Using Stakeholder Input to Develop a Comparative Risk Assessment for Wildlife from the Life Cycles of Six Electrical Generation Fuels

Book Chapter

Title: Using Stakeholder Input to Develop a Comparative Risk Assessment for Wildlife from the Life Cycles of Six Electrical Generation Fuels
Publication Date:
July 12, 2011
Book Title: Stakeholders and Scientists
Published City: New York
Volume: 1
Chapter: Using Stakeholder Input to Develop a Comparative Risk Assessment for Wildlife from the Life Cycles of Six Electrical Generation
Pages: 337-365
Publisher: Springer Science+Business Media, LLC

Document Access

Website: External Link

Citation

Zillioux, E.; Newman, J.; Lampman, G.; Watson, M.; Newman, C. (2011). Using Stakeholder Input to Develop a Comparative Risk Assessment for Wildlife from the Life Cycles of Six Electrical Generation Fuels. Stakeholders and Scientists (pp. 337-365). New York: Springer Science+Business Media, LLC.
Abstract: 

An assessment was conducted of the known and documented effects of electricity generation on vertebrate wildlife in the New York/New England (NY/NE) region. A Comparative Ecological Risk Assessment incorporating Life Cycle Assessment (CERALCA) was constructed to make objective comparisons among the six types of electricity generation important to the NY/NE region: coal, oil, natural gas, hydro, nuclear, and wind. Nonrenewable electricity generation sources, such as coal and oil, pose higher risks to wildlife than renewable electricity generation sources, such as hydro and wind. 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 focus of this chapter is primarily on the role of stakeholders and how interactions between the authors and these stakeholders influenced and improved the final product. Thus, while the scientific aspects of the study have been much condensed to provide a full accounting of the stakeholder process, we hope that sufficient coverage of the technical aspects has been provided for the reader to fully appreciate the derivation of our conclusions.

Find Tethys on InstagramFind Tethys on FacebookFind Tethys on Twitter
 
CAPTCHA
This question is for testing whether or not you are a human visitor and to prevent automated spam submissions.