Life Cycle Assessment of Offshore and Onshore Sited Wind Farms.

Note
20 October 2004
Elsam Engineering A/S

Our ref. HHA/AAH/AWK
Doc. no.
200128
Project no. T012063
Page 1 of 54
Verified: AWK
Approved: HHA
Life Cycle Assessment of offshore and onshore sited wind farms.

This report is a translation made by Vestas Wind Systems A/S of the Danish Elsam Engineering report
186768 of March 2004 written in Danish.
In matters of doubt the Danish version applies

Doc. no. 200128
Page 2 of 54
Contents:
1. Introduction.........................................................................................................................................5
1.1 Goal ............................................................................................................................................6
1.2 Objective.....................................................................................................................................6
1.3 Target group................................................................................................................................6
1.4 Method........................................................................................................................................6
2. Scope .................................................................................................................................................7
2.1 Functional unit.............................................................................................................................7
2.2 Lifetime .......................................................................................................................................7
2.3 Life cycle stages..........................................................................................................................7
3. Offshore wind farm..............................................................................................................................9
3.1 Electric power generation .......................................................................................................... 10
3.2 Operation .................................................................................................................................. 11
3.3 LCA model ................................................................................................................................ 12
4. Onshore wind farm............................................................................................................................ 13
4.1 Electric power generation .......................................................................................................... 14
4.2 Operation .................................................................................................................................. 14
4.3 LCA model ................................................................................................................................ 14
5. Data collection .................................................................................................................................. 15
5.1 Procedures for data collection.................................................................................................... 16
5.1.1 Workshop about reuse .................................................................................................. 16
5.1.2 Allocations .................................................................................................................... 17
5.1.3 Manufacturing of turbines .............................................................................................. 17
5.1.4 Manufacturing of onshore foundation............................................................................. 21
5.1.5 Manufacturing of offshore foundation............................................................................. 21
5.1.6 Manufacturing of internal farm cables to offshore wind farm........................................... 23
5.1.7 Manufacturing of transformer station to offshore wind farm ............................................ 23
5.1.8 Manufacturing of 150 kV PEX submarine-/onshore cable and SF6-system for offshore
wind farm ...................................................................................................................... 24
5.2 Incoming materials .................................................................................................................... 25
6. Life cycle impact assessment............................................................................................................ 26
6.1 Environmental impacts .............................................................................................................. 26
6.2 Calculation method.................................................................................................................... 27
6.3 Results...................................................................................................................................... 27
6.3.1 Statement of resource consumption .............................................................................. 27
6.3.2 Environmental impacts of 1 kWh ................................................................................... 29
6.3.3 Environmental impacts divided on life stages................................................................. 30
6.3.4 Environmental impacts divided on components ............................................................. 31
6.3.5 Comparison with Danish electricity 97........................................................................... 33
6.4 Interpretation of results.............................................................................................................. 33
6.4.1 Improvement strategies................................................................................................. 34
6.5 Energy balance ......................................................................................................................... 38
6.5.1 Energy consumption...................................................................................................... 38
6.5.2 Energy balance ............................................................................................................. 40
6.6 Environmental Product Declaration............................................................................................ 41
6.6.1 Environmental Product Declaration Methodological requirements in the Nordic region . 42

Doc. no. 200128
Page 3 of 54
6.6.2 Data quality for V80-offshore wind farm Environmental Product Declaration .................. 42
6.6.3 Environmental impact categories used in this Environmental Product Declaration.......... 42
6.6.4 LCA-method and system delimitation ............................................................................ 43
7. Sensitivity assessment...................................................................................................................... 44
7.1 Energy production ..................................................................................................................... 44
7.2 Energy consumption.................................................................................................................. 46
7.3 Location .................................................................................................................................... 46
7.4 Lifetime ..................................................................................................................................... 48
7.5 Recycling .................................................................................................................................. 50
8. Shortcomings.................................................................................................................................... 52
9. Conclusions ...................................................................................................................................... 53
Appendix
Appendix 1. Main components
Appendix 2. Danish Environmental Declaration of Contents
Appendix 3. Energy balance

Doc. no. 200128
Page 4 of 54
Summary
This report makes up the final reporting for the project Life cycle assessment (LCA) of turbines
Analysis of possibilities of product directed environmental optimisation effected by Elsam Engineering
A/S and Vestas Wind Systems A/S financed by Elsam Engineerings work through the Danish Energy
Authoritys energy research programme for year 2000 (ERP2000). Vestas Wind Systems A/S financed its
own participation in the project.
The purpose of the project is to carry through a life cycle assessment of an offshore wind farm and an
onshore wind farm, respectively, as a basis for assessment of environmental improvement possibilities for
wind farms through their life cycles.
Likewise, the results are used to elaborate an environmental declaration of contents for power delivered
to the grid from both types of wind farms.
The project has been running concurrently with a project about environmental assessment of future
turbines, which RIS is carrying out.
Due to similarities between the two projects and the fact that RISs project supplements the LCA-project
in more ways, cooperation about the projects has been going on through the process, in the form of
exchange of experiences and results. In cooperation with RIS, Elsam Engineering and Vestas Wind
Systems A/S have carried through a workshop about dismantling and removal of wind farms. In that
connection, we would like to address our gratitude to RIS for their help in planning and carrying out the
workshop.
The project states the environmental impact for electricity produced at Horns Reef offshore wind farm and
Tjreborg onshore wind farm, respectively, as representatives for contemporary Danish offshore wind
farms and onshore wind farms, respectively. Tjreborg onshore wind farm is placed at an utmost
favourably location with regard to wind, which means that the production at this wind farm is high
compared with other onshore wind farms in Denmark. The high production rate is a factor that is taken
into account when assessing the impact on the environment emanating from this wind farm.
The results of the environmental life cycle assessments that have been carried out for the two wind farms
do not show significant variance. If it is taken into account that Tjreborg onshore wind farm is placed
utmost favourably, the comparison shows that power from an average located onshore wind farm would
have a more adverse or corresponding environmental impact as an unfavourably located offshore wind
farm.
The results show that it is the turbines that causes the largest environmental impact and not to a very
high extent the transmission grid. For the turbines, the all-important environmental contribution comes
from manufacturing and removal of the turbines, as it is the materials that cause the large environmental
strain. The operation of the wind farms gives practically no contribution to the total environmental impacts.
The foundations of the offshore wind farms make up a considerable factor to the total environmental
impacts, as steel is a large constituent part of the foundations, some of which is abandoned at the seabed
after dismantling of the farm. Therefore, the foundation of the offshore wind farms is selected as a focus
area in connection with possibilities of product optimisation. Other types of foundations are assessed, and
it is found that all the assessed foundation types give the same environmental impact, even though one of
the types (caisson) will be completely removed from the seabed whereas in the case of other types
(mono pile and tripod) everything more than 1 metre below the seabed is abandoned.

Doc. no. 200128
Page 5 of 54
Even though the operation does not contribute considerably to the environmental impacts, the
environmental differences in using helicopter contra boat at maintenance of the offshore turbines have
been examined. The differences are significant, as servicing by boat is insignificantly small. But
irrespective of the way of transport the servicing will not contribute largely to the total impact from the
entire farm in the total lifetime.
1.
Introduction
This report makes up the reporting in connection with the project LCA of turbines Analysis of
possibilities of product directed environmental optimisation.
The project is carried out in cooperation between Vestas Wind Systems A/S (hereafter called VWS A/S)
and Elsam Engineering A/S.
VWS A/S has financed its own part of the project, while the Danish Energy Authoritys energy research
programme (ERP) has paid Elsam Engineerings part.
In the year 2001 VWS A/S and Elsam Engineering A/S completed a design scheme, in which a life cycle
assessment was elaborated of a Vestas V80 2.0 MW turbine, which is used as basis for this life cycle
assessment.
Life cycle assessment (LCA) is a method to assess the environmental aspects and potential impacts of a
product. LCA is a tool that is used to give a technical estimate of the environmental consequences of
products and activities. The LCA does not include the financial and social factors, which means that the
results of an LCA can not exclusively form the basis for assessment of a products sustainability.
It also means that an LCA does not give detached, scientific and final answers as to the environmental
properties of a product, as an LCA does not include all the impacts on the surroundings caused by a
product in connection with use (e.g. noise, use of area, impact on animal life, etc.) To obtain a more
complete environmental description, LCA must be combined with other environmental assessments as for
instance environmental consequence assessments (e.g. Assessment of Impact of the Environment, AIE),
risk assessment and environmental management.
LCA is a good tool to provide an understanding of environmental properties of a product and in many
cases it can be used internally in companies as a part of the product development.
Some of the most essential limitations of LCA are:
Many selections and assumptions are to be made (e.g. selection of system boundaries and data
sources), which might be subjective.
The accuracy of an LCA will depend on the access to or the existence of relevant and liable data.
Models used for mapping or assessing the environmental impact are restrained by their
conditions and will not necessarily be accessible for all potential impact categories or
applications.

Doc. no. 200128
Page 6 of 54
1.1
Goal
The purpose of the project has partly been to use life cycle assessments to environmental improvement
strategies in connection with product development and partly to use LCA-data for preparation of an
environmental declaration of contents for electricity produced on turbines.
At the same time, the purpose of the project has been to work for a wide understanding of environmental
declaration of contents and to influence the turbine trade ensuring concepts for a trade standard for
environmental declaration of contents of turbines/electricity produced on turbines.
1.2
Objective
The objective of the project can be divided in three sub-objectives:
1. Preparation of an LCA for an offshore sited and an onshore sited Vestas turbine, respectively,
including grid connection.
2. Consideration of improvement strategies for every one of the life stages: Manufacturing, use and
removal.
3. Preparation of an environmental product declaration (EPD) of the two turbine types and of
electricity produced through these.
1.3
Target group
This life cycle assessment is directed primarily to two target groups. :
The Danish turbine industry, including employees in VWS A/S departments of environment and
improvement of an integration of environment in the product improvement.
The interested public including the Danish Energy Authority shall be able to use the overall
results as part of an assessment of the turbines environmental characteristics.
1.4
Method
This LCA is carried out and reported according to the principles of ISO 14040-14043.
ISO 14040 deals with principles and framework and determines the overall frames, principles and
requirements to establishment and reporting of LCAs.
ISO 14041 goal and scope definition and inventory analysis together with ISO 14040 determine the
requirements and procedures necessary for the data collection and improvements of objectives and
delimitation of an LCA and also the establishment, interpretation and reporting of the mapping of a
lifecycle.
ISO 14042 life cycle impact assessment specifies requirements for the execution of the assessment of
environmental impacts in the life cycle and relation between this and the other steps in the LCA.
ISO 14043 life cycle interpretation determines requirements to and recommendation of the interpretation
of results of a life cycle assessment or life cycle mapping.
For modelling, the Danish Environmental Authoritys pc-tool is used, based on the UMIP-method. UMIP is
an abbreviation for environmental design of industrial products. (UMIP) is selected because Elsam
Engineering has created an extensive database with materials, environmental impacts etc. and is already
experienced when it comes to using the tool.

