Elsevier

Energy Policy

Volume 53, February 2013, Pages 429-441
Energy Policy

Quantifying the health and environmental benefits of wind power to natural gas

https://doi.org/10.1016/j.enpol.2012.11.004Get rights and content

Abstract

How tangible are the costs of natural gas compared to the benefits of one of the fastest growing sources of electricity – wind energy – in the United States? To answer this question, this article calculates the benefits of wind energy derived from two locations: the 580 MW wind farm at Altamont Pass, CA, and the 22 MW wind farm in Sawtooth, ID. Both wind farms have environmental and economic benefits that should be considered when evaluating the comparative costs of natural gas and wind energy. Though there are uncertainties within the data collected, for the period 2012–2031, the turbines at Altamont Pass will likely avoid anywhere from $560 million to $4.38 billion in human health and climate related externalities, and the turbines at Sawtooth will likely avoid $18 million to $104 million of human health and climate-related externalities. Translating these negative externalities into a cost per kWh of electricity, we estimate that Altamont will avoid costs of 1.8–11.8 cents/kWh and Sawtooth will avoid costs of 1.5–8.2 cents/kWh.

Highlights

► This study compares the benefits of wind energy with natural gas. ► The Altamont Pass windfarm will avoid $560 million to $4.38 billion in externalities. ► The Sawtooth wind farm will produce about $18 million to $104 million in human health and climate benefits. ► Natural gas prices rise by 1.5–11.8 cents/kWh if they include the cost of such externalities.

Introduction

It is a widely accepted axiom that the production of electricity from conventional sources, such as coal and natural gas, causes substantial damage to human health, wildlife, and the natural environment (Budnitz and Holdren, 1976, Bridge, 2004). Economists call these impacts “externalities,” because they are “external” to the transaction at hand; in other words, the producers of electricity do not take them into account when making their production decisions (Baumol and Oates, 1988, Owen, 2004). As noted by meta-surveys of the literature provided by Sovacool (2008) and Epstein et al. (2011), the list of externalities associated with oil, natural, gas, and coal-fired electricity is quite large, and includes:

  • An increased probability of wars due to natural resource extraction or the securing of energy supply;

  • Increased morbidity and mortality from air pollution;

  • Worker exposure to toxic substances and occupational accidents and hazards;

  • Destruction of land by mining operations;

  • The intergenerational burden of managing nuclear waste;

  • Acid precipitation and its damage to fisheries, crops, and forests, and livestock;

  • The effects of drill cuttings, drilling muds, and oils on water quality and aquatic wildlife;

  • Consumptive water use, with consequent impacts on agriculture and ecosystems where water is scarce;

  • Degradation of cultural icons such as national parks;

  • Air pollution damage to buildings, automobiles, and materials;

  • Cumulative environmental damage to ecosystems and biodiversity through species loss and habitat destruction;

  • Incidence of noise and reduced amenity, aesthetics, and visibility

To put these rather abstract notions in sharper perspective, Sundqvist (2004) analyzed 38 electricity externality studies and 132 estimates for individual generators to determine the extent that externalities were not reflected in electricity prices. Aware that a handful of studies may not be representative, he looked at as many as possible. Though Sundqvist (2004) was wary of using his data to reach “true external costs” due to the political values that can become injected into valuation techniques, his research does imply that the median value of these costs represented an additional 0.32 cents/kWh (kWh in 1998 dollars) for wind energy to 11.62 cents/kWh for oil; natural gas fell in the middle with a median value of 3.80 cents/kWh (see Table 1). Though wind energy had the lowest externalities compared to all other sources, it can still pose a threat to birds and bats (Sovacool, 2009), interfere with radar (Brenner, 2008), produce unpleasant noise (Davis, 2007), and require the construction of transmission and distribution lines (Hogue, 2008).

