improve energy efficiency and reduce emissions
of greenhouse gases.
As outlined in the Energy White Paper, CHP is an
important element in the Government’s energy policy. The
Government’s belief that CHP has an important role to
play in meeting the White Paper aims is evident in its new
target to achieve at least 10,000 Mw of installed Good
Quality CHP capacity by 2010.
2002 saw the initiation of this £50 million programme,
providing funding for schemes that will provide carbon
savings, alleviate fuel poverty and reduce fuel costs. This
funding was extended in early 2004 by at least another £6
million.
A network of policy units across government departments,
devolved administrations, regulators and key delivery
organisations that are jointly responsible for delivering the
White Paper.
8.3.2 Regional and Local Government
Many of the energy efficiency schemes/strategies outlined above are implemented at
a regional and/or local government level. Regional and local authorities have the
ability to implement energy efficiency initiatives through a range of channels from
strategic planning, spatial planning, planning application approval (based on energy
efficiency criteria), community plans, involvement of local businesses, and within the
local authority buildings, housing stock and vehicle fleets themselves. At a strategic
level, there are a number of indicators, tools and statutory requirements that can
direct a Local Authority’s path to achieving energy efficiency targets.
8.3.2.1
Performance indicators
A key method of appraisal for local authorities is the Comprehensive Performance
Assessment (CPA) process. This is a particularly important scoring process, whose
assessments provide the basis for better local decision making, inform relations
between central and local government, and give local people a clear understanding
of how well their council is serving them159.
The CPA process is ongoing, with the last round in 2005 having undergone
significant reform. One key change to the CPA criteria is the inclusion of ‘key lines of
enquiry’, one of which is Sustainable Communities. Under Sustainable Communities,
green transport plans and energy efficiency targets may be criteria for appraisal for
which local authorities will have to be able to provide measurable figures.
A further method of identifying high-achievers is through the Beacon Council
Scheme. The Beacon Council Scheme was set up to disseminate best practice in
service delivery across local government. Beacon status is granted to those
authorities that can demonstrate a clear vision, excellent services and a willingness
to innovate within a specific theme160. There are now plans within the government’s
recently published energy efficiency action plan161 to include energy efficiency as a
theme within the next round of the Beacon Council Scheme, therefore placing energy
efficiency as a priority Local Authority performance measure.
65
ADAS Final Report
8.3.2.2
Statutory Requirements
Statutory requirements, such as the Home Energy Conservation Act (1995), require
all local authorities to identify and implement practicable and cost-effective measures
likely to result in a significant improvement in the energy efficiency of all residential
accommodation in their area162. Local Authorities also have power over the
implementation of the CCL and promotion of mitigation measures such as enhanced
capital allowances (ECAs). ECAs enable local businesses to claim 100% first-year
capital allowances on their spending on qualifying plant and machinery if they meet
targets for energy conservation, emissions reduction and water conservation.
8.3.2.3
Other tools/schemes
At a national level, organisations such as the Energy Savings Trust (EST) and
Carbon Trust are actively developing support programmes specifically for Local
Authorities. The EST Local Authority Support Programme (LASP) began in 2000
with the aim of developing capacity, understanding and corporate commitment within
Local Authorities with respect to energy efficiency and sustainable energy usage.
EST assists local authorities in delivering their HECA and other energy
responsibilities through initiatives such as LASP.
Similarly, the Carbon Trust is developing the Local Authority Carbon Management
Programme, whereby the Carbon Trust provides councils with technical and change
management support and guidance to help them realise carbon emissions savings.
The primary focus of the work is to reduce emissions under the control of the local
authority such as buildings, vehicle fleets, street-lighting and landfill sites. Practical
support is also provided, for example, identifying carbon saving opportunities or
developing an emissions reduction implementation plan163.
At a European level, there are also useful tools for Local Authorities. The European
Climate Menu (ECM)xvii, for example, is a climate policy tool for Local Authorities,
which acknowledges the importance and responsibility of local and regional
authorities in achieving climate targets. With the help of ECM, local authorities can
contribute considerably to achieving the EU Kyoto climate targets for CO2 emission
reductions. Another example is the web-based ManagEnergyxviii, which promotes cooperation between local and regional energy actors in Europe through workshops
and online events on energy efficiency, renewable energy and sustainable transport.
8.3.2.4
Planning
Energy efficiency can also be implemented through the planning system and building
regulations. At a national level, planning policy has the ability to direct the targets of
Regional and Local Government. Planning Policy Statements (PPS) set out the
Government's national policies for different aspects of land use planning in England
The most recent Planning Policy Statement, PPS22 provides detailed planning
guidance on renewable energy schemes, stressing the need for planning authorities
to be more pro-active and positive about green energy projects and policies. The
policies set out in this statement will need to be taken into account by regional
planning bodies in the preparation of regional spatial strategies, and by local planning
authorities in the preparation of local development documents164.
At a regional level, a number of strategies and plans may hold importance for energy
efficiency. Regional Planning Guidance has the primary purpose of providing a
regional framework for the preparation of local authority development plans. The
xvii
www.climatemenu.org
xviii
www.managenergy.net
66
ADAS Final Report
other purpose of this guidance is to provide the spatial framework for other strategies
and programmes. One of the themes for regional planning guidance is energy
efficiency and renewable energy, whereby Regional government can set targets for
emissions reduction and renewable electricity generation. For example, the recently
revised Regional Planning Guidance in the South East (RPG9) for energy efficiency
and renewable energy sets targets for regional and local planning authorities and
developers to reduce CO2 emissions and provide 16% of the region’s electricity from
renewables by 2026165.
At a local government level, a number of planning actions, from strategic through to
building regulations and planning applications, have the ability to implement energy
efficiency measures and targets. Strategic planning takes place through local
strategic partnerships (LSPs) and Local Development Frameworks (LDFs), which
interpret and support the aims of their regional spatial strategies.
At a ground level, the Energy Performance of Buildings has undergone a lengthy
review process and the government have now published proposals for changes to
Part L of the Building regulations, which deal with energy efficiency. There is now a
significant general change from previous regulations through the recognition of the
need to improve the energy efficiency of existing buildings through changes such as
requiring replacement glazing and boilers to meet the same requirements as for new
buildings. For new dwellings, changes include higher standards of insulation, the
inclusion of a ‘carbon index’ method to demonstrate compliance, certification of
heating and hot water systems to show that they have been correctly installed and
commissioned.
The aim of the proposals is to reduce carbon dioxide emission from buildings by up
to 25%, and the planning applications process, dealt with by local authorities, will
undoubtedly need to take into account whether or not the target will be met.
8.3.2.5
Other bodies
A number of organisations external to the government now exist, with the key aim of
facilitating the delivery of energy efficiency targets at all levels. For example, the
Energy Savings Trust was set up by the Government in 1992 following the Rio
Summit. It is funded by UK Government and the private sector. The organisation
provides advice for individual homeowners, housing stock, housing trade, individual
car owners, fleet companies and transport trade, as well as local authorities. There
are a number of tools available for the implementation of energy efficiency measure,
three examples being the Best Practice in Housing publication, guidance for small
wind energy installations, and guidance for community heating.