Doc. no. 200128
Page 7 of 54
2.
Scope
The selected turbine type is a Vestas V80 2 MW turbine, as in the scheme design. In this project,
however, both an onshore and an offshore sited wind farm are dealt with. The V80 turbine will be a little
unlike for the 2 locations.
The most essential difference is the tower height, but to this comes some smaller differences in the
nacelle. The foundations are not produced by VWS A/S, but as for the two turbine locations the
foundations differ considerably from each other, see more detailed descriptions in chapters 3 and 4.
Main data for a V80 turbine is to be seen from Table 2.1.
Tower
Nacelle
Rotor
Foundation
Table 2.1:
Offshore turbine
140 t (60 m high)
64 t
38 t
203 t
Onshore turbine
165 t (78 m high)
61 t
37 t
832 t
Main data for turbines for offshore and onshore sited farm, respectively.
2.1
Functional unit
The functional unit is selected as1 kWh electricity produced on the selected turbines. Therefore all the
impacts are estimated for this functional unit, which makes the results comparable with the results from
the LCA for other electricity production technologies.
2.2
Lifetime
The lifetime of turbines and internal cables is 20 years, while for transmission cables, transformer stations
and cable transition station the lifetime is 40 years. Still it is expected that the operation of the turbines as
a principle will continue more than 20 years, but there is no certainty for this.
When Elsam calculates financial circumstances of wind farms, it is based on the expected lifetime of 20
years. When the transmission grid is set to have an expected lifetime of 40 years it is based on the
assumption that after 20 years lifetime of the farm, another farm will be erected or the existing will
continue the operation for another 20 years.
2.3
Life cycle stages
The life cycle of includes production, transport, erection, operation, dismantling and also removal of
turbines, foundations and transmission grid. This is illustrated by the following figure with the attendant
explanation of the specific life stages.
Production of
turbine farm
components
Transport to site
and erection
Figure 2.1:
Operation.
including
maintenance
Dismantling and
scrapping
Stages in the life cycle.
Manufacturing:
Manufacturing includes the manufacturing of foundation, tower, nacelle and

blades for offshore and onshore turbines and also the manufacturing of
parts of the transmission grid.
Transport and erection:
Transport from factory to erection site. This includes transport by truck (+

escorting car(s), in case where these are used) and transport by vessel at

Doc. no. 200128
Page 8 of 54
sea. Furthermore, transport of certain large components from subcontractors to VWS A/S is included in the model.
Erection includes crane work and other construction work at site.
Operation and maintenance: Change of oil, lubrication and transport to and from the turbines are included
in the stage of operation and maintenance. Furthermore, renovation of gear
and generator are included. The transport onshore is by truck, while at sea
both vessels and helicopters are used.
Dismantling and scrapping: This includes cranage for dismantling, transport from erection place to the
final disposal (by vessel at sea and onshore by truck + escorting car(s),
where necessary). Furthermore, the further handling of the materials is
included, either by recycling or by deposit. The modelling is limited to the
point where the material is ready for reuse. This means for instance that
shredding and a certain loss to waste are included, while the manufacturing
in itself is left out.
A more detailed description of the wind farms and the included materials are presented in the following
chapters.

Doc. no. 200128
Page 9 of 54
3.
Offshore wind farm
The offshore wind farm in this LCA-study is exemplified by the planned offshore wind farm at Horns Reef,
established by Elsam in 2002. The reason for this choice is firstly that the farm will be regarded as
representative for offshore wind farms to be established these years. Secondly, the farm is owned by
Elsam and is planned by Elsam Engineering, thus, access to farm data is relatively easy to achieve.
The Horns Reef wind farm is placed in the North Sea approx 14 km from the coast of Blvands Huk. The
cable is to be connected ashore at Hvidbjerg Strand (seashore). For sketch of the farm complete with
onshore connection cable, see Figure 3.1.
Figure 3.1:
Sketch of Horns Reef wind farm including connection cable to Hvidbjerg Strand.
The farm consists of 80 Vestas V80 2 MW turbines erected in lattice pattern with a mutual distance of
approx 560 metres. The depth of the water in the area is between 6.5 and 13.5 metres at mean sea level.
The turbines are erected on mono pile foundations.
A sketch of the foundation types are seen from figure 3.2. When designing the farm, it was assessed
which of the threeWind
foundation types mono pile, caisson or tripod, would be the best at Horns Reef. The
mono pile is the cheapest of the three foundations, and due to the conditions at Horns Reef, e.g. a
uniform sand bottom, it is possible to ram down the mono piles into the seabed. Besides, all other
technical criteria can be fulfilled with mono pile foundation. Therefore, the mono pile is the preferred
foundation for Horns Reef.

Doc. no. 200128
Page 10 of 54
Figure 3.2:
Optional foundations for the turbines at Horns Reef. Mono pile is selected.
The foundations have a diameter of approx 4 metres and are rammed down approx 25 metres into the
seabed. Between foundation and tower there is a transition piece for counterbalancing the diameter. On
every transition piece, a boat platform is mounted,. This platform is used when the turbines are visited by
boat.
The turbines are mutually connected by a 32 kV cable grid, which is assembled on the transformer
station. At the transformer station, the produced energy from the wind farm is gathered and carried on to
the shore. The transformer station is placed north-east of the offshore wind farm and consists of
transformer, foundation, platform and internal cable.
The foundation of the transformer platform, which has a lifetime of 40 years, consists of three piles; two of
these have a diameter of about 1.6m and one has a diameter of 2.3m. The three foundation piles are
mutually combined by lattice girders.
3.1
Electric power generation
The electric power generation from Horns Reef wind farm is stated to 647 GWh/year1, i.e. that each
turbine produces 8.088 MWh/year, corresponding to 4.044 full loaded hours/year. These figures originate
from recognized calculations of electric power generation and express a conservative assessment.
This figure indicates the turbines production of electricity to be delivered to the transformer stations
including the grid loss that might be in the internal cables on the farm. From the transformer station to
connection to the existing transformer onshore, however, there is a grid loss in the transformer and the
cables stated to 10 GWh/year for the total farm. Approx 10% of this loss goes from the transformer2.

Doc. no. 200128
Page 11 of 54
Net loss:10GWh
Horns
Reef Wind
Farm
Figure 3.3:
Horns Reef
Wind Farm
annual
production
647 GWh
647GW
32/150 kV
transformer
station &
150kV cable
637GWh
637GW
Connection
to
transmission
line 637
GWh
Creation of system for LCA-model of Horns Reef.
3.2
Operation
In connection with operation of the turbines, wear and tear will take place especially of the rotating parts.
The turbines are dimensioned and constructed to a lifetime of minimum 20 years. To be on the safe side
in this environmental assessment, a conservative estimate situation of maintenance of the turbines is
assumed. It is expected that during the lifetime of 20 years one reconditioning/renewal of half of the gears
and the generators is to be undertaken, which, as a minimum, is expected to comprise a renewal of the
bearings. To simplify the model of operation, only the gearboxes have been included, but in return the
model comprises a total renewal of half of the gearboxes once in the turbines lifetime. Thus, the model
should now include an abundant amount of materials, as several of the gears and the generators will
probably be repaired and not renewed. Moreover, the gearbox is significantly heavier than the generator.
In addition, materials for servicing of the turbines are included in the form of change of oil and lubrication
of gear, generator etc.
The foundations of the offshore turbines are given cathodic protection as rust prevention, i.e. an active
anode is used, which in this case is aluminium. This protection implies that aluminium is consumed
through the lifetime. This is included in the operational stage.
Paint repair and renewal of active anodes to the cathode protection must be carried out at the transformer
station after an operation time of 10-15 years. Further use of resources or materials is not included. It is
estimated that inspection will be carried out 12 times a year. 9 of these are expected to be carried out by
helicopter and the remaining 3 by boat. Inspection will also include about 2.400 km a year by car.
Regular inspection of the cables at the offshore farm is not included. However, the turbines are expected
to receive servicing 5 times a year, which in 4 cases will be by helicopter and one time by boat.11

Doc. no. 200128
Page 12 of 54
3.3
LCA model
The model includes the turbines, the internal cables, transformer station offshore, sea cable, cable
transmission station onshore and onshore cable to the existing grid. Each of these includes materials,
manufacturing, transport, erection, operation, dismantling and scrapping. Figure 3.4 shows the elements
included in the LCA model for Horns Reef wind farm.
Horns Rev
Wind farm
Cable transmission station
150 kV transformer
Not included in LCA)
SF6 site
32 kV sea cable
32 kV seacable
150 kV seacable
150 kV seacable
System limit
Figure 3.4:
Sketch of structure of Horns Reef offshore wind farm with statement of
system boundaries for the LCA.

Doc. no. 200128
Page 13 of 54
4.
Onshore wind farm
The planned Tjreborg wind farm is selected as an example of an onshore wind farm. The turbine type
is a V80 2.0 MW turbine, but in this case the turbine type is for onshore placement.
Figure 4.1:
Placement and organisation of Tjreborg wind farm. The existing turbines are marked with
black, and the new turbines with red.
In 2002, an onshore wind farm consisting of 8 turbines of various types with an effect of between 1.0 and
2.5 MW was established in Tjreborg. One of these is a Vestas V80 2.0 MW turbine. A farm of this size
is considered as a realistic size of an onshore wind farm with 2 MW turbines in Denmark.
Therefore, the onshore wind farm is modelled as a farm with 8 Vestas V80 2.0 MW turbines.
All the turbines are connected to the existing distribution grid in a 10/60 kV transformer station. The
cables combining the turbines internally and to the transformer station are 10 kV cables. All cable
extensions will take place in the soil. A new 10kV cable for the 4 new turbines will be established, as the
existing electricity grid between the turbines in Tjreborg can not lead to an additional effect of 8-10 MW.
See Figure 4.3, for a principle sketch of Tjreborg onshore wind farm.
In Tjreborg, there will be a total of 8 km of 10 kV cable for connection of all 8 turbines to the existing
transformer station.
The turbines are to be erected on concrete foundations. Each turbine foundation is established in
connection to a road, working and turning area. The size of the foundations is dependent on the
geotechnical conditions. Normally, the traditional bottom plates are approx 15 15m wide and 2m deep.
In total, approx 400m3 of reinforced concrete.

Doc. no. 200128
Page 14 of 54
The below figure shows a principle design of a bottom plate
Figure 4.2:
Principle sketch of bottom plate for onshore turbines.
An access road is made with surface structure of gravel or any other approved road-making material.
4.1
Electric power generation
A production calculation for the 4 new turbines in Tjreborg is carried through, on condition that it is
Vestas V80 2.0 MW onshore turbines. If the result of the production calculation aggregated with
production data for the existing 2 MW turbine in Tjreborg is used, it is found that the production from
each Vestas V80 2 MW turbine is 5,634 GWh/year, corresponding to 2,817 full load hours. This is a quite
high performance for an area onshore and corresponds to one of the best locations onshore in Denmark.
In the sensitivity assessment calculations will be elaborated to assessment of the other onshore locations.
Losses in the cables are not calculated, as the loss is insignificant little, as to the fact that the cables are
very short.
4.2
Operation
Regarding maintenance of the turbines a conservative estimate includes that half of the
gearboxes are to be renewed after 10 years. In addition, change of oil, lubrication of gear and
generator etc. are to be included. Twice a year, a technician must go to the farm for carrying out
surveillance of turbines and cables. Therefore transportation by car 900 km/year through the
lifetime of the farm has been included in the model.
4.3
LCA model
In the model of the onshore wind farm, materials, manufacturing, transport, erection, operation,
dismantling and scrapping of turbines and internal cables are included.

Doc. no. 200128
Page 15 of 54
Tjreborg
Turbine farm
Vestas V80
10/60 kV transformer
(Not included in LCA)
10 kV PEX onshore cable
System limit
Figure 4.3:
the LCA.
Grid connection system for Tjreborg wind farm and statement of system boundaries of
The lifetime of the turbines and the internal cables are set to be 20 years. VWS A/S states that the
lifetime of onshore turbines is 20 years, and Elsam uses 20 years in the financial calculations. The
turbines will probably be operating for several years but in the course of time the frequency of reparation
and maintenance will increase, which may be a sign that after all the turbines will be taken out of
operation after 20 years.
5.
Data collection
The collection of data has taken place in a very close co-operation with VWS A/S, so all information has
been discussed with VWS A/S, and all assumptions of and approaches to materials and processes have
been submitted and discussed.
As regards the transmission part to the offshore wind farm, there has also been a close co-operation with
Eltra, who has delivered data to this part.
Concerning the turbines, the most significant environmental impacts will most typically arise during the
manufacturing of the turbines and also the removal of the individual components, when the turbine shall
be scrapped. On the other hand, the operational stage does not contribute significantly to the
environmental impacts. Therefore the data collection has been concentrated in procuring as precise data
as possible for the production and dismantling stages. To ease the model construction, the turbine
system is divided into the component systems:
tower
nacelle
blades
foundation
internal cables
transformer station (off shore wind farm)
onshore bringing (offshore wind farm).

