Fossil-fueled electricity generation sources such as coal and oil pose higher risks to wildlife than renewable electricity generation sources such as hydro and wind, a report prepared for the New York State Energy Research and Development Authority concludes.
"Based on the comparative amounts of SO2, NOx, CO2 and mercury emissions generated from coal, oil, natural gas and hydro and the associated effects of acidic deposition, climate change and mercury bioaccumulation, coal as an electricity generation source is by far the largest contributor to risks to wildlife found in the NY/NE region," the report said.
Prepared by Environmental Bioindicators Foundation Inc., Pandion Systems Inc. and EcoStat Inc., the report examines the effect of coal, oil, natural gas, nuclear, hydro and onshore wind generation have on vertebrate wildlife in New England and New York. The report noted that most studies about the effects of electricity generation on people and wildlife have focused solely on fossil fuel combustion sources like coal, oil and natural gas.
"Until now, no one has attempted an 'apples to apples' comparison of wildlife effects from different types of electricity generation, nor has there been a study to compare all six electricity generation source types using a cradle-to-grave approach," the report said.
The report classified the estimated level of relative wildlife risk potential into five categories, ranging from highest to lowest potential.
For coal, which has risks that range from lowest to highest potential, the highest potential risks are those associated with the effects of strip and mountaintop mining. The combustion of coal during the power generation stage contributes disproportionately to other energy sources to acidification and mercury bioaccumulation, causing highest potential risks to wildlife, the report said.
Natural gas has risks from lowest to higher potential, depending on the life cycle stage. A number of the types of effects associated with the power generation life cycle stage of natural gas are similar to oil generation, but the magnitudes of these risks are lower, the report said.
Nuclear, meanwhile, has lowest to highest potential risks, including bird collisions with stacks and cooling towers associated with coal and oil generation sources. The report said hydro has lowest to highest potential risks — some of them unique during the construction, power generation and decommissioning stages. These include loss of large areas of terrestrial and aquatic upstream habit, changes to downstream habitats and blocking fish migration due to reservoir or impoundment construction.
According to the report, wind has lowest to moderate potential risks, but does have high risks of bird and bat collisions with wind turbines during operation. No population-level risks to birds have been noted, the report said, adding that population level risks to bats are uncertain at this time.
The American Wind Energy Association called the study a "welcome look at an important issue," and said the industry continues to look at ways to reduce even the moderate impacts.
"The NYSERDA study suggests that a meaningful, national RES to deploy wind power and other renewable energy sources would therefore be a win for wildlife as well as for the environment, the economy and energy security," AWEA said.