But how do the costs of the cleanest fossil fuel – natural gas – compare to the benefits of one of the fastest growing sources of electricity – wind energy – in the United States? To address this question, this study examines the health and environmental benefits of wind power versus natural gas from two locations in the United States: Altamont Pass, California, and Sawtooth, Idaho. For Altamont Pass, we focus on two periods. First, 1987–2006 is examined, representing the first 20 years of production at Altamont Pass. Second, 2012–2031 is examined, representing 20 years of forecasted production from potentially new, repowered turbines expected to be built at Altamont Pass. For the Sawtooth wind farm, we focus on the period 2012–2031, which represents 20 years of forecasted production. We quantify the human health impacts due to reduced ambient PM2.5 levels, using well-established human health impact and valuation functions found in recent major regulatory analyses (e.g., U.S. EPA, 2008, U.S. EPA, 2011b), in addition, some preliminary estimates of the impacts of air pollution and climate change on avian populations are provided.

One of the foci of this study is the potential impact to birds from fossil-based electricity generation. The IPCC (2007, p. 213) estimates that 20–30% of plant and animal species are at increasing risk of extinction, possibly by 2100, if temperatures exceed 2–3 °C above pre-industrial levels. Thomas et al. (2004, Table 1), using several different projection approaches, calculated that 2–8% of bird species in Mexico and Europe will become extinct by the year 2050, assuming minimum to mid-range climate impacts. For Europe they estimate this could rise to 13–38% under the maximum expected climate change. In Queensland and South Africa, extinction rates for birds could be higher.

Losses of birds (and bats) due to collisions with wind turbines has also been the subject of considerable concern and led to a number of research efforts (Altamont Pass Avian Monitoring Team, 2008, Smallwood and Thelander, 2008, Smallwood, 2010). Wind turbines have had documented adverse effects, though the effects should be kept in perspective. The number of bird and bat fatalities due to wind turbine collisions is actually very small compared to deaths due to collisions with buildings, towers, vehicles, power lines and other structures (Erickson et al., 2001, p. 4; National Research Council, 2007, p. 71). A new generation of wind turbines appears to lead to fewer deaths than before (U.S. General Accounting Office, 2005, p. 13; Smallwood, 2010). More importantly, though harder to precisely estimate, is the potential for climate change to cause irreversible harm to bird populations. Compared to wind power, fossil-based power generation is shown to have a greater impact on bird populations after accounting for all effects, especially climate change.

We chose to analyze wind energy because it is one of the fastest growing sources of electricity on the global market today (REN21, 2011, p. 19). During the past decade, investments in wind energy increased by a factor of seven, from less than 5000 MW installed in 2000 to more than 35,000 MW installed by the end of 2010, as Fig. 1 shows. More than 90 countries installed commercial wind farms in 2009. In many regions, new wind installations actually operate more cheaply than conventional fossil fueled or nuclear plants. For example, Amory Lovins explored the costs of producing electricity from a portfolio of options in 2007 and found that wind energy beat new nuclear, natural gas, and coal units (Lovins et al., 2008). Researchers at Lawrence Berkeley National Laboratory also surveyed the actual production costs from 128 separate wind projects in the United States totaling 8303 MW in 2007 and found they tended to produce electricity for less than 5 cents/kWh, making them cheaper than the national wholesale price for electricity (Bolinger and Wiser, 2009). In the United States alone, 27 wind manufacturing facilities started operating in 2008 and plans for 30 more were announced (REN21, 2009).

We chose to compare wind energy with natural gas because its use, like wind, is rapidly on the rise. The U.S. Energy Information Administration (2011) reports that the levelized cost of electricity in 2010 for natural gas fired power plants, excluding externalities, was competitive with onshore and offshore wind turbines. The United States has plentiful reserves of natural gas, with big new shale gas discoveries (U.S. Energy Information Administration, 2012c), and it can be stored in underground formations1. Moreover, natural gas can be transported relatively easily through existing pipelines and conventional forms require no new transmission infrastructure to reach commercial markets (Chow et al., 2003).

We note that by comparing wind energy versus natural gas, our assessment does not reflect the actual power mix in California and Idaho. On the other hand, natural gas has dominated recent capacity development. For example, in the case of Pacific Gas & Electric, the utility encompassing the area around Altamont, 82% of new capacity between 1987 and 2008 has been fired by natural gas, with wind being the next largest contributor at 8% (Table 2). The importance of natural gas, as well as renewable energy sources, such as wind, is forecasted to continue. The Energy Information Agency estimates that 60% of capacity additions between 2011 and 2035 will be powered by natural gas and 29% will be powered by renewable sources.2