Doc. no. 200128
Page 16 of 54
At the data collection, the target for included materials has been to cover approx 95% of the turbines
weight, as it has previously been proven that manufacturing of the turbine causes the major part of the
3
environmental impacts in the whole life cycle of the turbine . This has also been the target in connection
with data for the other parts of the farms.
In connection with LCA-data for the used materials, it has been attempted to cover 95% of what regards
all 1st level materials (i.e. materials used on VWS A/S factories, e.g. PrePreg for blades and steel for
towers). As regards 2nd level materials (i.e. materials used by the sub-contractors, i.e. paint and content
of substances in PrePreg) it has been a question of prioritising the selection of materials of which it has
been important to collect information.
5.1
Procedures for data collection
The data collection for the turbines has mainly been carried out by VWS A/S on the basis of the item lists
for the two turbine types and drawings of various components. The item lists are brought up from the
companys production management system, which furthermore contains information about material and
weight of a very large part of incoming raw materials and semi-manufactured articles. As a starting point,
all the item numbers on the item lists are included. As regards the items, where the information has not
been immediately accessible it is assessed in each case whether it would be relevant to search for further
information about weight and material composition. This has, among other things, caused that quite many
screws and bolts and also minor electronic components have been unlisted. As regard large items as e.g.
gearbox and generator, the information originate from the supplier.
Information about overall conditions for the farms, transmission, foundations, electric power generation
and for some part operation and maintenance is mainly gathered from Elsam and Elsam Engineering,
who are owner and owner's consulting engineer, respectively. In all instances, the information is
presented to and discussed with VWS A/S. Information about the transmission from the offshore wind
farm is drawn from Eltra, as owner for this.
Where possible the information about various materials is drawn from the database to UMIP, which have
been extended through Elsam Engineerings work with LCAs during recent years. In cases where LCAdata was missing or the existing data has been inadequate, these data are searched through suppliers,
internet and other LCA-studies. In some incidents, it has been necessary to make assumptions about the
materials. The assumptions will be described in the individual sections below.
5.1.1 Workshop about reuse
As part of the project a workshop has been held about the dismantling of the turbines and removal of
components/materials. Participants in the workshop are people occupied with dismantling, removal and
recycling. Besides VWS A/S and Elsam Engineering, the following parties were represented: H.J. Hansen
(occupied with dismantling, recovery and electronic waste, Demex (occupied with dismantling), Waste
Centre Denmark and RIS, who is working with assessment of future turbines in life cycle perspective.

Doc. no. 200128
Page 17 of 54
The work of this project contains the following removal scenario:

Material
Steel
Cast iron
Stainless steel
High-strength
steel
Cobber
Aluminium
Lead
Glass fibre
PVC-plastic
Other plastic
Rubber
Scenario
90% recycling
90% recycling
90% recycling
90% recycling
90% recycling
90% recycling
90% recycling
100% deposit
100% deposit
100% incineration of waste
100% incineration of waste
Table 5.1:
Removal scenario for materials
The above mentioned scenarios of removal data derive from literature data and from the workshop about
recycling. However, some of the experts from the recycling industry expressed that the loss by recycling
steel and metal is less than the 10%, which are used in several cases. The reason why the 10% is
maintained is that there is much uncertainty about the figure and at the same time it is not known exactly
if all materials can be divided totally, i.e. there might be a loss, before the recycling process is started.
5.1.2 Allocations
As turbines only produce electricity and no heat, there is no need for allocation between more products.
This simplifies the inventory.
5.1.3
Manufacturing of turbines
5.1.3.1 VWS A/S energy consumption

VWS A/S energy consumption for manufacturing turbines is set in connection with its Environmental
Statement for 2001 (which not was published at the time when the collection of data ended) and indicates
the total energy consumption in VWS A/S factories and offices. The energy consumption is stated as a
key figure of the energy, which may be produced through the lifetime of the turbine (20 years), on all
turbines manufactured at VWS A/S in 2001.
The energy consumption covers the total consumption for all buildings and processes. So it has not been
possible to divide the energy consumption among the individual turbine components. However, it is
included as a total consumption of manufacturing of one turbine.
The energy consumption includes electricity, heat, oil and gas. The allocation between these various
energy forms is given by VWS A/S, who publishes the numbers in the Environmental Statement for 2001.
VWS A/S has entered a purchase agreement about electricity for 2001, where the total free part 54% is purchased from renewable energy sources, i.e. CO2-neutral, whereas the mandatory part - 46% (prioritised production), which VWS A/S must buy, as 2001 was expected to consist of 44% renewable
energy primary wind power. I.e., of the total electricity consumption 74% is from CO2-neutrale energy
sources.

Doc. no. 200128
Page 18 of 54
The division of electricity used by VWS A/S has been taken from the expected division as shown in the
4
Environmental Statement for 2000 , as the new numbers were not available. The division of electricity
consumption regarding production methods are as follows (it is also indicated, how the individual systems
are modelled in UMIP):
Energy system
Not prioritized
electricity:
- water power
Prioritized electricity:
- wind power
- other Danish
system electricity
Table 5.2:
Share Modelled as
54%
Norwegian electricity 1990 (99,7 % water power +

0,4% conventional power plants)
20%
Electricity from turbines (results from scheme design,

PSO 1999)
Danish system electricity 1997 (Division between heat
and electricity is undertaken by means of energy
quality)
26%
View of division of VWS A/S electricity consumption 2000.
5.1.3.2 Manufacturing of tower

The towers for VWS A/S turbines are to some extent manufactured at VWS own factory in Varde, and
the rest is purchased from sub-contractors. In this project only data from towers manufactured by VWS
A/S has been used.
The towers are manufactured in steel. The steel is delivered to VWS A/S in steel plates, which have
already been pre-cut in a way that VWS A/S factories do not need to cut up the plates any further. In
addition, there is no waste of steel. When the iron plates arrive at VWS A/S, the plates to the tower
sections are rolled. Every section is welded lengthwise, then the individual sections are welded together.
The subsequent treatments i.e. sandblasting and surface treatment of the towers are not performed at
VWS A/S, but at sub-contractors.
In this project the manufacturing at VWS A/S and the subsequent surface treatment at sub-contractors
have been included.
The manufacturing of steel plates has been modelled as steel plates from the UMIP-database, yet in a
slightly modified version based on information from the Danish Steel Rolling Mill, which has also been
used in the scheme design.
The process, which has been found in the UMIP-data base for steel plates (89% primary), has been
found not to be up-to-date and not to dispose of waste correctly. Oven slag is produced when
manufacturing steel, and in the UMIP oven slag has been defined as hazardous waste. Actually, the oven
5
slag is reused in the asphalt industry and the oven slag has not been defined as hazardous waste in
accordance with the Ministry of The Environments Statutory Order no (Ann. No. 619 of 27/06/2000).
Therefore a modified version of the steel process has been made, in which the oven slag has been
defined as bulk waste in stead of as hazardous waste. A form of reusing the oven slag should have been
included, but to simplify the data collection it has been included as bulk waste.

Doc. no. 200128
Page 19 of 54
Data regarding consumption of steel, welding wire, welding powder, paint and sand blasting originates
from VWS A/S item lists and information from the sub-contractors.
5.1.3.3 Manufacturing of nacelle
The nacelle consists of the nacelle cover, which includes generator, gear, main shaft, yaw system,
flanges etc.
The individual part components are not manufactured by VWS A/S, but are purchased from subcontractors, and then the final finishing (welding, metal cutting) and subsequent assembling take place at
VWS A/S factories.
5.1.3.3.1 Gear
According to the supplier the gear to a 2.0 MW turbine consists of cast iron, 7CrNiMoS6-steel and
31CrMoV9-steel, which constitute approx 95% of the material consumption for the gearbox.
The final 5% of the material consumption is used for bearings, which consist of steel alloys. There is no
available information about the composition of these materials.
Since it has not been possible to get specified information about the 2 CrMo-steel types, data for stainless
steel has been included instead. Stainless steel is the kind of steel which is most similar to the CrMo-steel
and has already been entered into the UMIP. I.e. the gear is assumed to consist of 50% cast iron and
50% stainless steel.
The supplier has not stated the energy consumption for manufacturing the gear. Therefore the energy
consumption has been estimated based on information from a previous LCA of turbines6 by up-scaling
the energy consumption on the basis of the weight of the gear. Electric power generation in Europe has
been used, as the gears are delivered by a supplier in Europe.
5.1.3.3.2 Generator
According to the supplier, the generator consists of cast iron and various steel types such as steel plates
and cobber.
The manufacturer has not informed about the energy consumption during the manufacturing process, and
therefore the energy consumption has also here been scaled on the basis of the weight of the generator
from a previous LCA for turbines6. Here is used European electricity too, as the generator is delivered
from a European producer.
5.1.3.3.3 Nacelle cover
The nacelle cover for a 2.0 MW wind turbine is manufactured of composite material. The Danish plastic
industry has made an LCA-screening of various plastic materials including the manufacturing of cabins7.
Information from this has been used in present project.
5.1.3.3.4
5.1.3.3.5 Main shaft
The main shaft for the wind turbine is manufactured of CrMo-steel. As the gear, this high power steel has
been estimated with stainless steel.
The energy consumption for the manufacturing process of the main shaft has not been available and
therefore it has not been included.

Doc. no. 200128
Page 20 of 54
5.1.3.3.6 Electricity switchboard

The control system (approx 1,500 kg), which has been placed in the nacelle, consists of electricity
switchboards. VWS A/S has provided information about the individual components weights, as well as
the weight of the steel cabinets. It has not been possible to find LCA-data on all the electronic
components. However, estimated average figures have been applied. Like this, a model of the
consumption of the average electronic has been used based on a work report from the Danish Protection
Agency about Elucidation about environmental declaration of contents of consumer electronic from
knowledge to action8. In this way the energy consumption for manufacturing of materials and assembling
by VWS A/S have been included, but exclusive of manufacturing of part components at the subcontractors.
5.1.3.3.7 Other parts in nacelle
In addition to above mentioned components the nacelle also consists of the following components:
Yaw system.
Bearing house.
Main brackets.
Torque arms (at gear).
Hydraulic systems.
Cables.
All above parts are also represented in this life cycle assessment, as we have received data from VWS
A/S about the individual parts weight and materials.
5.1.3.4 Manufacturing of rotor

The blades are produced at VWS A/S factory in Nakskov.
VWS A/S uses Prepreg, which is a glass fibre mat impregnated with epoxy resin. It has been difficult to
obtain information from the manufacturer and supplier about the composition and the manufacturing of
Prepreg.
From the suppliers PrePreg safety data sheets it is assumed that Prepreg consists of approx 40% epoxy
and 60% glass fibre.
In the data base for the LCA-tools SimaPro, data has been found on Epoxy. The data is based on data
from The Association of Plastics Manufacturers in Europe -APME9
The data has been transferred to the UMIP. However, there is incomplete data or lacking data on certain
materials in the UMIP-data base, and unfortunately the epoxy data is incomplete which gives rise to some
uncertainty. Still, the available data and estimated time are regarded to be the best data possible. If the
environmental impacts are calculated from epoxy in SimaPro with the UMIP-method and in UMIP,
respectively, it is found that most of the impacts to some extent are similar, while as regard to bulk waste
there are differences on human toxicity, corresponding to a factor of 50-200. Some of the differences are
due to the different data basis in the 2 data bases, missing data in the UMIP-data base compared with the
SimaPro data bases as well as differences in the calculation methods. Taking all this into consideration, it
is still estimated that the epoxy data used in the present project is acceptable.

Doc. no. 200128
Page 21 of 54
The blades are primarily manufactured of PrePreg, which is uncured by using heat and vacuum. A blade
is constructed over a spar/root joint, which is made of Prepreg. The blade shell, which consists of two
PrePreg pieces, is placed over the spar and glued together around the spar.
Prepreg is delivered to VWS A/S on rolls. The Prepreg rolls are covered with separation film. At VWS A/S
the Prepreg is cut into appropriate pieces to the spar and the blade shell.
PUR-glue and other materials are used to assemble the blade shells and the spars. Sufficient LCA-data
on PUR-glue has been impossible to obtain, but from the manufacturers environmental accounts it has
been possible to procure some data, which is estimated to be relatively adequate. The environmental
accounts do, however, cover several types of glue from the producer, for which reason only average data
has been used in cases, where it has not been obvious to omit content substances such as solvents.
The spinner is also included in the rotor statement. Finished part components for the spinner are
delivered to VWS A/S, who is in charge of the assembling. The spinner consists of nose cone supports,
blade hub, torque arm plates, torque arm shafts and torque arm blocks. Furthermore, the spinner is
constructed of fibre glass-reinforced polyester. VWS A/S has provided information about all components,
material types and weights of these. The glass fibre has been modelled as described under the Nacelle
Cover. CrNiMo-steel is equivalent to stainless steel.
Apart from the above mentioned, VWS A/S has informed that some auxiliary materials such as vacuum
fleece and various plastic films are used.
5.1.3.4.1 Waste from the blade manufacturing process
When using PrePreg in the manufacturing process up to 10% of the PrePreg turns into waste due to cutoffs. Previously, the waste was sent to incineration, but this no longer possible. In the future the waste will
be reused or uncured and deposited. As both processes are very new, it has not been possible to include
them in this environmental assessment.
VWS A/S disposes of separation film as combustible waste.
The auxiliary materials such as vacuum fleece, vacuum foil and slip and bleeding foil, will all be removed
before assembling of the blades. The vacuum fleece has collected surplus epoxy, however, the extent of
this is unknown. Auxiliary materials are disposed as combustible waste.
5.1.4 Manufacturing of onshore foundation
The foundation for the onshore turbine consists of plate foundations made with reinforced concrete.
Typically, the size is 15 15 metres and 2 metres deep. The foundation is concreted in situ. After
excavation the hole is filled with approx 350 m3 concrete with approx 27 tons of reinforcement. Transport
of concrete and reinforcement to the farm area has not been included. Only materials are included in the
model.
5.1.5 Manufacturing of offshore foundation

At the time of the data collection for this project no real practical experience was available in Denmark
regarding establishment of steel foundations for offshore turbines. The following considerations are
primarily referred to the tender documents for the foundation agreement at Horns Reef.

