Abstract
In order to support the transitions towards sustainable energy systems, the future expansion of renewable energy systems is imperative. Among them, is wind energy – method which is commonly associated with low GHG emissions during the operation and energy generation. While this is true, the operation of wind farms is associated with significant impacts on biodiversity. Life Cycle Assessment (LCA) is widely applied for quantification of environmental impacts and has become the main tool for decisionmakers and scientific community to assess biodiversity. However, recent research suggests that the inclusion of biodiversity impacts in LCA framework is limited and does not provide sufficient assessment of the phenomenon.
To address this gap, current thesis aims to (1) examine methodological robustness of the current LCA approaches for biodiversity assessment, and (2) understand how the effects of onshore wind power production on biodiversity can be assessed in a more comprehensive way within the LCA framework. A combination of literature review, comparative assessment of available biodiversity foot printing methods and a comparative LCA study of a wind farm was conducted to inform the research objectives.
The findings reveal several aspects. First, the methodological choices regarding the life cycle impact analysis (LCIA) method significantly influence the outcomes of the LCA. Second, the majority of the available beyond-LCA methods – methods which are based on life cycle thinking approaches or use alternative frameworks – only partially capture key biodiversity loss drivers relevant to wind power, highlighting the important gap – lack of sector-specific methodological approaches. Lastly, methods which could be offer good coverage of biodiversity aspects are difficult to incorporate in existing LCA framework. To address this, a stepwise approach has been suggested explaining how practitioners can start closing the gap for sector-specific assessment. The steps include (1) quantification of relevant biodiversity drivers, (2) translation of pressures into relevant impact pathways for inventory and (3) selection of suitable methods; if there are not relevant LCIA methods available, combine the existing approach with alternative biodiversity foot printing methods which cover the relevant impacts.
The research highlights the importance of method selection in biodiversity foot printing and provides actionable guidance for LCA practitioners and decision-makers who want to improve their practices.