The Carbon Trust is also an independent company funded by Government. Its role is
to help the UK move to a low carbon economy by helping business and the public
sector reduce carbon emissions now and capture the commercial opportunities of low
carbon technologies. The Carbon Trust is focused on reducing carbon emissions in
the short and medium term through energy efficiency and carbon management, and
in the medium and long-term through investment in low carbon technologies166.
On a smaller scale, there are local energy efficiency advice centres, web-based
energy efficiency advicexix and the National Energy Foundation (NEF) hosts the
Energy Efficiency Accreditation Scheme, the UK’s only independent award
recognising reductions in energy use. All of these are supported via the Association
xix
www.adviceguide.org.uk
67
ADAS Final Report
of UK Energy Agencies (AUKEA), which was established to promote and support the
activities of independent energy agencies within the United Kingdom in their work of
developing the more sustainable production and use of energy167.
8.3.3 Reducing emissions v reducing demand
It is evident that energy efficiency is now well established within government policies
and through external organisations, in an attempt to reduce CO2. In theory, the
success of these energy efficiency measures should also equate to a reduction in
energy demand. A review of these activities fails to elicit any mention of energy
efficiency being used to mitigate rising demand, and their effects on demand are not
quantified. It is important to recognise that reduced energy demand can reduce
carbon emissions without any negative affects on biodiversity. Hence the role of
increased energy efficiency and demand reduction should be considered fully and
opportunities for increased energy efficiency should be pursued as thoroughly as
opportunities for renewable energy generation.
68
ADAS Final Report
9.0 Conclusions and recommendations
9.1 Recommendations to reduce biodiversity impacts
All the renewable energy technologies reviewed have some negative effect on the
biodiversity of their locality. Such effects range from slight and often temporary
effects, such as disturbance of feeding patterns during construction operations, to
highly significant impacts with permanent and widespread effects, such as loss of a
habitat through flooding for small-scale hydro-electric schemes.
But some
technology types also have the capacity to enhance biodiversity and whilst such
improvements are generally slight and may be limited by the existing biodiversity
level, they can also be highly significant and are usually permanent.
From the literature review it is clear that 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 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). There are also indirect biodiversity
benefits from solar water heating and ground source heat pumps (GSHP) since they
also contribute to reducing electricity demand (both through the provision of heat
and, for GSHP, cooling).
But the effects of any power source are partly dependent upon the size of the unit
and the number of units in operation. 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) For biomass systems, multiple sources of fuel are utilised.
The point relating to mitigation is important and highlights the need for research and
post-construction monitoring at consented installations to test the effectiveness of
mitigation measures. Such monitoring should be summarised and published to
facilitate the spread of best practice. Clearly, other constraints apply to the location
of renewable energy development, including technical ones, which will reduce the
actual area available for renewables. Reconciliation of potentially conflicting
demands could be most effectively addressed by strategic spatial planning.
For biomass, 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 required, 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 of its impact (positive or negative) on biodiversity. The provision of
smaller scale plantings of biomass has a stronger positive effect on
biodiversity than large-scale plantings supplying larger power stations.
Smaller combined heat and power (CHP) based biomass power stations also have
the added indirect biodiversity benefit of reducing energy demand, since electricity for
heating currently makes up around 50% of primary energy generation. However, the
69
ADAS Final Report
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
enhancing biodiversity within the plantations may help offset the effect of plantation
scale. Currently these are best developed for 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
heterogeneity168. Further guidance is needed to maximise biodiversity benefits
and minimise impacts for other crop types.
The biodiversity impact of importing biomass fuel would depend upon the type of fuel
sourced, the country of origin and the mitigation 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.
However, a better solution would be the increased production and use of existing
biomass sources in the UK. The increased funding announced under the PIU report
for encouraging the development of infrastructure linking growers and energy
providers and encouraging development of near market biomass power sources,
needs also to link such development to best practice guidelines to ensure minimal
impact on biodiversity.
The type of land used for biomass production is critical to reducing the biodiversity
impacts. Biomass production on more productive land has the potential to provide a
positive impact by providing more diverse habitats and a wider range of food
sources. Agricultural policy, particularly with regard to the use of set aside, will have
a significant effect on the impact of biomass crops on biodiversity. The Government
should seek to ensure biomass crops are not eligible for use on set-aside or to
encourage the replacement of lost overwinter stubbles with another seed
source, e.g. wild bird cover crops, and a summer nesting/foraging resource, e.g.
unsprayed grass field margins.
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 (e.g. are there long-term impacts as a result of
displacement?) and the effectiveness of some mitigation proposals, such as tailored
turbine layouts to aid 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. Those monitoring
programmes in place now, 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 summarised into guidelines for
developers to provide an indication best practice in 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
70
ADAS Final Report
biodiversity problems elsewhere. Other countries providing cheap sources of
electricity (e.g. recent E.U. accession states and countries outside the EU) are less
likely to have measures in place to safeguard biodiversity interests against energy
production than wealthier North-West European states. 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 are also uncertainties about the effects of marine technologies on biodiversity.
Little is known about the impacts of wave and tidal technologies, particularly the
developing technologies, which are still at the early experimental stages. It is
important that potential impacts on biodiversity, as indicated in the significance
matrices, are researched from an early stage and that research continues into the
scaling-up phases of development of these technologies. Current understanding of
impacts or potential impacts arises largely from large-scale tidal barrages; 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 should be noted that an alternative/complementary way of minimising biodiversity
impacts, whilst achieving the renewable energy target, is to reduce electricity
demand. There is a need for coherent policy combinations that link incentives
for renewable energy and energy efficiency to biodiversity protection.
9.2 Further research
A number of areas have been identified from this assessment as requiring further
research.
9.2.1 Biomass energy
Further information on the impacts of biomass production needs to evaluate the
biodiversity value of novel biomass crops relative to the land-use types that they
replace. This requires adequately replicated before/after and control/experiment
studies on crops that are managed in a commercially representative way. Lack of
available area of crops such as Miscanthus and switchgrass currently prevents such
studies. The productivity of ground-nesting bird species in rapidly-growing grass
biomass crops also should be examined in order to determine whether these crops
allow successful breeding to fledging.
There is also a need to examine the effects of large-scale removal of forestry coproducts on woodland ecosystems, especially on saprophytic and invertebrate
communities, and their dependants. Can leaving a proportion of woody material
prevent negative biodiversity effects? What economic impact would this have?
Whilst this review has considered the impact of biomass on biodiversity within the
habitats producing the material, the wider scale impacts of biomass crops on the
hydrology on surrounding land and watercourses also needs investigation.
9.2.2 Onshore and Offshore wind energy
Most of the research requirements for wind turbines relate to their effects on birds in
terms of both presenting a barrier to movements (on and off shore) and to collision
risk (particularly offshore). The studies need to consider whether effects are long or
short term and how they affect flight behaviour. The effects of lighting, and the
effectiveness of shielding, intermittent light and light of different intensity, consistent
with the needs for navigation and air safety, offshore and onshore also need further
investigation.