Doc. no. 200128
Page 22 of 54
It is presumed that the turbine is placed on 10-13 metres of water, calculated from sea surface to sea
bottom at average water level. Like this, secure dimensioning has been chosen in proportion to the
average water dept at Horns Reef at 6.5 13 metres.
The foundation consists of a foundation pile, a transition piece, boat landing platform, platform and
cathode protection.
As the dimensions for the foundation pile may fluctuate due to various sea depths, different assumptions
are made as regard the dimension of the foundation. The dimensions are as follows:
Foundation pile
Length
Diameter
Thickness
: High-strength steel
: 29,700 mm
: 4,000 mm
: 30 mm, 45 mm, 50 mm
Dimensions for the transition piece are as follows:

Length
: 17,000 mm
Diameter
: 4,240 mm (bund), 4,000 mm (top)
Thickness
: 40 mm and 50 mm
5.1.5.1 Manufacturing of foundation piles and transition piece.
The production of the foundation pile and the transition piece is based on above-mentioned tender
materials. Furthermore, experience from previous LCA-studies on various processes as welding, sand
blasting etc. and from manufacturing the turbine tower has been used.
The quantity of steel has been determined from the tender material. The energy consumption has been
estimated from a previous LCA-study on turbines regarding production of tower. It has been assumed that
the energy consumption is linear correlated to the steel tonnage. Furthermore, experience based on data
from the LCA-study about material consumption for the welding process has been used. It has not been
possible to determine other parameters for the manufacturing process of the pile. For the foundation, the
following data has been used: steel, energy consumption, welding, acetylene, tetrene, atal-6, welding
powder, oxygen and argon.
5.1.5.2 Surface treatment
The steel is sand blasted, cf. tender material. Incoming quantities of sand has been stated. For the
coating of the steel a 2-component thick film (epoxy) coating has been stated.
Regarding the paint data has been provided from the suppliers green accounting, and this data has been
attempted to be modelled in the UMIP. However, more incoming substances have been used, where it
has been difficult to find data. Some data has been omitted, whereas the most important data has been
found in e.g. SimaPros data base. It has not been possible to get information from the suppliers about
the energy consumption and emissions obtained from the processes.
5.1.5.3 Assembling of foundation piles and transition piece
The transition piece has a larger dimension than the foundation pile. A concrete based material with
high-strength quality has been used for coupling the pile and the transition piece. However, it has not
been possible to obtain data about the manufacturing of this special concrete material within the deadline
of the project. Instead data on production of ordinary concrete has been used. Data refers to Aalborg
Portlands environmental statement of 199910.

Doc. no. 200128
Page 23 of 54
5.1.5.4 Boat landing platform and platform

Both the boat landing platform and the platform have are manufactured in steel and entered with
quantities found during the projecting the foundation11.
5.1.5.5 Cathode protection

In order to minimize corrosion the foundation pile has been cathode protected inside as well as outside.
Passive solutions of cathode protection have been selected, which means that no applied power is
needed for the protection. I.e. we use sacrificial anodes made of aluminium, where the sacrificial material
must be sufficient to protect the pile in its lifetime.
In connection with the erection of offshore turbines at Horns Reef the dimension of the cathode protection
(inside and outside) has been calculated. The quantity of material may vary depending on the water
depth. A water depth of 10-13 metres has been estimated.
The lifetime of the cathode protection has been set to be 30 years. However, the lifetime has been
recalculated to 20 years, which also applies for the rest of turbine. During the dismantling and scrapping
47% of Al will be unexploited and the part, which has been exploited will be included in the operation of
the foundations. For the protection system, all incoming cables are included, e.g. the cobber in the
cables. It has not been possible to include a complete material composition and/or the lifecycle of the
cables. All cables are made of cobber and are included in the model as pure cobber.
5.1.6 Manufacturing of internal farm cables to offshore wind farm
32 kV PEX submarine cables are used as internal farm cables, i.e. between the turbines and between the
turbine farms and the 32/150 kV transformers.
The 95 and 150 mm2 cables are manufactured by the Oslofjorden, and the 400 mm2 cable is
manufactured in Hanover.
Data regarding the manufacturing of the cable has been obtained from the suppliers data sheet for this
cable. The cables contain cobber, lead, steel and insulator. The insulator is assumed to be polyethylene.
All the materials are known in the UMIP data base.
During the manufacturing process we have estimated with 50 km onshore transport from the material
supplier to the cable factory.
5.1.7 Manufacturing of transformer station to offshore wind farm

The foundation for the platform, which has a 40-year lifetime, consists of three piles; two of these with a
diameter of approx 1,6 m and a pile with a diameter of 2,3 m. The three foundation piles are mutually
combined via lattice girders.
The platform has been placed approx 14 m above mean water level and holds a height of approx 7 m.
The ground dimensions are 20 28 m. The steel superstructure will be covered on the sides to create
shelter on the platform. On top of the platform approx 23 m above mean water level a helicopter
platform has been placed with a diameter of approx 20 m.
The superstructure is assembled onshore and transported to the offshore wind farm as one module. The
module is placed on the substructure by means of a floating crane.

Doc. no. 200128
Page 24 of 54
The foundation and the platform consist of steel, stainless steel, aluminium and reinforced concrete, and
UMIP-database has data on all these materials.
The transformer primarily consists of oil, tin, cobber and steel. LCA-data can be found in the UMIP
regarding these materials.
5.1.8
Manufacturing of 150 kV PEX submarine-/onshore cable and SF6-system for offshore wind
farm
A 150 kV PEX cable with a 40-year lifetime is used for transferring electricity from the offshore
transformer station to the connection of the power transmission grid via the cable transition station at
Hvidbjerg Seashore south of Oksby. The length of the cable from the offshore transformer station to the
cable transition station is approx 20 km; and from the transition station to the connection of the 150 kV
transmission grid there is approx 34 km. In other words 20 km of the cables are submarine cables and
the remaining 34 km are onshore cables.
The submarine cable starts at the transformer platform at the offshore wind farm and ends onshore by
Hvidbjerg Seashore south of Oksby. On the coast the cable is pulled approx 1,000 metres onshore, and
subsequently the submarine cable is connected to the onshore cable in a cable transition station. And
there the onshore cable is wired to the 150 kV-transformer station on Karlsgrde north of Varde.
The cable transition station at Oksby connects the submarine cable from the offshore wind farm to the
onshore cable. Apart from the transition between the two cable types, the transition station also contains
a fixed coupled output coil for compensation of the cables generated reactive effect.
The cable transition station has been established as a capsular SF6-system in order to minimise the
dimension of the site. The site has been placed in a building of approx 200 m2. This building is very
simple and has not been included in this LCA, as it has been estimated to be insignificant. For the
manufacturing of the cable transition station primarily cast iron, oil, cobber and steel has been used.
The submarine cable in the trace will be a 150 kV three-conductor, PEX cable equipped with a sea
armouring of steel wires. The submarine cable primarily consists of lead, cobber, steel and plastic.
The onshore cable will be equipped with one-conductor PEX isolated cables with 1.200 mm2. Each of the
three one-conductor cables weighs approx 9 kilos/m and has a diameter of 90 mm. The onshore cable is
manufactured at one of the ABB Groups cable factories in Karlskrona. The primary materials in the
onshore cable are aluminium, cobber and plastic and also sand and concrete for the cable channel.
During the manufacturing process a 50 km onshore transportation has been estimated from the material
supplier to the cable factory.

Doc. no. 200128
Page 25 of 54
5.2
Incoming materials
The largest quantities of incoming materials for the wind turbine and the transmission respectively
(including internal cables) are shown in Table 5.3.
Materials
Steel
Highstrength
steel
(stainless
steel)
Cast iron
Glass fibre
Plastic
Lead
Cobber
Aluminium
Zinc
Concrete
Materials to offshore wind farm

Offshore turbine Transmission
(kg/turbine)
(kg/farm)
349.240
1.488.186
13.331
8.000
20.688
21.842
3.879
2
2.958
3.545
9.914
0
131.000
0
822.158
2.354.742
858.237
364.450
700
1.375.000
Materials to onshore wind farm

Onshore turbine Transmission
(kg/turbine)
(kg/farm)
223.140
0
13.328
0
20.688
21.507
3.088
0
2.816
1.678
203
805.000
0
0
11.016
0
2.032
576
0
0
Table 5.3:
Significant incoming materials in above model of offshore- and onshore wind farm,
respectively. Note that statement of materials to the turbines is stated per turbine, while the materials to
the transmission system are stated for the total transmission system, i.e. per farm.

Doc. no. 200128
Page 26 of 54
6.
Life cycle impact assessment
The life cycle survey of offshore wind farms and onshore wind farms has been used to make a calculation
of the environmental impacts for the two farms. The calculation has been made in the Danish LCA tool
UMIP (see more specific description in section 1.1).
6.1
Environmental impacts
The potential environmental impacts shown below have been included:
Global warming.
Ozone-depletion.
Acidification.
Radioactive waste.
Nutrient enrichment(eutrophication).
Human toxicity.
Eco-toxicity.
Bulk waste.
Hazardous waste.
Global warming is the atmospheres ability to reflect a part of the heat radiation to the earth. The
greenhouse effect is increased by the atmospheres content of carbon dioxin, CFC, laughing gas and
methane among others. Increased emission of these substances might impact the heat balance of the
earth and over the next years this may result in a warmer climate.
Ozone depletion: Formation and depletion of ozone are naturally in balance in the earths stratosphere
15-40 km up into the atmosphere. But the depletion will increase due to the humans emissions of
halocarbons, i.e. organic compounds, which contain chlorine or bromine, and which is persistent enough
to reach the stratosphere. The reduced amount of ozone in the stratosphere means that a more harmful
UV-rays in the sunlight will reach the surface of the earth.
Acidification means that acids and compounds, which can be transformed into acids are emitted into the
atmosphere and subsequently deposited in the water and soil environment, which means that the
admission of hydrogen ions decline (pH decline), e.g. the degree of acidity will be increased. This will for
example result in negative consequences for coniferous trees and fish by way of forest die-back and
death of fish, and furthermore this will bring corrosion damages on buildings metals etc.
Radio active waste is waste of low radiation intensity from nuclear power plants, which are deposited at
special deposits for radio active waste.
Nutrient enrichment is an impact on eco systems with substances, which especially contains nitrogen
(N) or phosphorus (P). The consequence might be a disturbed biological balance, where a strong growth
of e.g. plants in aquatic environment at the expense of other life forms in the aquatic environment.
Human toxicity: Some substances are not very biodegradable and can reach high concentrations which
cause toxic effects on humans or on eco systems in various places in the environment.
Eco-toxicity: see human toxicity.

