APPENDIX B
Emission Rates for Electrical Generation

TABLE B-1 Annual Emission Rates for Electrical Generating Units (lb/MWh)

Data Set

Geographic Area

Period

Generation Type

CO2

NOx

SO2

eGrid 2000a

 

 

 

 

 

 

USA

50 U.S. states

2000

System average

1,392

3.0

6.0

MAH States

MD, PA, VA, WV, DC

2000

System average

1,426

3.5

9.7

USA

50 U.S. states

2000

Coal

2,188

4.8

10.9

MAH States

MD, PA, VA, WV, DC

2000

Coal

2,053

5.0

14.1

USA

50 U.S. states

2000

Natural gas

1,187

1.7

0.3

MAH States

MD, PA, VA, WV, DC

2000

Natural gas

878

1.0

0.3

BLM EISb

Western U.S.

Pre-1991

Coal

2,860

15.4

15.4

BLM EISb

Western U.S.

Pre-2001

Natural gas

1,200

0.0

1.3

PJM 2005c

PJM grid system

2005

System average

1,292

2.6

8.5

RSG-ERT SIPd

MD, PA, WV, VA

Pre-2003

Coal

2,113

5.7

17.7

RSG-ERT VAe

VA, WV

2004

Primarily coal

2,037

3.9

5.3

ISO-NEf

 

 

 

 

 

 

2000

New England

2000

Marginal units

1,488

1.9

6.2

2004

New England

2004

Marginal units

1,102

0.5

2.0

2000

New England

2000

System average

913

1.1

3.9

2005

New England

2004

System average

876

0.8

2.3

OTCg

 

 

 

 

 

 

NY

NY

2002

System average

810

1.2

2.7

NE

New England

2002

System average

1,000

1.1

3.3

PJM

PJM grid system

2002

System average

1,180

2.3

8.0

NESCAUMh

 

 

 

 

 

 

Greenpoint

NY

1999

System average

944

1.5

4.4

Exelon

PJM grid system

1998

System average

1,199

2.8

9.0

aeGRID 2006.

bBLM 2005a.

cPJM 2006b.

dHathaway et al. 2005.

eHigh and Hathaway 2006.

fISO New England Inc. 2006.

gKeith et al. 2002.

hNESCAUM 2002.

NOTE: The committee has not assessed the uncertainty associated with the numbers presented.



The National Academies | 500 Fifth St. N.W. | Washington, D.C. 20001
Copyright © National Academy of Sciences. All rights reserved.
Terms of Use and Privacy Statement



Below are the first 10 and last 10 pages of uncorrected machine-read text (when available) of this chapter, followed by the top 30 algorithmically extracted key phrases from the chapter as a whole.
Intended to provide our own search engines and external engines with highly rich, chapter-representative searchable text on the opening pages of each chapter. Because it is UNCORRECTED material, please consider the following text as a useful but insufficient proxy for the authoritative book pages.

Do not use for reproduction, copying, pasting, or reading; exclusively for search engines.

OCR for page 276
Environmental Impacts of Wind-Energy Projects APPENDIX B Emission Rates for Electrical Generation TABLE B-1 Annual Emission Rates for Electrical Generating Units (lb/MWh) Data Set Geographic Area Period Generation Type CO2 NOx SO2 eGrid 2000a             USA 50 U.S. states 2000 System average 1,392 3.0 6.0 MAH States MD, PA, VA, WV, DC 2000 System average 1,426 3.5 9.7 USA 50 U.S. states 2000 Coal 2,188 4.8 10.9 MAH States MD, PA, VA, WV, DC 2000 Coal 2,053 5.0 14.1 USA 50 U.S. states 2000 Natural gas 1,187 1.7 0.3 MAH States MD, PA, VA, WV, DC 2000 Natural gas 878 1.0 0.3 BLM EISb Western U.S. Pre-1991 Coal 2,860 15.4 15.4 BLM EISb Western U.S. Pre-2001 Natural gas 1,200 0.0 1.3 PJM 2005c PJM grid system 2005 System average 1,292 2.6 8.5 RSG-ERT SIPd MD, PA, WV, VA Pre-2003 Coal 2,113 5.7 17.7 RSG-ERT VAe VA, WV 2004 Primarily coal 2,037 3.9 5.3 ISO-NEf             2000 New England 2000 Marginal units 1,488 1.9 6.2 2004 New England 2004 Marginal units 1,102 0.5 2.0 2000 New England 2000 System average 913 1.1 3.9 2005 New England 2004 System average 876 0.8 2.3 OTCg             NY NY 2002 System average 810 1.2 2.7 NE New England 2002 System average 1,000 1.1 3.3 PJM PJM grid system 2002 System average 1,180 2.3 8.0 NESCAUMh             Greenpoint NY 1999 System average 944 1.5 4.4 Exelon PJM grid system 1998 System average 1,199 2.8 9.0 aeGRID 2006. bBLM 2005a. cPJM 2006b. dHathaway et al. 2005. eHigh and Hathaway 2006. fISO New England Inc. 2006. gKeith et al. 2002. hNESCAUM 2002. NOTE: The committee has not assessed the uncertainty associated with the numbers presented.