In particular offshore, there is a need for greater understanding of bird movements,
temporal variations, regular and local movements including foraging flights, migratory
71
ADAS Final Report
sea crossings including those by nocturnal migrants. The use of radar, radio-tracking
and the further development of other remote techniques will be an important aspect
of such research. In this respect, the review of application of remote technologies
already in use, commissioned by COWRIE, will provide important leads. These
techniques also have application onshore where further targeted research would be
useful.
Onshore, research is needed into impacts on peat hydrology and stability in
particular, including the further development of construction techniques suitable for
long-term infrastructure.
Mitigation measures in the form of increasing the visibility of rotating blades to
improve avoidance by birds and bats, by day and by night, and in conditions of poor
visibility, onshore and offshore are also needed.
9.2.3 Novel technologies
The low level of uptake of these technologies means that the effects of scaling up
their usage are relatively unknown. Hence, further work is needed to examine the
widespread use of PV panels on the risk of bird collision. Further strategic level
research should also consider the scope for using renewables to produce the
hydrogen or fuel for fuels cells (without which their environmental benefits are largely
local).
The main biodiversity effects of novel systems are through the risk of pollution from
chemicals used within them either during operation or on decommissioning. To this
end further work is still needed on:
 The environmental impact on soil organisms of anti-freeze in SWH and GSHP
systems,
 The scope for recycling and or reusing Photovoltaics,
 The scope for alternative materials for the production of Photovoltaics.
9.2.4 Marine Technologies
Marine systems are naturally dynamic and the development and field-testing of
suitable computer models is likely to play an important role in understanding the
impacts of these technologies on biodiversity. Research in place, including under the
auspices of COWRIE for offshore wind, is investigating issues such as the effects of
noise and vibration and of electro-magnetic fields. The outcome of such research
may indicate the need for further work, notably in respect of new marine
technologies.
Aspects of marine renewable technologies in general that require research include:


Sediment transport, erosion and deposition regimes and the impacts of the
different technologies. (Defra is undertaking research at Scroby Sands in relation
to offshore wind),
Impacts on wave and tidal regimes of extracting energy.
If/when marine renewable technologies prove themselves; it is likely that there will be
a rapid deployment of installations over the next 10 to 15 years. It would be useful to
identify hotspot areas for development and thus the potential impact scenarios for
such developments. If this work were conducted early enough, mitigation measures
could be tested and activated sooner.
9.2.5 Policy and legislative measures
Defra has recently published guidance on the implication of the EC Wild Birds and
Habitat Directive for developers undertaking offshore wind farms.169 But guidelines
are also needed for environmental protection in other renewable (marine and
72
ADAS Final Report
terrestrial) and conventional energy technologies and for each of the devolved
administrations – the significance matrices produced within this project and the high
level impact assessment undertaken for marine RE sources in Welsh territorial
waters24 could provide the starting point for identifying the impacts. As with the Defra
publication, such guidance would illustrate the hierarchy of measures/standards that
need to be met and make comparisons against the existing polices and legislation in
place at a country level.
On-going monitoring and analysis has been highlighted as an area where further
work is needed to determine the effectiveness of mitigation measures. In particular,
such assessments should examine:
 The effectiveness of the existing and evolving UK and country-level policy, land
use planning and legal mechanisms to mitigate RE impacts on biodiversity, with
particular reference to the need for rationalising, coordinating and improving
controls in the marine environment,
 The extent to which the application of these existing and evolving land use
planning and legal mechanisms support or conflict with the UK’s international and
national biodiversity commitments (including the Convention on Biological
Diversity and internationally protected species, the Habitats and Birds Directives
and Natura 2000 network, Ramsar sites, Biodiversity Habitat and Species Action
Plans, etc.). Particular attention needs to be given to the surveillance and
enforcement of legal requirements,
 The effectiveness of EIA, ‘appropriate assessment’ and SEA in accurately
predicting impacts of RE on biodiversity; particular attention needs to be given to
impacts on the less understood environments, including the marine environment
and soil biodiversity, and to cumulative, synergistic and indirect impacts in all
environments,
 The implementation and the effectiveness of mitigation measures proposed within
EIA, ‘appropriate assessment’ and SEA. Particular attention needs to be given to
impacts on the less understood environments including the marine environment
and soil biodiversity and to effects from multiple technologies within different
habitats, and
 The influence of RE biomass policy, CAP reform and new agri-environment
schemes on the take-up of biomass cropping.
Publication of such assessments would also help to highlight and encourage best
practice.
9.2.6 General issues
The effects on biodiversity of the different scales of operation of each of the
renewable technologies needs further examination; less is known about the effects of
widespread small-scale biomass or wind turbine operations, than about the largescale systems. Similarly current, tidal and wave energy technology impacts are only
apparent from small-scale systems. As indicated by the difference between the
impacts of small and large-scale hydro-power sources, the size of the energy
generation systems could be critical to the resulting biodiversity impact.
9.3 Conclusion
To date strenuous efforts have been made, with considerable success, to avoid the
development of renewable energy sources at the most sensitive locations for nature
conservation and biodiversity. This has contributed to the low incidence of
recorded problems for biodiversity in the UK, although there have been problems
at some installations internationally170, which indicates the continued need for a duty
of care in the consenting process. Site and species specific impacts are such that it
makes it extremely difficult to predict the effects of scale under the different energy
generation scenarios. However the assessments of land-take needed for the
different future scenarios suggest that onshore and offshore wind technologies, and
73
ADAS Final Report
to a lesser extent biomass, could provide a significant proportion of the renewable
energy generation target without a negative effect on biodiversity, provided sensitive
locations are avoided and mitigation measures are rigorously followed. Novel
technologies should also be encouraged due to their low biodiversity impact and their
potential (in the case of SWH and GSHP systems) to reduce energy demand.
Legislative and policy measures are available to mitigate and remove many of the
biodiversity impacts identified in this review. However, the effectiveness of these
mechanisms in achieving biodiversity protection depends on their effective
implementation, which in turn depends on the level of political commitment and
availability of adequate resources. Crucial among these measures is to ensure that
areas of greatest sensitivity are appropriately assessed to avoid damage. Yet,
there are still considerable unknowns especially in the distribution and functioning of
many habitats and species. Since the “precautionary principle” is a fundamental
basis for EU conservation policy, this should be applied in the development of RE
sources, particularly in the marine environment and other situations where
knowledge of impacts is scarce. In addition there is a lack of consideration of the
cumulative impacts of different pressures on biodiversity. For example, The
Natura 2000 Network is made up of a suite of SPA sites across Europe but there is
no attempt to consider how the spatial pattern of renewable energy resources is
affecting the integrity of this network.