Doc. no. 200128
Page 27 of 54
Bulk waste is construction waste and similar waste, which are deposited at controlled waste deposits.
The waste is characterized by the fact that it does not contain environmentally hazardous substances.
Hazardous waste is waste, which must be brought to special processing plants such as
Kommunekemi A/S or to a special deposit for hazardous waste. The waste is characterized by
the fact that it contains environmentally hazardous substances, which may be released during the
stay on the deposit.
For further descriptions we kindly refer to the documentation for the UMIP-method12.
The first 4 examples are typical impacts from non-renewable energy productions and therefore
will be very dependent on the energy consumption which especially is included in the subcontractors production. Radio active waste derives from nuclear power stations in countries
such as Sweden, Germany and France.
6.2
Calculation method
By means of the UMIP pc-tool a normalization of the environmental impacts has been made. I.e. the
environmental impacts are stated in milli-person equivalents (mPE). The results reflect what 1 kWh power
12
produced from the wind farms through their lifetime make up of an average citizens total impact . This
means that the environmental impacts of power from the farms are related to a standard citizens average
contribution to the individual environmental impacts.
6.3
Results
As a control of how large a share of the materials which have been included in the model compared to the
stated weights in accordance to VWS A/S item list of the turbines and design drawings of foundations,
the total quantities have been compared to the stated weights in below table 6.1.
Tower
Nacelle
Rotor
Foundatio
n
Table 6.1:
Offshore turbine
General
Model
specifications
140 t (60 m high) 150 t (100%)
64 t
59 t (92%)
38 t
37 t (97%)
203 t
227 t (100%)
Onshore turbine
General
Model
specifications
165 t (78 m high) 168 t (98,5%)
61 t
62 t (100%)
37 t
37 t (100%)
832 t
832 t (100%)
Statement of compliance with weight measurements.
Above table shows that nearly all materials have been included. However, some give over 100%, but
there is a certain uncertainty of the stated figures of the components total weight.
6.3.1 Statement of resource consumption
The life cycle mapping can be added up in a statement of resource consumption for the total lifetime of
the turbine.

Doc. no. 200128
Page 28 of 54
Horns Reef offshore wind farm

Quantity
Resource
[g/kWh]
Dammed water
516
Water
70
Crude oil, fuel
1,17
Pit coal, fuel
0,75
Crude oil, raw material
0,46
Natural gas, fuel
0,39
Fe(Iron)
0,41
Brown coal, fuel
0,22
Calcium carbonate
0,18
(CaCO3)
Aluminium (Al)
0,02
Zinc (Zn)
Lead (Pb)
0,008
0,007
Pit coal, raw, raw material

Cobber (Cu)
0,006
0,004
Tjreborg onshore wind farm

Quantity
Resource
[g/kWh]
Dammed water
391
Water
72
Stone, broken granite
3,39
Crude oil, fuel
1,25
Ca (calcium)
1,00
Pit coal, fuel
0,69
Natural gas, fuel
0,30
Brown coal, fuel
0,22
Fe(iron)
0,21
Calcium carbonate
(CaCO3)
Aluminium (Al)
Pit coal, raw, raw
material
Zinc (Zn)
Cobber (Cu)
0,15
0,15
0,09
0,004
0,002
Table 6.2:
Significant resource consumption of 1 kWh electricity from offshore- and onshore wind
farm, respectively.
For both the offshore wind farm and the onshore wind farm the largest resource consumption is dammed
water, which is used for the electric power generation on hydroelectric power stations, which primarily are
used in Norway. The 516 g dammed water/kWh for the offshore wind farm corresponds to 0.0013 kWh
electricity, while the 391 g for the onshore wind farm corresponds to 0.001 kWh electricity.
Apart from dammed water, other water is the second most used resource. This water is used in several
production processes by the sub-contractors and at material production.
Oil, pit coal, natural gas and brown coal are all used for the energy production. Stone in the form of
broken granite and calcium enter in large quantities for the onshore wind farm, which is due to the large
consumption of concrete for the foundation and for the cable channels. Crude oil raw material, which is
used for the offshore wind farm, is used as transformer oil, among others, and is entered in quite large
quantities.
Iron is also one of the most used resources; and this material is used to produce steel, which is applied in
large quantities on the wind farms.
Calcium carbonate derives from fuel for transport.
At the offshore wind farm aluminium is primarily used for the foundation to the transformer station, in the
cable transition station and to the submarine cable. Lead and cobber are primarily used for the submarine
cable, and further lead derives from the consumption of Danish electricity.
At the onshore wind farm aluminium and cobber are primarily used in cables and nacelle.

Doc. no. 200128
Page 29 of 54
6.3.2 Environmental impacts of 1 kWh

The main result of this LCA is the environmental impacts of 1 kWh electricity from offshore wind farms
and onshore wind farms, respectively. These are classified in below Figure 6.1.
Comparison of the most significant environmental impacts of 1 kWh electricity
from Horns Rev offshore wind farm and Tjreborg onshore turbine farm
Radioactive waste
Hazardous waste
Bulk waste
Eco-toxicity
Human Toxicity
Nutrient enrichment
Acidification
Ozone-depletion
Global warming
0,0000
0,0002
0,0004
0,0006
0,0008
0,0010
0,0012
milli-person equivalents, mPE/kWh
Horns Rev wind farm
Tjreborg onshore turbine farm
Figure 6.1:
Environmental profiles of 1 kWh electricity from offshore wind farms and onshore wind
farms.
Figure 6.1 shows that the environmental profile of 1 kWh from Tjreborg onshore wind farm and Horns
Reef offshore wind farm, respectively, is relatively identical, however, except hazardous waste, where the
impact is significantly larger
(approx 100%) for the offshore wind farm than for the onshore wind farm.
The largest differences derive from bulk waste, hazardous waste, radio active waste, eco-toxicity and
greenhouse effect, where the impacts from offshore wind farms are larger. This is due to the fact that
after removal of the offshore wind farms a great part of the foundation is left behind, as only 1 metre
below the seabed will be removed, which means that 26% (weight) of the mono pile is left in the seabed.
In addition, more metals such as cobber and lead in the cables are used in the offshore wind farm than in
the onshore wind farm
The Global warming effect derives primarily from the production of energy, which is used during the
manufacturing of materials and assembling of turbines. The radio active waste also derives from the
energy production in the countries, where they use nuclear power such as Sweden and Germany.
Swedish electricity is part of the manufacturing of the cables to the offshore wind farm, while German
electricity is part of the European el-mix which is used for several processes in steel manufacturing.
Hazardous waste basically only derives from the manufacturing process, and first and foremost from the
manufacturing process of materials for the internal cables at Horns Reef winds farm and materials for the
nacelle. Bulk waste highly derives from the steel manufacturing and from disposal of the blades, which

Doc. no. 200128
Page 30 of 54
today are deposited. As regard Horns Reef the bulk waste also derives from the part of the foundation,
which is left behind in the seabed.
6.3.3 Environmental impacts divided on life stages.

A division of environmental impacts on life stages can be seen from the following figure, in which both
onshore wind farm and also offshore wind farm are presented.
On the figure both a positive and a negative scale can be read This means that the dismantling and
removal show a negative result, and this must be deducted from the positive column, and by that you
obtain the final environmental impact (as seen in Figure 6.1.). The reason why dismantling and removal
give cause for negative impacts is that recycling is used to a high degree, which means that you are
credited the quantity of materials, which are recycled. Included in dismantling and removal is energy
consumption of dismantling, transport/preparation of materials ready for new use.
Environmental impacts of 1 kWh

from Tjreborg onshore turbine farm divided on stages
Radio active waste
Hazardous waste
Bulk waste
Eco-toxicity
Human Toxicity
Nutrient enrichment
Acidification
Ozone-depletion
Global warming
-0,0040
-0,0030
-0,0020
-0,0010
0,0000
0,0010
0,0020

Manufacturing
Operation
Transport
Dismantling
0,0030
0,0040
0,0050

Doc. no. 200128
Page 31 of 54
Environmental impacts of 1 kWh from

Horns Rev offshore wind farm divided on stages
Radio active waste

Hazardous waste
Bulk waste
Eco-toxicity
Human Toxicity
Nutrient enrichment
Acidification
Ozone-depletion
Greenhouse effect
-0,0040
-0,0030
-0,0020
-0,0010
0,0000
0,0010
0,0020
0,0030
0,0040
0,0050

Manufacturing
Operation
Transport
Dismantling
Figure 6.2: 1 kWh electricity from onshore wind farms and offshore wind farms, respectively, divided
on life stages.
Not surprising, the manufacturing stage is crucial for the environmental impacts for electricity from
turbines, both for offshore wind farms as well as for onshore wind farms. At the same time it is important
to conclude that disposal of materials is terribly important for the environmental profile on electricity
generated from wind farms. If a less extent of recycling is assumed, this will immediately be shown on the
environmental impacts.
6.3.4 Environmental impacts divided on components
A division of the environmental impacts based on components is presented for 1 kWh electricity from the
onshore wind farms and the offshore wind farms, respectively, in Figure 6.3.

Doc. no. 200128
Page 32 of 54

Horns Rev offshore wind farm divided on turbines and transmission
Radio active waste

Hazardous waste
Bulk waste
Eco-toxicity
Human toxicity
Nutrient enrichment
Acidification
Ozone-depletion
Global warming
0,0000
0,0002
0,0004
0,0006
0,0008
0,0010
0,0012
milli-person equivalents mPE/kWh

Offshore turbines
The transmission grid

Tjreborg onshore turbine farm divided on turbine and 10kV cable
Radio active waste

Hazardous waste
Bulk waste
Eco-toxicity
Human Toxicity
Nutrient enrichment
Acidification
Ozone depletion
Global warming
0,0000
0,0001
0,0002
0,0003
0,0004
0,0005
0,0006
0,0007
0,0008
0,0009
0,0010
Turbine
10 kV cables to transformer
Figure 6.3: Environmental impacts for 1 kWh electricity from respectively onshore wind farms and
offshore wind farms allocated on turbines and transmission.
Figure 6.3 shows that the transmission on the offshore wind farm composes approx 10% of the
environmental impacts. The transmission on the onshore wind farm is basically insignificant. At the
onshore wind farm, only 8 km cables are used for the transmission grid, whereas, at Horns Reef the
transformer station is constructed and approx 50 km cables are used for transmission.
By dividing on main components it appears that there are some differences in the offshore wind farms
and the onshore wind farm. Regarding the onshore wind farm it is primarily the nacelle, the blades and
the tower which contribute to the total environmental impacts. Regarding the offshore wind farm it is

Doc. no. 200128
Page 33 of 54
primarily the nacelle and the foundation, which contribute to the environmental impacts. See appendix 1
for the division of main components. These differences are primarily due to the very various foundations,
which are used for the turbines sited onshore or offshore.
6.3.5 Comparison with Danish electricity 97
In order to relate the environmental impacts to the average Danish electricity production we have decided
to compare 1kWh electricity from Horns Reef and Tjreborg, respectively, with average Danish electricity
97 prepared by the energy societies in 20006.
Com parison of the environm ental im pacts of 1 kWh
from Horns Rev offshore w ind farm , Tjreborg onshore turbine farm & Danish el
97
R adio active was te
H azardous was te
0,0
B ulk was te
E co-toxicity
H uman T oxicity
Nutrient enrichment
Acidification
Ozone depletion
0,09
Global warming
0,00
0,01
0,01
0,02
0,02
0,03
0,03
0,04
0,04
mi lli -per s o n equiv alent s , mP E /kWh

Horns R ev offs hore wind farm
T jreborg ons hore turbine farm
Danis h el 97
Figure 6.4:
Comparison of 1 kWh electricity from Horns Reef and Tjreborg with average Danish
electricity 976 respectively.
Please note the differences in the functional unit for the two assessments. Regarding Danish electricity
97 the functional unit is 1 kWh electricity delivered at the consumer, whereas for turbine electricity it is 1
kWh electricity delivered to the electricity grid. This means that in the statement for Danish electricity the
total electrical grid has been included, but this is not the case in the statement for Tjreborg and Horns
Reef wind farm where it has not been included.
As the above figure shows, the environmental impacts from turbine electricity from Tjreborg and Horns
Reef, respectively, is considerably lower than from Danish average electricity in 1997.
6.4
Interpretation of results
The data quality which has been used in the present LCA has been estimated to be satisfactory for the
purpose, despite some lacks and assumptions. However, we estimate that for the most significant areas
the data has been found valid. One of the objectives with this LCA has been to use LCA as a basis for
improvement strategies internally in VWS A/S, and not use these results for publishing and comparison
with other turbine producers.

