Assessment of CO2 Emissions and Costs of Decommissioning of Commercial Onshore Wind Farms in Thailand

Watcharapong Tantawat, Suparatchai Vorarat, Aumnad Phdungsilp

Abstract


This study assesses the CO2 emissions associated with decommissioning of 29 commercial onshore wind farms in Thailand. The decommissioning of the onshore wind farms consists of the disassembly and transport of wind turbines and the demolition and disposal of concrete foundations. Access roads and transmission cables are not included in the assessment due to the conditions of wind farm development in Thailand. Data on 29 wind farms in Thailand were collected from the Energy Regulatory Commission of Thailand (ERC) and the Electricity Generating Authority of Thailand (EGAT). Carbon emission factors of a wind turbine is used to estimate CO2 emissions from the decommissioning. This study also assesses the CO2 emission reductions from recycling wind turbine materials and concrete foundations. The cost of decommissioning per installed capacity is used to estimate each wind farm's cost of decommissioning. Results are shown that total carbon emissions from decommissioning are 779,479.3 tCO2eq. The average carbon intensity of decommissioning is 10.095 gCO2eq/kWh and the average cost of decommissioning is 0.0014 USD/kWh. Findings are also shown that CO2 emissions of decommissioning are minor when compared with other carbon emissions of electricity generation from wind power.

Keywords


Carbon intensity; CO2 emission assessment; Decommissioning costs; Emissions from decommissioning; Onshore wind farms

Full Text:

PDF

References


Tantawat W., Phdungsilp A. and Vorarat S., 2021. Energy return on energy and carbon investment of wind energy farms in Thailand. In the 16th GMSARN International Journal Advance online publication. GMSARN International Conference 2021 on Smart Energy, Environment, and Sustainable Development in GMS: Post Pandemic Challenges & Opportunity. 16-17 December, Rayong, Thailand.

Yildiz N., Hemida H., and Baniotopoulos C., 2021. Life cycle assessment of a barge-type floating wind turbine and comparison with other types of wind turbines. Energies 14(18): 1-18.

Woo J., Kim H., Kim B., Peak I., and Yoo N., 2012. AEP prediction of a wind farm in complex terrain - WindPRO Vs. WindSim. Korean Solar Energy Society 32(6): 1-10.

Tozzi Jr. P. and J.H. Jo. 2017. A comparative analysis of renewable energy simulation tools: performance simulation model vs. system optimization. Renewable and Sustainable Energy Reviews 80: 390-308.

Tantawat W., 2016. An investigation of processes and problems of land utilization in Agricultural Land Reform areas for the construction of roads for wind turbines. Srinakharinwirot Business Journal 7 (2): 19-39.

Walmsley T.G., Walmsley M.R.W., and Atkins M.J., 2017. Energy return on energy and carbon investment of wind energy farms: a case study of New Zealand. Journal of Cleaner Production 167(20): 885-895.

Xie J., Fu J., Liu S., and Hwang W., 2020. Assessments of carbon footprint and energy analysis of three wind farms. Journal of Cleaner Production 254: 1-12.

Rule B.M., Worth Z.J., and Boyle C.A., 2009. Comparison of life cycle carbon dioxide emissions and embodied energy in four renewable electricity generation technologies in New Zealand. Sci. Technol 43: 6406–6413.

Nielsen C.V. 2008. Carbon footprint of concrete buildings seen in the life cycle perspective. In Proceedings NRMCA 2008 Concrete Technology Forum. Denver, USA, June.

Wang T., Li K., and Liu D., 2022. Estimating the carbon emission of construction waste recycling using grey model and life cycle assessment: a case study of Shanghai. International Journal of Environmental Research and Public Health 19: 1-16.

Donnelly C.R., Carias A., Morgenroth M., Ali M., Bridgeman A., and Wood. N., 2010. An assessment of the life cycle costs And GHG emissions for alternative generation technologies. In World Energy Congress. Montréal, Canada, 12-16 September. New York: Curran Associates Inc.

International Renewable Energy Agency. 2022. Renewable power generation costs in 2021, Retrieved July 14, 2022 from the World Wide Web: https://irena.org/-/media/Files/IRENA/Agency/Publication/2022/Jul/IRENA_Power_Generation_Costs_2021_.pdf.

National Renewable Energy Laboratory. 2013. Wind LCA harmonization (fact sheet), Retrieved July 14, 2022 from the World Wide Web: https://www.nrel.gov/docs/fy21osti/80580.pdf.

Ji S. and B. Chen. 2016. LCA-based carbon footprint of a typical wind farm in China. Energy Procedia 88: 250-256.

Thomson R.C. and Harrison G.P., 2015. Life cycle costs and carbon emissions of onshore wind power, Retrieved July 14, 2022 from the World Wide Web: https://www.climatexchange.org.uk/media/1463/main_report_-_life_cycle_costs_and_carbon_emissions_of_onshore_wind_power.pdf.

Li J., Li S., and Wu F. 2020. Research on carbon emission reduction benefit of wind power project based on life cycle assessment theory. Renewable Energy 155: 456–468.

Krittayakasem P., Patumsawad S., and Garivait S. 2011. Emission inventory of electricity generation in Thailand. Journal of Sustainable Energy & Environment 2: 65–69.

Kim H., Singh C., and Sprintson A., 2012. Simulation and estimation of reliability in a wind farm considering the wake effect. IEEE Transactions on Sustainable Energy 3(2): 274-282.

Grau L., Jung C., and Schindler D., 2021. Sounding out the repowering potential of wind energy – a scenario-based assessment from Germany. Journal of Cleaner Production 293 (2): 274-282.

Serri L., Lembo E., Airoldi D., Gelli C., and Beccarello M., 2018. Wind energy plants repowering potential in Italy: technical-economic assessment. Renewable Energy 115: 382-390.

Colmenar-Santos A., Campíñez-Romero S., Pérez-Molina C., and Mur-Pérez F., 2015. Repowering: an actual possibility for wind energy in Spain in a new scenario without feed-in-tariffs. Renewable and Sustainable Energy Reviews 41: 319-337.