74
ADAS Final Report
Appendix 1 – Significance matrix
See SignificanceMatrix.xls
75
ADAS Final Report
Appendix 2 – Reference Source Matrix
See Refmatrix.xls
76
ADAS Final Report
Appendix 3- Future technology scales
See FutureScaleMatrix.xls
77
ADAS Final Report
Appendix 4 - “Soft Law” biodiversity protection measures
Convention on Biological Diversity (CBD) UNECE Convention
The CBD’s objectives include the conservation of species and habitats within national
jurisdiction and the application of national strategies, plans and programmes for
biodiversity conservation, together with the integration of biodiversity into sectoral
and cross-sectoral policies, plans and programmes. The UK Biodiversity Action Plan
1994, Local BAPS and Species and Habitat Plans, including for coastal and marine
habitats, have their origins in the CBD. The CBD is implemented in UK by the CRoW
Act 2000 and Nature Conservation (Scotland) Act 2004, which include statutory
duties on Government departments to conserve biodiversity.
Ramsar Convention (1971, in force 1975)
The Convention provides a framework for national action and international cooperation, especially via site designation to: afford protection to wetlands of
international importance; stem encroachment on and loss of wetlands and contribute
to sustainable development. It is implemented in the UK via the planning systems
and SSSIs and sites are afforded the same protection in UK law as European Special
Areas of Conservation (SACs) & Special Protection Areas (SPAs) or pSACs and
cSACs.
UN Convention on the Law of the Sea (UNCLOS) (1982)
UNCLOS establishes the UK’s sovereignty over its territorial seas and the marine
living resources within it and allows, inter alia, the adoption of legal provisions for the
preservation of the environment, including the prevention, reduction and control of
pollution171.
Convention for Protection of the Marine Environment of the North-East Atlantic
(1992) (OSPAR)
Annex V of the OSPAR Convention entered force in August 2000 and requires
signatories to take the necessary measures to protect and conserve the ecosystems
and biological diversity of the maritime area and to restore, where practicable, marine
areas which have been adversely affected.
Bern Convention (1979 in force 1982)
The Convention on Conservation of European Wildlife & Natural Habitats aims to
conserve wild flora and fauna in their natural habitats, particularly endangered
species and especially when conservation requires the co-operation of several
states. Signatories are to take measures to protect habitats and species listed in the
Convention’s 3 Appendices, corresponding to their ecological, scientific and cultural
requirements
Bonn Convention (1979 into force 1983)
The Convention on the Conservation of Migratory Species of Wild Animals aims to
conserve terrestrial, marine & avian migratory species and their habitats, by providing
strict protection for endangered migratory species listed in Appendix 1 of Convention
throughout their range.
78
ADAS Final Report
Appendix 5 - EU Directives
EU Habitats Directive172 (1992)
The Directive requires the UK, inter alia, to implement a strict system of protection for
listed species and to achieve their Favourable Conservation status; to establish sites
for natural habitats listed in Annex I and sites containing habitats of species listed in
Annex II; to monitor the conservation status of all habitats and species, including
aquatic ecosystems; to endeavour to effectively manage landscape features of
importance to wildlife within their land-use, planning and development plans. The
Natura 2000 network incorporates Special Areas of Conservation (SACs) and
Special Protection Areas (SPAs). ‘Appropriate’ assessment is required for any plan
or project (PP), which alone or in combination with other PPs, inside or outside the
site, is likely to have a significant effect on the integrity of an SPA/SAC. Such
impacts may, for example, include interference with bird flyways by a wind farm.
However defining what is a significant effect is difficult.
A high degree of confidence is required that ‘no impact’ will occur and the
‘precautionary principle’ must be applied; alternatives must be considered and
adopted if feasible and mitigation may, in some circumstances be able to reduce or
remove impacts. Cumulative impacts must be considered e.g. the total bird strike
from a proposed wind farm should be assessed in addition to bird strike from other
wind farms in the area. If an alternative scheme would prevent damage to the
integrity of the site the development affecting the site’s integrity should not proceed.
Developments are only supposed to proceed if the integrity of the site will not be
affected, unless ‘overriding reasons of public interest’ are demonstrated. If such
reasons are established and the development proceeds despite damage to the site’s
integrity, compensatory measures are required to protect the overall coherence of
N2000.
The Directive’s requirements are intended to be implemented in the UK by the
Conservation (Natural Habitats) Regulations 1994 (which need to be amended to
properly transpose the Directive), the Wildlife & Countryside Act 1981 and the
Countryside & Rights of Way Act (CRoW) 2000 and the land use planning system.
Following a legal challenge in 1999 it has now been confirmed that SACs and SPAs
may be designated in the marine environment to the limit of the UK’s jurisdiction, the
200 nautical mile limit (Boyes et al, 2003a), previously it had been restricted to the
Territorial Waters limit (12nm).
EU Birds Directive173 (1979)
The Directive, inter alia, requires measures including the creation of Special
Protection Areas (SPAs), to maintain a sufficient diversity of habitats for all European
bird species. Special measures are required to conserve habitats of rare and
vulnerable species and all species listed in Birds Directive Annex 1 (i.e. regularly
occurring migratory species). Special measures include designation of SPAs and
protection from deterioration, and re-establishment of the necessary diversity and
extent of habitat. In the marine environment the designation process for both SPA
and SACs is not as far advanced as on land and this causes difficulties with providing
consents for marine renewables, which would tend to avoid such sensitive areas.
The Commission is currently reviewing the effectiveness of the Directive’s
implementation.
9.3.1.1
Strategic Environmental Assessment (SEA) Directive174
The Directive aims to provide a high level of protection of the environment and to
integrate environmental considerations into the preparation and adoption of plans
and programmes, with a view to promoting sustainable development. SEA is
79
ADAS Final Report
implemented in the UK by (country-specific) Regulations. SEA requires systematic
evaluation of the environmental consequences of plans and programmes and
significantly, it requires monitoring of direct, indirect, cumulative impacts of plans and
programmes, as well as alternative, all of which offer potential for the recognition and
correction of biodiversity damage from both renewable and conventional energy
technologies. SEA is required for plans and programmes which come within the
Regulations for land use planning, agriculture, forestry, fisheries, energy, industry,
transport, waste management, water management, telecommunications and tourism
or are likely to have an effect on a Natura 2000 site.
Environmental Impact Assessment (EIA) Directive175
The Directive is implemented in the UK by a range of EIA Regulations associated
with different sectors. Significant environmental effects of certain public and private
projects must be assessed by EIA and means identified to mitigate damage and to
enhance environmental quality and ecosystem functions.
Preparation of
environmental statements should be collaborative and involve local planning
authorities, statutory, non-statutory consultees and the public. Criticism has been
levelled at the continued variable quality of EIAs and the resulting limits of their
capacity to assess and mitigate negative impacts. In view of the uncertain or
unknown impacts of some renewable technologies the absence of a monitoring
requirement within projects submitted to EIA remains a major weakness of EIA.