Doc. no. 200128
Page 34 of 54
6.4.1 Improvement strategies

One way of using the results of a LCA in the internal product development and product improvement is to
make a list with pros and cons. I.e. from the LCA results it should be possible to assess the materials
and/or the substances, which result in the largest environmental impacts, and in this way it should be
attempted to replace or minimise these in future products.
In this project it has not been possible to provide alternatives for the most damaging
substances/materials, as this would require thorough examinations of the alternative materials, both
regarding the physical qualities and the environmental qualities as well as the financial consequences.
The objective has been to prepare improvement strategies for the manufacturing, the operation and the
disposal stages, respectively.
6.4.1.1 Manufacturing
For the manufacturing of the turbines the objective has been to prepare alternatives to the present
production, either in the form of other materials or other processes. By using the life cycle assessment it
has been found that especially high-strength steel and Prepreg cause the environmental impacts. In other
words, these two materials should be focused on in connection with material substitution or other
improvement strategies.
It might be relevant to look at an improvement strategy, which has already been implemented due to
technical reasons, concerning Prepreg. The alteration is to change the method of production regarding
root joints in a way that liquid winding is used rather than Prepreg, which is used at present. Liquid
winding means that the dry glass fibre mats are required and epoxy resin is applied at the wrapping
process. When using Prepreg the mats have already been pre-impregnated with epoxy. A smaller waste
of epoxy and glass mats could be the environmental advantage by using liquid winding and result in
smaller quantities of waste and possibly reduce the impact on the working environment.
As it has actually been impossible to get sufficiently detailed LCA-data and data for different processes,
the comparison would be impossible to make. In order to see the differences and obtain a reliable result,
quite precise data on materials and processes must be available.
6.4.1.1.1 Type of foundation
As stated previously the offshore foundations do not give a significant contribution to the total
environmental impacts. We have tried to establish the significance the various types of offshore
foundations have to the environmental impacts. Three types of foundations have been evaluated and are
presented in Figure 3.2. Even though not all three types would technically be appropriate for Horns Reef,
the assessment can still be used to show the extent of the environmental impacts the individual
foundation would have by choosing another foundation. Like that, these can be used as design
parameters on future projecting of wind turbine farms.
When calculating the environmental impacts for the 3 foundations it was assumed that the transition
piece, the boat platform, the transport and the operation are identical on all three foundation types.

Doc. no. 200128
Page 35 of 54
The following data has been entered in the calculation to be used for the comparison:
Materials
Steel
Cathode, Al
Quantity Kg
130.000
700
Tripod
Steel
Cathode, Al
102.000
700
Cassion
Steel
Concrete
Cathode, Al
110.000
x
700
Mono pile
Precondition
Approx 10 m foundation is rammed
down into the seabed. This unit remains
on the seabed, the rest is reused
After 20 years 47% Al is unused.
Approx 10 m foundation is rammed
down into the seabed. This unit remains
on the seabed, the rest is reused.
The entire foundation will be removed
steel will be reused. Concrete is not
included in the model due to lack of
data.
Table 6.3:
Data, which has been entered in the calculations for comparison of environmental impacts
of the three foundation types.
Comparison of environmental impacts of

various foundation types for Horns Rev offshore wind farm
Radio active waste

Hazardous waste
Bulk waste
Eco-toxicity
Human Toxicity
Nutrient enrichment
Acidification
Ozone depletion
Global warming
0,0000
0,0002
0,0004
0,0006
0,0008
0,0010
0,0012
milli-personequivalents, mPE/kWh
Mono pile
Figure 6.5:
wind farm.
Tripod
Cassion
Comparison of the environmental impacts for 3 various foundation types at Horns Reef
When making an environmental comparison of the 3 foundation types it is obvious that there are some
minor differences on hazardous waste and bulk waste. This is due to differences in quantity of material,
which is left behind on the seabed when removing the foundations. The largest quantity of material is left
behind by the mono pile, whereas the cassion foundation is removed completely.

Doc. no. 200128
Page 36 of 54
6.4.1.2 Operation
There has been some uncertainty about whether inspections and scheduled/unscheduled service visits of
the offshore wind farm at Horns Reef should take place by helicopter or by boat, but we expect to perform
both by helicopter and by boat. In general, we have found that inspections and scheduled/unscheduled
service visits do not have significance for the total environmental impacts for the offshore wind farm, but
we estimate they amount to approx 10% of the environmental impacts, see Figure 6.6. Various transport
scenarios have been calculated in order to assess the environmental differences when using boat and
helicopter for transport in connection with inspections and scheduled/unscheduled service visits,
The actual, with 1 time boat and 4 times helicopter/year.

100% helicopter
100% boat
Environmental impacts per kWh for
Horns Rev offshore wind farm with operation visualized separately
Radio active waste
Hazardous waste
Bulk waste
Eco-toxicity
Human toxicity
Nutrient enrichment
Acidification
Ozone depletion
Global warming
0,0000
0,0002
0,0004
0,0006
0,0008
0,0010
0,0012
Horns Rev-wind farm
Operation related
Figure 6.6:
The environmental impacts for Horns Reef wind farm per kWh, where the operation stage
is shown as separate life stage

Doc. no. 200128
Page 37 of 54
Com parison of environm ental im pacts of various

transport scenarios at servicing at Horns Rev offshore w ind farm
Radi o acti ve wast e

Haz ar dous wast e
B ulk wast e
Eco-toxi cit y
Human T oxi cit y
Nut r ient enr ichment
Acidifi cation
Oz one depletion
Global war ming
0,000000
0,000005
0,000010
0,000015
0,000020
0,000025
0,000030
0,000035
mi l l i - per s on equ i v al en t s , mP E /k W h
100% helicopter
Cur r ent
100% boat s
Figure 6.7:
The environmental impacts for various scenarios for transport in connection with operation
of the offshore wind farm at Horns Reef.
Figure 6.7 shows that the 3 scenarios for transport indicate considerable differences in the environmental
impacts. The use of boat has very little environmental impacts, in fact so little that it is not visible on
Figure 6.7, whereas the use of helicopter has significantly larger environmental impacts, but still
insignificantly small impacts compared with the other life stages.
6.4.1.3 Disposal and recycling
A workshop has been held about the disposal stage, where various strategies and problems about
disposal of various materials were discussed. From this workshop the most significant conclusion was
that it is important too keep the materials separated during the manufacturing process. In this way it is
possible to maximise the recycling level of the materials. In the product development stage it is important
to consider the environmental impacts, the materials will have when they are disposed. However, there
was no exact recommendation of materials at the workshop.
6.4.1.3.1 Blades
The blades are assumed to be delivered to a waste disposal site simply because no recycling methods
are available today. This means that the blades represent a large contribution to the environmental
impact bulk waste (26.1% for Tjreborg and 17.4% for Horns Reef). We are continuously working on
developing suitable methods for recycling of turbine blades. Combustion of blades has been discussed as
a possible solution, and here the individual materials will be separated out as waste products. However,
this method is uncertain, as we do not know to what extent the materials can be used for the same
purpose or it must be earmarked for some other use.
In order to estimate the importance of depositing blades we have made calculations of 3 various
scenarios on how to dispose of blades:
The present with 100% depositing of blades.

Doc. no. 200128
Page 38 of 54
Combustion of blades without the possibility of recycling the materials.

90% recycling of the materials, exclusive of processing and 10% of the materials to deposit.
The calculations have been made for the total lifetime of the blades and assessed for 1 kWh, i.e. inclusive
of manufacturing, transport, dismantling and disposal. This calculation has been made at Tjreborg
onshore wind farm, but the differences between the 3 scenarios are identical on the two farms, as they
have identical turbine types and blades.
Comparison of environmental impacts at various
removal scenarios of blades for Vestas V-80 2,0MW turbine
Radio active waste
Hazardous waste
Volume waste
Eco-toxicity
Human Toxicity
Nutrient salt load
Acidification
Ozone depletion
Global warming
0,00000
0,00005
0,00010
0,00015
0,00020
0,00025

Blades - Volume waste
Blades - Combustion
Blades - Recycled 90%
Fi
gure 6.8: Environmental impacts on various scenarios for disposal of blades.
Comparing the 3 disposal scenarios shows that there are only minor differences on the environmental
impacts, apart from the category bulk waste. Bulk waste does, of course, generate very large impacts,
when the blades are deposited. Combustion of blades also generates a very large quantity of bulk waste,
as the glass fibre in the blades is inflammable and therefore ends as a residual product from the
combustion procedure. This residual product is defined as bulk waste.
6.5
Energy balance
One of the most significant aspects in the assessment of energy sites is the products energy balance.
The energy balance is an assessment of the relation between the energy consumption of the product and
the energy production throughout the lifetime.
6.5.1 Energy consumption

From the resource statement of the wind farms lifecycle, the energy consumption per turbine including
grid connection has been calculated i.e. manufacturing, operation, transport, dismantling/disposal and
transmission. In the statement, all energy resources have been included for the entire wind farms life
cycle. These quantities are recalculated by means of calorific value to energy. The energy has been
stated as gross energy, i.e. the energy which has been added in the form of fuel to a site has been
included, and not the produced energy.

Doc. no. 200128
Page 39 of 54
6.5.1.1.1 Offshore wind farm

The calculations of the energy consumption, by means of LCA, for Horns Reef wind farm has been shown
in Table 6.4. The calculations show that the energy consumption per offshore turbine is 6.074.655 kWh,
and from section 3.1 it is known that one turbine delivers 8.088.000 kWh/year.
Energy consumption [kJ/kWh]

Manufacturing/dis
mantling
Operation
Transport
Total
Fossil fuel
Coal
26,48
1,58
0,003
28,07
Oil
42,33
8,15
1,09
51,56
Gas
17,51
1,18
0,07
18,77
3,59
0,41
1,45E-07
4,00
25,93
8,28E-04
1,28E-06
0,58
0,96
4,51E-08
1,98E-08
0,03
0,002
0
0
7,52E-08
26,89
8,28E-04
1,30E-06
0,62
4,90
0,38
7,29E-05
5,28
3,60E-03
0,0036
121,33
1,17
135,19
19.626.195.279
12,69
2.053.516.00
4
189.050.162
21.868.761.445
5.451.721
570.421
52.514
6.074.655
Brown coal
Renewable energy
Water
Straw
Wood
Other biomass
Nuclear power
Wind power
Total (kJ/kWh)
Total (kJ/turbine)
Total (kWh/turbine)
in the lifetime
Table 6.4:
The energy consumption stated for Horns Reef wind farm divided on life stages.
6.5.1.1.2 Onshore wind farm

The calculation of the energy consumption, by means of LCA, for Tjreborg wind farm has been shown
in Table 6.5. The calculations show that the energy consumption per onshore turbine is 3.635.850 kWh,
and from section 4.1 it is known that one turbine delivers 5.634.000 kWh/year.