OCR for page 276
Environmental Impacts of Wind-Energy Projects TABLE B-2 Wind Resource Database: Standard Version, May 2005a State Data Sourceb State Data Sourceb Arizona N/TWS 2003 Nebraska N/TWS 2005 Alabama PNL 1987 New Hampshire N/TWS 2002 Arkansas PNL 1987 New Jersey N/TWS 2003 California N/TWS 2003 New Mexico N/TWS 2003 Colorado N/TWS 2003 New York PNL 1987 Connecticut N/TWS 2002 North Carolina N/TWS 2003 Delaware N/TWS 2003 North Dakota NREL 2000 Florida PNL 1987 Ohio N/TWS 2004 Georgia PNL 1987 Oklahoma PNL 1987 Idaho N/TWS 2002 Oregon N/TWS 2002 Illinois NREL 2001 Pennsylvania N/TWS 2003 Indiana N/TWS 2004 Rhode Island N/TWS 2002 Iowa PNL 1987 South Carolina PNL 1987 Kansas PNL 1987 South Dakota NREL 2000 Kentucky PNL 1987 Tennessee PNL 1987 Louisiana PNL 1987 Texas PNL 1987 Maine N/TWS 2002   NREL 2000 Maryland N/TWS 2003 Vermont N/TWS 2002 Massachusetts N/TWS 2002 Virginia N/TWS 2003 Michigan N/TWS 2005 Washington N/TWS 2002 Minnesota PNL 1987 West Virginia N/TWS 2003 Mississippi PNL 1987 Wisconsin PNL 1987 Missouri N/TWS 2004 Wyoming N/TWS 2002 Montana N/TWS 2002     aData source and exclusion criteria for U.S. wind potential map coverage provided on March 16, 2006, by National Renewable Energy Laboratory, Golden, CO. bYrSource: Yr = Year validated (1987 to present); Source = PNL, NREL, or N/TWS (NREL with AWS TrueWind). NOTE: PNL data resolution is 1/4 degree of latitude by 1/3 degree of longitude; each cell has a terrain exposure percent (5% for ridgecrest to 90% for plains) to define base resource area in each cell. Ridgecrest areas have 10% of the area assigned to the next higher power class. NREL data were generated with the WRAMS model and do not account for surface roughness. Resolution is 1 km. Texas includes the Texas mesas study area updated by NREL using WRAMS. N/TWS data was generated by AWS TrueWind and validated by NREL. Resolution is 400 m for the northwest states (WA, OR, ID, MT, and WY) and 200 m everywhere else. These data consider surface roughness in their estimates.

OCR for page 276
Environmental Impacts of Wind-Energy Projects TABLE B-3 Wind Resource Exclusion Database:a Criteria for Defining Available Windy Landb Criteria Data/Comments Environmental   (2) 100% exclusion of National Park Service and Fish and Wildlife Service managed lands. USGS Federal and Indian Lands shapefile, Jan. 2005. (3) 100% exclusion of federal lands designated as park, wilderness, wilderness study area, national monument, national battlefield, recreation area, national conservation area, wildlife refuge, wildlife area, wild and scenic river, or inventoried roadless area. USGS Federal and Indian Lands shapefile, Jan. 2005. (4) 100% exclusion of state and private lands equivalent to criteria 2 and 3, where GIS data are available. State/GAP land stewardship data management status 1, from Conservation Biology Institute Protected Lands database, 2004. (8) 50% exclusion of remaining USDA Forest Service (FS) lands (incl. National Grasslands). USGS Federal and Indian Lands shapefile, Jan. 2005. (9) 50% exclusion of remaining Dept. of Defense lands. USGS Federal and Indian Lands shapefile, Jan. 2005. (10) 50% exclusion of state forest land, where GIS data is available. State/GAP land stewardship data management status 2, from Conservation Biology Institute Protected Lands database, 2004. Land Use   (5) 100% exclusion of airfields, urban, wetland, and water areas. USGS North America Land Use Land Cover (LULC), version 2.0, 1993; ESRI airports and airfields (2003). (11) 50% exclusion of non-ridgecrest forest.c Ridgecrest areas defined using a terrain definition script, overlaid with USGS LULC data screened for the forest categories. Other   (1) Exclude areas of slope >20%. D Derived from elevation data used in the wind resource model. (6) 100% exclude 3 km surrounding criteria 2-5 (except water). Merged datasets and buffer 3 km. (7) Exclude resource areas that do not meet a density of 5 km2 of class 3 or better resource within the surrounding 100 km2 area. Focalsum function of class 3+ areas (not applied to 1987 PNL resource data). aStandard Version, last revised Jan. 2004. bNumbered in the order they are applied. c50% exclusions are not cumulative. If an area is non-ridgecrest forest on FS land, it is just excluded at the 50% level one time.