Water Framework Directive176 (WFD) (2000)
The WFDxx aims to: prevent further deterioration and protect and enhance the status
of aquatic ecosystems; to promote sustainable water consumption based on the
long-term protection of available water resources; to achieve “good ecological status”
of surface waters and “good” status” of groundwater by 2015 through river basin
planning, management and monitoring.
xx
Implemented in England & Wales by Water Environment (Water Framework Directive)
Regulations 2003 (SI 2003 No 3242); in Scotland by Water Environment & Water Services
(Scotland) Act 2003; in Northern Ireland Water Environment (Framework) Directive
Regulations (Northern Ireland) 2003 (SR 2003 No. 544
80
ADAS Final Report
Appendix 6 - Persons consulted and workshop attendees
Stakeholders consulted
Name
Amy Dunkley
Jessa Battersby
Catriona Carlin
Chris Laughton
Dr Robin Curtis
Roger Hitchin
Rod Hacker
Derek Taylor
Kate Rumbold
Steven Glaser
Roger Covey
Melissa Moore
Sarah Wood
Dr Miles Hoskin
Dr Ross Coleman
Zoë Crutchfield
Stacey Fair
Lisa Browning
Organisation
Bat Conservation Trust (BCT)
JNCC
English Nature
MD of Very Efficient Heating Company
Technical Manager of GeoScience
BRE
Director of PV-UK
Independent renewable energy consultant
Woking Borough Council
ECSE
English Nature
Marine Conservation Society
Countryside Council for Wales
MER Consultants
University of Plymouth
JNCC
CEFAS
The Wildlife Trusts
Workshop attendees
Name
Louise Vall
Sally Archer
Zoë Crutchfield
Rufus Sage
Ian Bainbridge
Sarah Webster
Fiona Lock
Rohit Talwar
Mike Brook
Melissa Moore
Jeff Kirby
Richard Keating
Julia Knights
David Howard
Andrew Riche
Alison Haughton
Rowena Langston
Guy Anderson
Martin Fodor
Project Team
Christine Ballard
Peter Edwards
Bethan Clemence
Jo Hossell
Nicola Harper
Organisation
Defra
Dulas
JNCC
GCT
SEERAD
Defra (Chairperson)
Defra
Defra
DTI
Marine Conservation Society
Defra (Defra Project Manager)
Countryside Agency
Defra
CEH
Rothamsted
Rothamsted
RSPB
RSPB
EA
NEF
Acorus
ADAS
ADAS (Project Manager)
Orecon
81
ADAS Final Report
Zana Juppenlatz
Ecoscape Associates
Comments on draft matrices
Name
Ian Shield, David Bohan
and Angela Karp
Melissa Moore
Sarah Wood
Adrian Judd and Stacey
Faire
Jeff Kirby and Susan Anne
Davis
Zoë Crutchfield
Richard Keating
Organisation
Rothamsted
Marine Conservation Society
Countryside Council for Wales
CEFAS
Defra
JNCC
Community Renewables Initiative
82
ADAS Final Report
Appendix 7 - References
1
DTI (2003), Energy White Paper, Our energy future: creating a low carbon future. HMSO
DTI (2004), Renewables Innovation Review. HMSO
3 OFGEM, (2002) Information Note 2: Energy From Waste Generating Stations
4 Directive 85/337/EEC as amended by 97/11/EC and 2003/35/EC.
5 SEA Directive is 2001/42/EC
6 Scottish and Southern Energy Plc, (2003) Hadyard Hill Wind Farm Environmental Statement
The Non Technical Summary. www.scottish-southern.com
7 Environmental Sustainable Systems, (2004) Cumulative effects of wind turbines
http://ds.dial.pipex.com/paul.ess/main.html
8 Renewable Power Association, (2005) http://www.r-p-a.org.uk/article_flat.fcm?articleid=16 .
Accessed 10/01/05.
9
David Wilcock / Ceiriog Valley Action Group (2002) The Threat to Birds
http://www.cvag.campaign.btinternet.co.uk
10 Scottish Natural Heritage (2002) SNH Policy Statement 02/02: Strategic Locational
Guidance for Onshore Wind Farms in Respect of the Natural Heritage http://www.snh.org.uk
11 Arnold, G.W., (1983). The influence of ditch and hedgerow structure, length of hedgerow
and area of woodland and garden on bird numbers on farmland. Journal of Applied Ecology.
20, 731-750.
12
Sage, R.B. and Robertson, P.A., 1996. Factors affecting songbird communities using new
short rotation coppice habitats in spring. Bird Study, 43, 201-213.
13 English Nature (2003) Memorandum submitted by English Nature to the Select Committee
on
Environment,
Food
and
Rural
Affairs
http://www.parliament.the-stationeryoffice.co.uk/pa/cm200203/cmselect/cmenvfru/929/929we20.htm
14 Semere & Slater, (2004) The effects of energy grass plantations on biodiversity - 2nd
annual inSterim report Cardiff University
15 Murray & Best (2003) Short-term bird response to harvesting switchgrass for biomass in
Iowa. Journal of Wildlife Management 67 (3): p611-621
16 Sage, R.B., (2000). The Ecology of Short-Rotation Coppice Crops: Wildlife and Pest
Management. PhD Thesis, University of Hertfordshire. pp134.
17 Coates and Say (1999) Ecological assessment of Short Rotation Coppice, ETSU,
B/W5/00216/REP/1
18 Department of Natural Resources, (2004) Michigan. http://www.michigan.gov/dnr/0,1607,7153-10364_27415-80298--,00.html
19 Swiss Federal Office of Energy (2001) Impact on the Environment of Solar and Wind
Energy Installations. 10th January, 2001
20 Alsema, E. and Nieuwlaar, E. (1997) Environmental Aspects of Solar Cell Technology. Life
Cycle Assessment of Photovoltaic Panels. Netherlands Agency for Energy and Environment.
21
Nickel
Institute
(2004)
Human
Health
and
the
Environment.
http://www.nickelinstitute.org/index.cfm/ci_id/10/la_id/1.htm Accessed 14th June 2004
22 DTI, 2002. Future Offshore - A Strategic Framework for the Offshore Wind Industry
23Seascape energy, (2002) www.seascape-energy.co.uk/env_statement.html accessed July
2004
24 Ball, I (2002) Turning the Tide: Power from the sea and protection for nature, A report by
Marine and Coastal Environment Group (MACE), Cardiff University to WWF-UK and the
Wildlife Trusts http://www.tidalelectric.com/WWFturningthetide.pdf
25 University of Liverpool and Econnect Ltd (2003) A baseline assessment of electromagnetic
fields generated by offshore windfarm cables, COWRIE-EMF-01-2002
26 ABPmer, (2005) Potential nature conservation and landscape impacts of marine renewable
energy developments in Welsh territorial waters. CCW policy research report no 04/8.
27 The Wildlife Trusts (2004), Marine Renewable Energy Briefing Paper
28 Metoc ltd (2000) An Assessment of the environmental effects of offshore wind farms.
29 Wave Dragon (2004)
http://www.wavedragon.net/library/technical_reports/the_wave_dragon_reality.pdf Accessed
November 23rd 2004
30 Robert Gordon University, (2002) A Scoping Study for an environmental impact field
experiment in tidal current energy
2
83
ADAS Final Report
31
Gordon, DC, (1994) Intertidal Ecology and potential power impacts, Bay of Fundy, Canada.