Doc. no. 200128
Page 40 of 54
Energy consumption [kJ/kWh]

Manufacturing/dis
mantling
Operation
Transport
Total
Fossil fuel
Coal
18,11
1,55
0,00
19,66
Oil
46,56
6,45
0,56
53,57
Gas
13,33
0,99
0,04
14,35
3,48
0,47
2,25E-08
3,96
19,51
7,00E-07
5,81E-07
4,80E-01
0,78
0,00E+00
0,00E+00
3,40E-02
0,00
0
0
4,03E-08
20,29
7,00E-07
5,81E-07
0,51
Nuclear power
3,08
0,40
3,72E-05
3,49
Wind power
0,33
Brown coal
Renewal energy
Water
Straw
Wood
Other bio mass
Total (kJ/kWh)
Total (kJ/turbine)
Total (kWh/turbine)
in the lifetime
Table 6.5:
104,88
0,33
0,60
116,16
11.817.806.148
10,69
1.203.992.76
1
67.261.641
13.089.060.549
3.282.723
334.442
18.684
3.635.850
The energy consumption is stated for Tjreborg onshore wind farm divided on life stages.
6.5.2 Energy balance

The energy balance has been calculated as the relation between the turbines energy consumption for
manufacturing, operation, transport, dismantling, disposal and the expected average energy production.
Energy balance for the Horns Reef-turbine:
6.074.656[kWh/turbine ]
= 0.75 years 9.0months
8.088.000[kWh / turbine. year ]
Energy balance for the Tjreborg-turbine:
3.635.850[kWh/turbine]
= 0.65 years 7.7months
5.634.000[kWh / turbine year ]
From the above calculation it can be seen that the energy balance for the Horns Reef turbine is approx
1.3 months longer than for the Tjreborg turbine. This difference is due to the significantly larger
transmission grid, and the larger steel consumption for the foundations.
Appendix 3 shows a statement based on the principles in previously effected energy balances made by
the Danish Wind Industry Associations. These calculations have been made based on input-/output
tables and energy multipliers and it has been estimated which payback period Horns Reef and Tjreborg

Doc. no. 200128
Page 41 of 54
would have if the calculations had been made after the same method as the Danish Wind Industry
Associations
6.6
Environmental Product Declaration
This Environmental Product Declaration has been based on the common Northern NIMBUS method. The
original environmental declaration of contents for offshore and onshore wind farms, respectively, see
appendix 2.
The NIMBUS project is an abbreviation of Nordic project on Implementation of Environmental product
Declarations type III in the Business Sector. The project is a co-operation between the Confederation of
Danish Industries (DI), Freningen Svenskt Nringsliv and Nringslivets Hovedorganisasjon (NHO) of
Norway. The project was carried out in the autumn 1999.
The purpose of the NIMBUS project was to promote more environmentally effective products and service
performance in the Northern industries via implementation, testing and further development of a common
Northern system for the Environmental Product Declaration based on ISO 14040-43 standards.
The conclusion of the NIMBUS project is based on efforts from representatives at some companies (case
companies), the northern industry, experts within LCA and Environment Product Declaration and the
steering group of the project. The development of a coordinated northern method shall strengthen the
development and competition based on environmentally effective products. This objective should be met
through an improved accessibility to environmental data for the suppliers.
Environmental Product declaration type III may, in a purchase situation, be used to compare products
from various companies. Not one single product is environmentally sound. It is only possible to find a
product which is more environmentally sound or has less environmental impacts. Environmental Product
Declaration type III can also be used as an internal environmental assessment of a specific product,
e.g. what can be done better? And/or how is it placed compared with the competitors product.
Environmental Product Declaration type III methodology must fulfil the minimum requirements, which
are stated in ISO 14040-43 series regarding communication with external parties. This means, to provide
information to the consumers about a products content and make it easier for the consumers to choose
and select environmentally sound products compared with the information from the environmental product
declaration of product.
Therefore, environmental declarations of contents must be worded in a way, so ordinary consumers are
able to read and comprehend them; i.e. they must be user-friendly.
The LCA-results show that the most important components, which are described in this Environmental
Product Declaration, are:
The most important resource materials.

Energy consumption.
Emissions.
Environmental impacts and their most important sources.
Disposal processes.

Doc. no. 200128
Page 42 of 54
6.6.1 Environmental Product Declaration Methodological requirements in the Nordic region

The Nordic methodology for environmental product declaration is based on ISO 14025 technical
guidance. The methodology must be as summarized and as general as possible. An environmental
product declaration should make it possible to compare two products with the same functional unit in an
easy and just way.
Environmental product declaration type III shall be based on the LCA-methodology, where the LCA
shall be implemented according to ISO 14040-43 standards. In the environmental product declaration
methodology and presentation of data, it is important to separate the various stages of the product, i.e.
production stage, operation stage, disposal stage. The reason for the separation into life stages is the
higher uncertainties which are related to the operation stage and the disposal stage.
It is also important to define the products system delimitations, i.e. to define whats included in an LCA.
General regulations to define system limits are described in ISO 14040, and these regulations shall also
be used in connection with the environmental product declaration. Some of the most important elements
in the system are:
6.6.1.1.1 Geographical impact
Separation from other cognate product systems.
Which stages of the total lifetime have been included in the LCA, and these must be described clearly
in the products process tree diagram
Which cutting-off rules have been used for the data collection?
Of other significant components in the environmental product declaration type III are functional unit and
allocation factor. The functional unit is decisive for using the environmental declaration of contents in
order to compare, as described in ISO 14040. The allocation factor has significant impact on the results of
the environmental product declaration. The general principles of the allocation factor have been described
in ISO 14041 and must be followed in every environmental product declaration.
6.6.2 Data quality for V80-offshore wind farm Environmental Product Declaration
The data quality of this product is based on ISO 14041 and used as a general guidance for this
environmental product declaration. The objective for data quality in this LCA-project, which the
environmental product declaration is based on, has been to use producer data.
In this way, more than 95% of the data used in the life cycle assessment of both turbine types and the
transmission grid, i.e. materials and energy have been collected from relevant sources, e.g. VWS A/S and
suppliers. And where it has been difficult to find more precise data, or data no longer is available,
estimated values have been used (e.g. scaling of energy consumption for manufacturing of gear and
generator). The age of the data has also been given high priority.
6.6.3 Environmental impact categories used in this Environmental Product Declaration

In this Environmental Product Declaration the following 10 impact categories have been used. Of this, the
first 6 are the basis for environmental product declaration, which have been carried out according to the
NIMBUS principle:
Global warming.
Ozone depletion.

Doc. no. 200128
Page 43 of 54
Acidification.
Photochemical ozone.
Nutrient enrichment.
Hazardous waste.
Human toxicity.
Eco-toxicity.
Bulk waste.
Radio active waste.
The following materials and energy have also been quantified in this environmental product declaration:
Energy resources.
Material resources.
6.6.4 LCA-method and system delimitation

In this environmental product declaration the functional unit has been set to 1 kWh electricity delivered
from the wind farms. For the modelling, an Environmental Protection Agencys pc-tool based on the
UMIP-method has been used. The system, which has been included in this life cycle assessment, is
foundation, tower, nacelle and blades and also transmission grid for onshore wind farm and offshore wind
farm, respectively, including grid loss (see section 3.3. and 4.3.).
Materials and energy for the statement and the environmental impacts have been divided into life stages.
I.e. production/dismantling, operation and transport stage.
Waste handling, after ended lifetime of 20 years, is based on the following assumption:
Materials
Steel blades
Stainless steel
Cast iron
Cobber
Aluminium
Plastic, PVC
Glass fibre
Oil
Lead
Zinc
Scenario
90% reuse
90% reuse
90% reuse
95% reuse
90% reuse
100% deposit
100% deposit
100% incineration
90% reuse
90% reuse
More important elements for turbines, which have not or been included or which cannot be included in
this, are the visual impacts on flora and fauna. These factors cannot be measured, but an assessment will
be made of the environmental impacts (VVM) for turbine projects in connection with their approval. For
Tjreborg and Horns Reef VVM reports have been prepared13, 14 and subsequently approved.

Doc. no. 200128
Page 44 of 54
7.
Sensitivity assessment
The most significant assumptions for the two turbine farms are the energy production and the lifetime, as
they clearly show on the environmental impacts for 1 kWh. The production at Horns Reef is fairly high, as
the location is very good compared with the wind velocities. At Tjreborg onshore wind farm the
production is also high compared with the typical onshore sited turbines, as the Tjreborg farm is sited
just approx 500 metres from the Jutland west coast.
7.1
Energy production
Figure 7.1 - here the results for bulk waste and greenhouse effect are shown as function of the energy
production. By that, it is possible to see the variation of the environmental impacts within the normal
production frames for the wind farms.
Bulk waste and greenhouse effect have been singled out to be looked at, because these 2 groups
represent the materials/reuse and energy consumption, respectively, which are of most importance for
the environmental impacts.

Doc. no. 200128
Page 45 of 54
B ul k was t e at var i o us p r o d uct i ons

at Ho r ns R ev o f f s ho r e wi nd f ar m and T j r eb or g o ns ho r e t ur b i ne f ar m
0,005
0,004
0,004
0,003
0,003
0,002
0,002
0,001
0,001
0,000
1.000
Onshor e tur bi ne f ar m
pr oducti on ar ea
3.000
Of f s hor ewi ndf ar m

pr odducti on ar ea
5.000
7.000
9.000
11.000
13.000
P r oduct i on ( M Wh )
Offshore wind far m

Ons hore turbine farm
Global warming effect (mPE/kWh)
Global warming at various productions

at Horns Rev offshore wind farm & Tjreborg onshore turbine farm
0,004
0,004
0,003
0,003
0,002
0,002
0,001
0,001
0,000
1.000
Onshore turbine farm

production area
3.000
Offshore wind
farm produtions
area
5.000
7.000
9.000
11.000
13.000
Production (MWh)
Offshore wind farm
Onshore turbine farm
Figure 7.1:
The models sensitivity towards energy production, for respectively bulk waste and
greenhouse effect. The annual production at Horns Reefs is 8.088 MWh and at Tjreborg onshore wind
farm 5.634 MWh. Besides electric power generation everything else is kept invariable. .
The calculation shows how the location of the wind farms and with this the production is important for the
environmental impacts stated per kWh. The calculation presumes that all factors, except the electric
power generation, are equal, i.e. no considerations have been made to for instance a better wind location,

Doc. no. 200128
Page 46 of 54
which could require some increased material consumptions in connection with the construction, longer
cables, other foundations etc.
Experience show that an onshore wind farms (Tjreborg) annual production area lies between approx
2,600 MWh/turbine and 5,600 MWh/turbine. Like this, an offshore wind farms (Horns Reef) annual
production lies between approx 6.500 MWh/turbine and 9.000 MWh/turbine, depending on the siting of
the wind farms both onshore and offshore. Therefore you can see that both Horns Reef offshore wind
farm and Tjreborg onshore wind farm have both been sited on one of the best locations.
In return Figure 7.1 also shows that the worst offshore location is environmentally better than an average
onshore wind farm for both impacts.
7.2
Energy consumption
Throughout the project it has been difficult to obtain energy consumption data from the sub-contractors.
One of the processes with lack of energy consumption data is the casting of cast iron items. As there is a
relative large consumption of casted items in the wind farms, corresponding to approx 26% of the weight
of the nacelle and approx11% of the weight of the blades, assessment of how large impact energy
consumption to this would have on the energy balance for the farms is performed.
For Horns Reef wind farm, the energy consumption for casting items has been assessed to be
40.000kWh/turbine and for Tjreborg wind farm it has been assessed to approx 37.000 kWh/turbine.
These energy consumptions have been recalculated to gross energy, as stated in the energy balance
(see 6.5.1), and a new energy balance for the two wind farms will be computed.
The energy balance including the energy consumption for the casting of cast iron items will be:
Horns Reef approx 9.2 months
Tjreborg approx 7.9 months
This amounts to an increase of approx 2% and 3%, respectively in relation to the energy balance without
including the energy consumption for the casting.
So the assessment is that the energy consumption for the casting process is not decisive for the result of
energy balance and life cycle assessment in full.
7.3
Location
If you imagine similar wind farms erected on other locations, the conditions on some areas would be very
different from the conditions at Horns Reef and Tjreborg. In Denmark, the onshore sited farms will only
be sited at a short distance from the existing electricity grid (at Tjreborg only 8 km cable has been
used), whereas this is not the case in other countries. In order to illustrate the importance of this factor on
the LCA-model, the result of Tjreborg wind farm has been compared with a calculation where it has
been assumed that the turbines have been placed further apart from the electricity grid, and therefore 30
km cabelling is required, see Figure 7.2. In below calculation the electricity production has been assumed
to remain the same.

Doc. no. 200128
Page 47 of 54
Environmental impacts of 1 kWh fra Tjreborg onshore turbine farm

compared with a similar farm with 30 km cable connection
Radio active waste

Hazardous waste
Bulk waste
Eco-toxicity
Human Toxicity
Nutrient enrichment
Acidification
Ozone depletion
Global warming
0,0000
0,0001
0,0002
0,0003
0,0004
0,0005
0,0006
0,0007
0,0008
0,0009
0,0010
Tjreborg onshore turbine farm
Tjreborg onshore turbine with 30 km cable
Figure 7.2:
Comparison of environmental impacts of onshore sited wind farm with various distances to
the electrical grid.
The above Figure 7.2 shows that the cables only have a little impact on the total environmental impacts
for the onshore wind farm. As Figure 7.1 shows, it is more decisive how big the energy production is on
the onshore wind farm.
If you assume an offshore wind farm similar to Horns Reef wind farm sited somewhere else and with
another distance to shore, there will be another loss in the cables, and presumable another depth.
In the following, a farm similar to Horns Reef wind farm has been assumed sited with double the distance
and half the distance, respectively, from the shore as Horns Reef wind farm. A simple assumption is that
the net-loss is linear with the length of cables, so the net-loss is doubled, when the distance is doubled,
as the major part of the net-loss takes place in the cables. Further, a change of the foundation has been
included. A very simple assumption has been made about the foundation, as its weight has been
assumed to change 20% at respectively a doubling and a halving of the distance. The following
scenarios have been calculated:
The actual location at Horns Reef.