We selected Altamont Pass and Sawtooth for analysis because of differences in their locations, which affect the estimated health impacts through differences in population density, and because of the varying importance of intermittent energy sources, with California likely to have a larger percentage of intermittent energy sources in the future compared to Idaho. The Altamont Pass in California is an area known for high winds, straddling the border between Alameda and Contra Costa counties, about 30 miles east of San Francisco. The site of the nation’s first large wind farm, it has more than 5000 wind turbines and a capacity of approximately 580 MW (Smallwood, 2008, p. 230). At one point in the 1980s, its production represented more than half of the world’s wind generation (Smith, 1987, p. 145). By 2030, intermittent wind sources (wind and solar) may represent 20% or more of the electricity produced in California,3 and this has potentially important effects on the efficiency of the electrical grid.

Sawtooth, by contrast, is located in rural Idaho and began operating on November 1, 2011.4 It utilizes the newest turbine technology (General Electric 1.6 XLE turbines) but is of a smaller installed capacity, with only 22 MW. In recent years, the contribution of wind power has grown rapidly (Idaho Legislative Council, 2012, p. 42). It is estimated that the contribution of intermittent sources will rise from about 3% in 2010 to about 8% in 2030 (Idaho Power Company, 2011, p. 7).

Section snippets

Overview of the health benefits calculation

Natural gas combustion directly emits fine particulate matter less than 2.5 μm in diameter (PM2.5) and also emits gases, such as sulfur dioxide (SO2), nitrogen oxides (NOx), volatile organic carbons (VOCs), and ammonia (NH3) that can then form PM2.5 through a series of reactions in the atmosphere. In addition to increasing the ambient levels PM2.5, natural gas combustion increases ambient levels of other pollutants, such as ozone and nitrogen dioxide, however, recent analyses of power plant

Altamont emissions

Facility-level data on NOx and SO2 emissions and megawatt hours (MWh) generated by fuel source were downloaded from the U.S. EPA, Clean Air Markets Division (CAMD) for the period 1997–2010.13

Sawtooth emissions

To estimate emissions avoided due to the Sawtooth wind farm, we use two existing natural gas-fired facilities (Bennett Mountain Power Plant and Danskin Power Plant ), located in Elmore County, and a more sophisticated combined cycle natural gas-fired facility that is slated for completion in 2012 (Langley Gulch Power Plant ), located in Payette County. The Bennett Mountain Power Plant consists of a single 164 MW simple cycle combustion turbine, and the Danskin Power Plant consists of three

The environmental benefits of wind power

Wind energy has not only advantages from a public health standpoint, it has environmental benefits related to climate change and avian mortality. Perhaps the most significant of these is fewer greenhouse gas emissions.

Conclusion

Both wind farms have environmental and economic benefits that should be considered when evaluating the comparative costs of natural gas versus wind energy. For the period 2012–2031, the most relevant when evaluating our future energy options, the turbines at Altamont Pass will avoid anywhere from $560 million to $4.38 billion in human health and climate related externalities, and the turbines at Sawtooth will avoid $18 million to $104 million of human health and climate-related externalities.

Acknowledgments

The authors are very grateful to three anonymous reviewers of this journal for their helpful suggestions for revision. We are also appreciative to Altamont Winds Incorporated, and Idaho Winds Incorporated, for supporting the research conducted here. Despite their assistance, all conclusions and statements in this article reflect only the views of the authors.

References (85)

  • B.K. Sovacool

    Contextualizing avian mortality: a preliminary appraisal of bird and bat fatalities from wind, fossil-fuel, and nuclear electricity

    Energy Policy

    (2009)
  • T. Sundqvist

    What causes the disparity of electricity externality estimates?

    Energy Policy

    (2004)
  • R. Tol

    The marginal damage costs of carbon dioxide emissions: an assessment of the uncertainties

    Energy Policy

    (2005)
  • D. Weisser

    A guide to life-cycle greenhouse gas (GHG) emissions from electric supply technologies

    Energy

    (2007)
  • E.H. Wittels et al.

    Medical costs of coronary artery disease in the United States

    American Journal of Cardiology

    (1990)
  • F. Ackerman et al.

    Climate risks and carbon prices: revising the social cost of carbon.

    Economics

    (2012)
  • Altamont Pass Avian Monitoring Team (2008). Altamont Pass wind resource area bird fatality study. Prepared for Alameda...
  • A.S. Ansari et al.