Biological Journal of the Linnean Society 51 17-23
32 Foresight Marine Panel (2003)The potential for ‘Wet’ renewables to aid coastal protection.
A report on the Bridgewater Bay situation.
33 DTI, (2005) http://www.dti.gov.uk/renewables/ Accessed 28/9/05
34 DTI (2003), Energy White Paper, Our energy future: creating a low carbon future. HMSO
35
US Nuclear Regulatory Commission, (2004). Www.nrc.gov/reading-rm-doc-collections/regguides/environmental-siting/active/04-007/04-007r2b.htm. Accessed 17/07/04.
36 WCI, (2001) Sustainable Entrepreneurship. The way forward for the coal industry. Prepared
for the UNEP Programme. WCI, London: 53pp
37 MMSD, (2002) Breaking New Ground. Mining, Minerals and Sustainable Development. The
Report of the MMSD Project. Earthscan 450pp
38 Epstein, P.R., and Selber, J., (eds.) (2002). Oil. A life cycle analysis of its health and
environmental impacts. CHGE, Harvard, Boston: pp73
39 OSIR, (1999). Oil Spill Intelligence Report. Arlington, MA
40 Epstein, P.R., and Selber, J., (eds.) (2002). Oil. A life cycle analysis of its health and
environmental impacts. CHGE, Harvard, Boston: pp73
41 Boesch, D.F., and Rabalais, N.N., (1987). Long Term Environmental Effects of Offshore Oil
and Gas Development. Elsevier Science, New York.
42 Bamber, R.N., and Seaby, M.H. (2004). The effects of power station entrainment passage
on three species of marine planktonic crustacean, Acartia tonsa, Crangon crangon and
Homarus gammarus. Marine Environmental Research, 57, 281-294.
43 Henderson P.A. and Seaby R.M., (2000), Technical Evaluation of US Environmental
Protection Agency Proposed Cooling Water Intake Regulations for New Facilities, Pisces
Conservation Ltd
44 Henderson P.A., (2004), Power Station Effects. http://www.powerstationeffects.co.uk.
Accessed 17/07/04.
45 Henderson P.A., (2004), op cit
46 Henderson P.A., (2004), op cit
47 Henderson P.A., (2004), op cit
48 Henderson P.A. and Seaby R.M., (2000), ,op cit
49 Kelso, J.R.M. & Milburn, G.S. (1979) Entrainment and impingement of fish by power plans
in the great lakes which use the once-through cooling process. Journal of Great Lakes
Research, 5, 182-194.
50 Henderson P.A. and Seaby R.M., (2000),op cit
51 Bamber, R.N., and Seaby, M.H. (2004) op cit.
52House of Commons, Environment Committee (1984) Acid rain: fourth report from the
Environment Committee: volume I: http://www.bopcris.ac.uk/imgall/ref21920_1_1.html
Accessed 19/12/04
53 International Power (Rugeley), (2002). Rugeley Power Station Proposed Flue Gas
Desulphurisation
Plant.
Non-technical
Summary
of
Environmental
Statement.
http://www.ipplc.com/ipplc/investors/findata/reports/rugeleyflue/rugeleyflue.pdf.
Accessed
10/01/05.
54 International Power (Rugeley), (2002). Op cit
55 Henderson P.A., (2004), op cit
56 Shaw, P.J.A., (1995). Establishment of sand dune flora on power station wastes. Land
Contamination and Reclamation, 3 148-149.
57 Shaw, P.J.A., (1994) Orchid woods and floating islands – the ecology of fly ash. British
Wildlife 5, 149-157.
58 Shaw, P.J.A.,(1998). Morphometric analyses of mixed Dactlyorhiza colonies (Orchidaceae)
on industrial waste sites in England. Botanical Journal of the Linnean Society, 128, 385-401.
59 Shaw P.J.A, (1992). Successional changes in vegetation and soil development on
unamended fly ash (PFA) in southern England. Journal of Applied Ecology, 29 728-736.
60 Shaw, P.J.A, (2003). Nature reserves, orchids and fly ash: the dynamics of Dactylorhiza
colonies during ecological succession. In The Ecology of Urban Environments: Proceedings
of a conference, Sheffield 6/12/2003.
61 UKQAA, (2002). The production and applications for Pulverised Fuel Ash (PFA).
http://www.ukqaa.org.uk/Environment/Production%20and%20Applications%20January%2020
03.pdf. Accessed 11/01/05
84
ADAS Final Report
62
UKQAA, (2002).op cit
CATF, (2001). Cradle to Grave. The Environmental Impact from Coal. Clean Air Task
Force, Boston: pp 11.
64 WCI, 2004. Coal and the Environment.
http://www.wci-coal.com/web/list.php?menu_id=4.8.2. Accessed 10/01/05
65 CATF, (2001). Op cit
66121
(2001),
Working
Paper
on
Environmental
Costs
and
Risks,
http://www.strategy.gov.uk/files/pdf/PIUg.pdf, accessed 10/1/05
67 OFGEN, (2003). OFGEN’s approach to environmental impact assessments. Paper for
JWGEE (03) 02.
68BNFL, (2002). Discharges and Monitoring of the Environment in the UK. Annual Report
2002.)
69 DTI, 2004. http://www.dti.gov.uk/renewable/hydroelectic-qu.html. Accessed 17/07/04
70 DTI (2003), Energy White Paper, Our energy future: creating a low carbon future. HMSO
71 LIHI (2004). http://www.lowimpacthydro.org/mission.html. Accessed 26/07/04
72 CCW, (2004). The Future of Britain’s Upland Waters. Presentation for “Why do we care
about upland waters?” Conference, 21st April 2004, U.C.L.
73 RWE Innogy, (2004). Ecological Considerations for hydro schemes. Presentation by RWE
Innogy to the IEEM Conference “Renewable Energy: Is it ecologically friendly?”, 18th May
2004.
74 First Hydro (2004). http://www.fhc.co.uk. Accessed 17/07/04
75 Scottish & Southern, 2004. http://www.scottish-southern.co.uk/pftg/.
76 DTI, (2004) Digest of United Kingdom Energy Statistics.
77 British Wind Energy Association (BWEA), (2004) www.bwea.com, accessed 24/12/04
78 E4Tech, (2003) Biomass for Heat and Power in the UK: A techno-economic assessment of
long term potential. Final Report to DTI: 97pp
79 MacDonald, A., (2004) “Biomass Energy”. Presentation at IEEM Conference, ‘Renewable
Energy: Is it ecologically friendly’? The Institute of Ecology and Environmental Management,
18th May 2004.
80 RPA, (2004)
Map of biomass generating stations in the UK. http://www.r-pa.org.uk/article_flat.fcm?articleid=9. Accessed 12/01/05
81 Forestry Commission (2004) British Timber Statistics 2003. 26 August 2004. Economics &
Statistics, FC, Edinburgh.
82 Forestry Commission (2004) Coniferous Standing Sales Price Index – 27 May 2004.
Economics & Statistics, FC, Edinburgh.
83ERC, (2004) “Renewables – the big picture”. Presentation at IEEM Conference, Renewable
Energy: Is it ecologically friendly? The Institute of Ecology and Environmental Management,
18th May 2004.
84 Defra, (2005) Energy: Biomass Study Task Force.
http://www.defra.gov.uk/farm/acu/energy/biomass-taskforce/. Accessed 12/01/05.
85 DTI (2004), Renewables Innovation Review. HMSO
86 Heaton, R. 2005, ADAS pers comm
87 Science and Technology Committee, 2004. Renewable Energy: Practicalities. 4 th report of
session 2003-2004. Volume 1:Report. House of Lords, London: pp129
88 Power UK, 2002. Co-firing rule change set to threaten other green projects. Power UK, 106
13-17.
89 Defra, (2005) Bio-energy Infrastructure Scheme.
http://www.defra.gov.uk/farm/acu/energy/infrastructure.htm. Accessed 12/01/05.
90 Eco Centre, (2004) http://www.ecocentre.org.uk/hydro-power.html Accessed July 2004
91 DTI, (2004) Power Stations in the United Kingdom. HMSO.
92 Bossert, R., Tool, C., Roosmalen, J., Wentink, C., de Vaan, M. (2000) Thin Film Solar
Cells. Technology Evaluation and Perspectives. The Netherlands Agency for Energy and the
Environment. Reference 146.150-010.1
93 ; Alsema, E. (1999) Energy Requirements and CO Mitigation Potential of PV Systems.
2
Photovoltaics and the Environment. Workshop Proceedings, Brookhaven National Laboratory.
Report No. BNL 52557
94 Dones, R. and Frischnecht, R. (1997) Life Cycle Assessment of Photovoltaic Systems:
Results of Swiss Studies on Energy Chains. Environmental Aspects of PV Power Systems.
Utrecht University Report No. 97072.
63
85
ADAS Final Report
95
Kato, K., Murata, A. and Sakuta, K. (1997) Energy Payback Time and Life-Cycle CO2
Emission of Residential PV Power System with Silicon PV Module. Environmental Aspects of
PV Power Systems. Utrecht University Report No. 97072
96 Palz, W. and Zibetta, H. (1991) Energy Pay-back Time of Photovoltaic Modules.
International Journal of Solar Energy. Volume 10. Nos 3-4. pp211-216.
97 U.S. Department of Energy Photovoltaics Program (2004) Photovoltaic Thin Film
Manufacturing Cost Reduction. http://www.azom.com/details.asp?ArticleID=1167. Accessed
30th December, 2004.
98 Chapman, J. and Gross, R. (2001) Technical and economic potential of renewable energy
generating technologies: Potential and cost reductions in 2020, Working paper for UK Cabinet
Office Performance and Innovation Unit (now Strategy Unit)
99 Solar Century (2004) News Release - 06 July 2004 UK’s first solar PV plant gets switched
on. http://www.solarcentury.co.uk/news/newsitem.jsp?newsid=388 Accessed 14th July 2004
100 DTI (2003), Energy White Paper, Our energy future: creating a low carbon future. HMSO
101
Prime Minister’s Strategy Unit (2001) Renewable Energy – Further note.
http://www.strategy.gov.uk/output/Page4274.asp Accessed 19th July 2004
102 Boyle, G. (2004) Renewable Energy. Power for a Sustainable Future. Second Edition.
Oxford: Oxford University Press and The Open University
103 DTI (2003) A Fuel Cell Vision for the UK – the first steps. Taking the White Paper forward.
http://www.dti.gov.uk/energy/renewables/technologies/FuelCellVision.pdf Accessed June 16th
2004
104 ESTIF (2003) Sun in Action II. A Solar Thermal Strategy for Europe. Volume 2. The Solar
Thermal Sector Country by Country 21 National Reports. April 2003. European Solar Thermal
Industry Federation. Brussels
105 Solar Trade Association (2004) Discussion with Chief Executive. June 15 th 2004.
106 British Wind Energy Association (BWEA) (2005)http://www.bwea.com/ukwed/offshore.asp
accessed September 2005
107 DTI (2004), Renewables Innovation Review. Op cit
108 Regen SW (2004). 'Wave Hub' Project: Progress on the Feasibility Study – December
2004. Regen SW Briefing, December 2004.
109 ABPmer (2004) Atlas of UK Marine Renewable Energy Resources: a Technical Report.
http://www.dti.gov.uk/renewables/renew_atlastechnicalreport.htm
110 Oxera (2004). Results of Renewables Market Modelling. Report to DTI.
111
British Biogen (2000). Short Rotation Coppice for Energy Production: good practice
guidelines. Available from www.britishbiogen.co.uka
112 Price L, Bullard M, Lyons H, Anthony S & Nixon P. (2004) Identifying the yield potential of
Miscanthus x giganteus: an assessment of the spatial and temporal variability of M-x
giganteus
biomass
productivity
across
England
and
Wales
Biomass & Bioenergy 26: 3-13
113 Royal Commission on Environmental Pollution (2004) Biomass as a renewable energy
source. Available from www.rcep.org.uk
114 Barr, C.J., Bunce, R.G.H., Clarke, R.T., Firbank, L.G., Gillespie, M.K., Howard, D.C., Petit,
S., Smart, S.M., Stuart, R.C. & Watkins, J.W., 2003. Methodology of Countryside Survey
2000 Module 1: Survey of Broad Habitats and Landscape Features. Report by CEH to Defra,
Contract No. CR0212. www.cs2000.org.uk
115 Benton TG, Vickery JA & Wilson JD (2003) Farmland biodiversity: is habitat heterogeneity
the key? Trends in Ecology & Evolution. 18:182-188.
116 Weibull AC, Ostman O & Granqvist A (2003) Species richness in agroecosystems: the
effect of landscape, habitat and farm management. Biodiversity and Conservation 12:13351355.
117 Cunningham, MD, Bishop, JD, McKay. (2004) ARBRE monitoring – Ecology of short
rotation coppice. DTI project report URN 04/961.
118
DTI
(2002)
Energy
Consumption
in
the
UK,
HMSO
http://www.dti.gov.uk/energy/inform/energy_consumption/ecuk.pdf
119 Met Office/DETR (1999). Climate change and its impacts: Stabilisation of CO in the
2
atmosphere. The Meteorological Office, Bracknell. 28.
120Holman, I and Loveland, P (2002). Regional climate change impact and response studies
in East Anglia and North West England (RegIS). cc0337, Final report to MAFF, Soil survey
and Land Research Centre, Cranfield.
86
ADAS Final Report
121
Harrison, PA, Berry, PM and Dawson, TP (2001). Climate Change and Nature
Conservation in Britain and Ireland: Modelling natural resource responses to climate change
(the MONARCH project). UKCIP, Oxford.
122 Hossell, JE, Briggs, B and Hepburn, I (2000). Climate Change and UK Nature
Conservation: A review of the impact of climate change on UK species and habitat
conservation policy. Final report to DETR, Contract No CR0223, ADAS, Wolverhampton. 200.