    Response of inorganic PM to precursor concentrations

    Environmental Science & Technology

    (1998)
  • W.J. Baumol et al.

    Externalities: Definition, Significant Types, and Optimal-Pricing Conditions. The Theory of Environmental Policy

    (1988)
  • Brenner, M. (2008). Wind farms and radar. Prepared for: U.S. Department of Home Land Security. Prepared by: The Mire...
  • G. Bridge

    Contested terrain: mining and the environment

    Annual Review of Environment and Resources

    (2004)
  • R.E. Brown et al.

    The avian respiratory system: a unique model for studies of respiratory toxicosis and for monitoring air quality

    Environmental Health Perspectives

    (1997)
  • R.J. Budnitz et al.

    Social and environmental costs of energy systems

    Annual Review of Energy

    (1976)
  • California Air Resources Board (2008). Climate Change Proposed Scoping Plan. Sacramento,...
  • California Public Utilities Commission (2009). 33% renewables portfolio standard, implementation analysis preliminary...
  • J. Chow et al.

    Energy Resources and Global Development

    Science

    (2003)
  • Davis, J. (2007). Noise pollution from wind turbines—living with amplitude modulation, lowers frequency emissions and...
  • P.R. Epstein

    Full cost accounting for the life cycle of coal

    Ecological Economics Reviews, Annual New York Academy of Science

    (2011)
  • Erickson, W., Johnson G., Strickland M., Young D. Jr, Sernka K., et al. (2001). Avian collisions with wind turbines: a...
  • Erickson, W.P., G.D. Johnson and D.P. Young Jr (2005). A Summary and Comparison of Bird Mortality from Anthropogenic...
  • First Energy Corporation (1999). Measurement of net versus gross power generation for the allocation of NOx emission...
  • GeoLytics Inc. (2002). Geolytics CensusCD® 2000 Short Form Blocks.” Release...
  • L.H. Goulder et al.

    The choice of discount rate for climate change policy evaluation

    Resources for the Future

    (2012)
  • Gross, R., Heptonstall P., Anderson D., Green T., Leach M., et al. (2006). The Costs and Impacts of Intermittency: An...
  • K. Hayhoe et al.

    Substitution of natural gas for coal: climatic effects of utility sector emissions

    Climatic Change

    (2002)
  • Hogue, L. (2008). Sunrise Powerlink 2008 a battle for California energy future. Desert report, CNRC committee....
  • R.W. Howarth et al.

    Methane and the greenhouse-gas footprint of natural gas from shale formations

    Climatic Change

    (2011)
  • Idaho Department of Environmental Quality (2011). Air Quality in Idaho....
  • Idaho Legislative Council (2012). 2012 Idaho Energy Plan. Idaho Legislature Energy, Environment and Technology Interim...
  • Idaho Power Company (2011). 2011 Integrated Resource Plan. June....
  • Industrial Economics Incorporated (IEc) (2006). Expanded expert judgment assessment of the concentration–response...
  • Interagency Working Group on Social Cost of Carbon (2010). Technical support document: social cost of carbon for...
  • Cited by (45)

    • Coal-fired power plant regulatory rollback in the United States: Implications for local and regional public health

      2018, Energy Policy
      Citation Excerpt :

      As such, others have used COBRA to estimate public health consequences of various scenarios. McCubbin and Sovacool (2013) analyzed with COBRA the impacts of contrasting energy mixes. Levy et al. (2007) used COBRA to estimate the national health benefits and spatial inequity of various power plant control scenarios.

    • The role of natural gas and its infrastructure in mitigating greenhouse gas emissions, improving regional air quality, and renewable resource integration

      2018, Progress in Energy and Combustion Science
      Citation Excerpt :

      Studies of high levels of wind power deployment have also reported important reductions in total NOx and SO2 [39] and wind farms have been estimated to reduce SO2, NOx and PM2.5 from natural gas power plants [198]. It has been estimated that wind power has the ability to provide significant human health benefits from reductions in ambient PM2.5 levels [198]. The ability to provide utility-scale power with very low emissions yields significant GHG and AQ mitigation potential and justification of wind-related government subsidies often site the societal benefits of reducing air pollution [199].

    View all citing articles on Scopus
    View full text