123Thomas, C.D. et al., (2004), Extinction risk from climate change, Nature, (427),p 145-148
124 Crick, H and Sparks, TH (1999). "Climate change related to egg-laying trends." Nature
399(3): 423-424.
125 Parmesan, C (1999). "Poleward shifts in geographical ranges of butterfly species
associated with regional warming." Nature 399: 579-583.
126 Rehfisch, MM and Austin, GE (1999). "Ringed Plovers go east." BTO News 223: 14-15.
127 Huntley, B (1991). "How plants respond to climate change: Migration rates, individualism
and the consequences for plant communities." Annals of Botany 67: 15-22.
128 Hossell, JE, Ellis, N, Harley, M and Hepburn, IR (2003). "Climate change and nature
conservation: Implications for policy and practice in Britain and Ireland." Journal for Nature
Conservation 11: 67-73.
129 Herbert, RJH, Hawkins, SJ, Sheader, M and Southward, AJ (2003) Range extension and
reproduction of the barnacle Balanus perforatus in the eastern English Channel. Journal of
the Marine Biological Association of the United Kingdom, 83 73-82
130 Mieszkowska, N. Kendall, MA, Hawkins, SJ, Leaper, R. Williamson, P, HardmanMountford, NJ and Southward, AJ (in press). Changes in the range of some common rocky
shore species. A response to climate change? Hydrobiologica.
131 Directive on the assessment of the effects of certain public and private projects on the
environment: 85/337/EEC and Directive 97/11/EC amending Directive 85/337/EEC
132 Directive 2004/35/EC
133 ‘Minister issues warning about planning delays for energy schemes’: Report of speech by
Patricia Hewitt Trade & Industry Secretary regarding Government’s intention to use its
decision-making powers to ensure key energy infrastructure projects, including wind farms
and power-lines, proceed www.planningportal.gov.uk 1.12.04
134 Modernising Environmental Justice, Centre for Law and the Environment, Professor
Richard Macrory & Michael Woods, 11 June 2003, University College London
135 IMPEL: (2003) Better Legislation, http://europa.eu.int/comm/environment/impel
136 Royal Commission on Environmental Pollution (2004) ‘Turning the Tide’ Review of Marine
Nature Conservation,
137 RMNC (2004) Review of Marine Nature Conservation. RMNC Working Group report to
Government, July 2004, Defra;
138 Boyes, S. et al (2003) Deficiencies in the Current Legislation relevant to Nature
Conservation in the Marine Environment, Report to JNCC, Institute of Estuarine & Coastal
Studies, University of Hull
139 Hodge, I.D., Renwick, A.W., McNally, S., Latacz-Lohmann, U. and Rush, C., (2001) An
Economic Evaluation of Set-Aside Centre for Rural Economics Research; Department of
Land Economy, University of Cambridge. Report to DEFRA (July 2001)
140 96/61/EC
141 Pollution Prevention & Control (England & Wales) Regulations 2000 (SI 2000 No.1973);
142 Pollution Prevention & Control (Scotland) Regulations 2000 (SI 2000 No.323);
143 Pollution Prevention & Control (N. Ireland) Regulations 2000 (SI 2000 No.46)
144 Directive 2004/35/EC
145 Town & Country Planning Act 1990
146 Institute of Estuarine & Coastal Studies (2003) Regulatory Responsibilities & Enforcement
mechanisms relevant to Marine Nature Conservation, Report to JNCC: University of Hull
147 Institute of Estuarine & Coastal Studies (2003) Regulatory Responsibilities & Enforcement
mechanisms relevant to Marine Nature Conservation, Report to JNCC: University of Hull
148 Royal Commission on Environmental Pollution (2004) op cit
149 Royal Commission on Environmental Pollution (2004) op cit
150 S.57 (1) Town & Country Planning Act 1990
151 Planning Resource www.PlanningResource.co.uk 18 June 2004
152 National Assembly for Wales (2003) Draft Technical Advise Note 8: Renewable Energy
153 Planning Resource www.PlanningResource.co.uk30 November 2004
87
ADAS Final Report
154
Strategic Energy Framework, www.PlanningResource.co.uk, 1.12.04
Royal Commission on Environmental Pollution (2004) ‘Biomass as a Renewable
Resource’, Planning Resource, www.PlanningResource.co.uk accessed 1.12.04
156 DTI, 2000. Energy Projections for the UK. Energy Paper 68. TSO, London: pp 87
157 Defra (2004) Delivering the Essentials of Life. Defra’s Five Year Strategy. HMSO, 91pp
158 Defra (2004). Sustainable Energy.
http://www.defra.gov.uk/environment/energy/index.htm. Accessed 10/01/05
159 Defra, (2004) Comprehensive Performance Assessments.
http://www.defra.gov.uk/corporate/cpa/minstat021212. Accessed 14/12/04.
160 IdeA, (2004) Beacon Councils. http://www.idea.gov.uk/beacons/?id=about). Accessed
10/01/05
161 Defra (2004) Energy Efficiency: The Government’s Plan for Action. HMSO London 122pp
162 Defra (2004) Energy Efficiency: The Government’s Plan for Action. op cit
163 Carbon Trust, (2004). The Local Authority Carbon Management Programme.
http://www.thecarbontrust.co.uk/carbontrust/reduce_emissions/rcen1_1_2.html.
Accessed
10/01/05.
164 ODPM, (2004)
http://www.odpm.gov.uk/stellent/groups/odpm_planning/documents/page/odpm_plan_030334
.hcsp)
165GOSE,
(2004).
RPG9-Regional
Planning
Guidance.
http://www.gose.gov.uk/rpg9review/about.html. Accessed 10/01/05.
166
Carbon
Trust,
(2004).
What
is
the
Carbon
Trust?
http://www.thecarbontrust.co.uk/carbontrust/about/about5_1.html). Accessed 10/01/05.
167 AUKEA, (2004). The Association of UK Energy Agencies.
http://www.natenergy.org.uk/aukea. Accessed 10/01/05
168 British Biogen (2000). Op cit
169 Defra 2005 Nature conservation guidance on offshore wind farm development. A guidance
note on the implications of the EC Wild Birds and Habitats Directives for developers
undertaking offshore windfarm developments, Defra. http://www.defra.gov.uk/wildlifecountryside/ewd/windfarms/windfarmguidance.pdf
170 Langston, R.H.W. & Pullan, J.D. (2003). Wind farms and Birds: An analysis of the effects
of wind farms on birds, and guidance on environmental assessment criteria and site selection
issues. A report by BirdLife International, commissioned by the Standing Committee for the
Bern Convention
171 Boyes. S. et al, (2003) Summary of Current Legislation Relevant to Nature Conservation in
the Marine Environment in the UK, Report to JNCC, Institute of Estuarine & Coastal Studies,
University of Hull, 11 July 2003
172 92/43/EEC
173 79/409/EEC
174 2001/42/EC
175 Directive on the assessment of the effects of certain public and private projects on the
environment: 85/337/EEC and Directive 97/11/EC amending Directive 85/337/EEC
176 2000/60EC
155
88