Double distance to shore, double net-loss and 20% increase of foundation.
Half distance to shore, half net-loss, 20% decrease of foundation.

Doc. no. 200128
Page 48 of 54
Location of offshore wind farm

Radio active waste
Hazardous waste
Bulk waste
Eco-toxicity
Human Toxicity
Nutrient enrichment
Acidification
Ozone depletion
Global warming
0,0000
0,0002
0,0004
0,0006
0,0008
0,0010
0,0012
Near to edge location
Figure 7.3:
impacts.
Current scenarios
Near to coast location
The importance of the location for the offshore farm as concerns the environmental
Under the very simple assumptions regarding the changes which take place in connection with alternative
locations of a wind farm such as Horns Reef, it has been found that there is some impact of the location,
but not significant changes. Again, it has been concluded that the energy production is one of the most
significant parameters for the environmental impacts from the offshore wind farm during its lifetime.
7.4
Lifetime
The lifetime of the total farm will have an impact ont he result proportionally. In the figure below, a 30year-lifetime has been calculated for offshore turbines, as the offshore wind turbines can technically
operate for up to 30 years, as they are worn less than turbines onshore.

Doc. no. 200128
Page 49 of 54
Environm ental im pacts by various

lifetim es for onshore turbine farm and offshore w ind farm
R adio active was te

H azardous was te
B ulk was te
E co-toxicity
H uman T oxicity
Nutrient enrichment
Acidification
Ozone depletion
Global warming
0,0000
0,0002
0,0004
0,0006
0,0008
0,0010
0,0012
mi li-per s o n equi val ent s , mP E

T jreborg-20years
Figure 7.4:
T jreborg-30years
H orns R ev-20years
H orns R ev-30years
The lifetimes influence on the environmental impacts.
In both cases, for Horns Reef, a lifetime of forty years has been calculated for the transmission part. In
Figure 7.5 the impact of the assumption has been shown regarding a forty-year-lifetime for the
transmission part.
It shows that the total lifetime of the two wind farms is decisive for the environmental impacts for 1 kWh
electricity generated from the farms. Figure 7.4 shows that the lifetime is just as important as the
production on the farms, as both give direct linear impact of the environmental impacts, made up per kWh
produced in the farms. At a lifetime of thirty years for the offshore turbines, the environmental impacts are
decreased approx 30% compared with the twenty-year-lifetime of the turbines.

Doc. no. 200128
Page 50 of 54
Environmental impacts of Horns Reef offshore wind farm with

20 and 40 years lifetime for the transmissions unit
Radio active waste
Hazardous waste
Bulk waste
Eco-toxicity
Human Toxicity
Nutrient enrichment
Acidification
Ozone depletion
Global warming
0,0000
0,0002
0,0004
0,0006
0,0008
0,0010
0,0012
20 years trans.lifetime
Figure 7.5:
40 years trans. lifetime
The importance of various lifetimes for the transmission part to Horns Reef wind farm.
The lifetime of the transmission part to Horns Reef is less important for the total environmental profile for
1 kWh electricity from the offshore wind farm at Horns Reef.
7.5
Recycling
The selected scenario of recycling of materials has proved to be important to the total environmental
impacts, as it has been found that the used materials are decisive for the environment profile regarding
electricity from the wind farms. Without the reutilization scenario, the environmental impacts would be up
to 6 times as high.
As large quantities of metals are used at the wind farms, and especially at Horns Reef wind farm, due to
the steel foundations and a large transmission grid, a sensitivity assessment has been prepared
regarding the recycling of metals at Horns Reef wind farm.
At the workshop about dismantling and disposal of turbines, the actual recycling scenario was discussed,
and it was observed that many metals could have a higher recycling rate than 90%, if just the materials
were separated. Therefore, in this case we have calculated with a total separation of materials and a
recycling rate of 95% and 100% recycling rate for just the metals.
The following scenarios for recycling of metals have been estimated:
The actual, as described in Table 5.1.

100% recycling of metals
95% recycling of metals.

Doc. no. 200128
Page 51 of 54
Environmental impacts at various

recycling scenarios for metals for Horns Rev offshore wind farm
Radio active waste

Hazardous waste
Bulk waste
Eco-toxicity
Human Toxicity
Nutrient enrichment
Acidification
Ozone depletion
Global warming
-0,0040
-0,0035
-0,0030
-0,0025
-0,0020
-0,0015
-0,0010
-0,0005
0,0000
100% recycling
Figure 7.6:
95% recycling
Current scenario
Sensitivity assessment for recycling of metals at Horns Reef wind farm.
Figure 7.6 only shows the life stage disposal at Horns Reef wind farm. Therefore the negative values,
which are equal to a crediting of the recycled materials. It also shows that there is a direct connection
between all the environmental impacts and the degree of recycling. It is important to notice the numbers
on the x-axis. The values are here very large in comparison with the total environmental profile for 1 kWh
electricity from Horns Reef wind farm.
Subsequently the total environmental profile for Horns Reef wind farm has been shown under the
assumption of the various scenarios for recycling of metals

Doc. no. 200128
Page 52 of 54
Comparison environmental impacts of 1kWh

from Horns Rev offshore wind farm with various recycling scenarios
Radio active waste

Hazardous waste
Bulk waste
Eco-toxicity
Human Toxicity
Nutrient enrichment
Acidification
Ozone depletion
Global warming
0,0000
0,0002
0,0004
0,0006
0,0008
0,0010
0,0012
Current scenario
Figure 7.7:
for metals.
95% recycling
100% recycling
The total environmental profile for Horns Reef wind farm with various recycling scenarios
The above figure shows that recycling of metals is very import for the total environmental profile regarding
1 kWh electricity from the offshore wind farm.
8.
Shortcomings
Basically, all incoming substances and materials for the turbines and transmissions have been included in
present LCA. However, since it has been difficult to obtain LCA data on several substances, it has been
necessary to make certain assumptions. This applies for Prepreg, glue and electronic components,
among other things. For each of these materials there has been made assumptions and simplifications,
as described in chapter 5. More specific LCA-data on these materials would be very welcome, but access
to more specific data depends very much on the individual producers and they tend not to be very willing
to share the contents of their products due to competition considerations.
Sub-contractors energy consumption has not been stated, but in several cases a certain level has been
assumed, while in other cases no energy consumption has been stated. E.g. no energy consumption has
been stated for casting of cast iron components such as, blade hub (11% of the blades total weight),
main beams (15% of the nacelles weight), main shaft (10% of the nacelles weight) and yaw ring (1% of
the nacelles weight). A sensitivity assessment (see section 7.2) has proved that the energy consumption
for casting does not have great impact on the energy balance. On that basis it has been estimated that
the lack of and incomplete energy consumption has less impact on the total assessment.

Doc. no. 200128
Page 53 of 54
9.
Conclusions
In this project a LCA has been prepared for an offshore wind farm Horns Reef and an onshore wind
farm Tjreborg, respectively, including grid connection. These LCA-models for wind farms have been
improved compared to the initial model, which had been prepared in connection with PSO 1999.
This life cycle assessment has shown that the environmental impacts per kWh electricity delivered from
the two wind farms are close to being identical within the expected uncertainties of the results. Still, there
is a significant difference of the impact of hazardous waste between the two farms, as Horns Reef wind
farm gives a significantly larger impact than Tjreborg wind farm. This is due to larger quantities of
metals, which are used on the offshore wind farm and that a quantity of steel is left behind on the seabed.
The quantity of steel on the seabed means that this steel will not be reused, but all the costs for the
manufacturing are ascribed to the offshore farm, which means that it will contribute to hazardous waste
Tjreborg onshore wind farm has been sited at an extremely wind-optimal area and also under better
wind conditions than most of the onshore wind farms in Denmark. Analyses have shown that from the
expectedly worst sited offshore farm the environmental impacts will be on level with, or better than the
average onshore wind farm. At the same time, the best situated onshore wind farm will be
environmentally better than the worst situated offshore wind farm.
If the impacts of the two farms are compared with average Danish electricity 1997 from a previously
performed LCA-project6 it shows that the impacts from the wind farms are insignificant compared to
Danish electricity97.
The environmental impacts primarily derive from the manufacturing process of the turbine and to a less
degree from the manufacturing of the transmission system. The operation does not have a very large
impact on the total environmental impacts, neither for the offshore wind farm nor the onshore wind farm.
During the manufacturing of the offshore turbines it is primarily the nacelle and the foundation which are
contributing. The foundation constitutes the largest component when it comes to weight and consists only
of steel, which has been found to contribute a lot to most of the environmental impacts. The large share of
the nacelle can for the major part be ascribed to the consumption of high-strength steel. For the onshore
turbines it is primarily the nacelle, the blades and the tower. Again the largest contributions derive from
the nacelle due to the use of high-strength steel. The blades give large contributions to bulk waste, simply
due to the fact that the blades are assumed to be deposited. Large quantities of steel are used for the
tower, and here the steel gives significant environmental impacts.
When the total turbines lifetime has been included the energy balance shows a payback period for both
farms for 9.0 months for Horns Reef wind farm and 7.7 months for Tjreborg wind farm, respectively. I.e.,
the farms need be in normal operation for 7.7 - 9 months in order to produce the same amount of energy
as used in their lifecycles.

Doc. no. 200128
Page 54 of 54
References
1
2
3
4
5
7
8
9
10
11
12
13
14
Elsam Engineering report 01-082. 1st June 2001.

Information from Eltra, 2002.
Life cycle assessment of turbines PSO 1999. Elsam Engineering 2001.
Annual Report 2000. Vestas. Containing environmental statement.
Visit on the Danish Stlvalsevrk, Frederiksvrk, and conversation with Nikolaj Ladegrd. The 1st February
2001.
Life cycle assessment of Danish electricity and power planted heat. 2000. Elaborated by Elsam, Energy E2,
Elkraft, Elfor, Eltra, Copenhagens Energy, NESA, VEKS and ELSAMPROJECT A/S (current Elsam Engineering
A/S).
The Plastic industrys homepage: http://www.plast.dk/public_html/070mil.htm
Working Report from Danish Environmental Protection Agency No. 16 2001 Explanation about the environmental
declaration of consumer electronics from knowledge to action. Prepared by Heidi K. Strandorff, Jakob Zeuten
and Leif Hoffmann dk-TEKNIK Energy & Environment.
See www.apme.org
Environmental Statement 1999, Aalborg Portland.
Personal communication with Erik Andersen - Elsam Engineering.
Environmental design of industrial products. UMIP. Henrik Wenzel, Michael Hauschild, Elisabeth Rasmussen,
Institute for Assessment of Products, Technical University of Denmark; The Danish Ministry of Environment,
Danish Protection Agency; Danish Industry. 1996.
Presentation of VVM for wind farm at Tjreborg Meadows. Prepared by Elsam Engineering for Elsam January
2001.
Offshore turbines Horns Reef. Assessment of Impacts on the Environment, VVM-statement, May 2000. Prepared
by Elsamprojekt A/S (current Elsam Engineering) for I/S Elsam and Eltra amba.
Appendix 1
Comparison of environmental impacts of various foundation types to
Horns Reef offshore wind farm
Radio active waste
Dangerous waste
Volume waste
Eco-toxicity
Human toxicity
Nutrient salt load
Acidification
Ozone depletion
Global warming
0,0000
0,0002
0,0004
0,0006
0,0008

HR - Mono pile
Appendix 1 for note no. 200128: "LCA of offshore and onshore sited wind farms".
HR-Shearlegs
HR-Gravitation
0,0010
0,0012

Tjreborg onshore turbine farm divided on turbine and 10kV cable
Radioactive waste
Dangerous waste
Bulk waste
Eco-toxicity
Human toxicity
Nutrient enrichment
Acidification
Ozone depletion
Global warming
0,0000
0,0001
0,0002
0,0003
0,0004
0,0005
0,0006

Turbines
10 kV cables to transformer
0,0007
0,0008
0,0009
0,0010
Appendix 2
Vestas Wind Energy

V80 Off Shore Farm
Danish Environmental Product

Declaration (EPD)
Based on LCA elaborated
after ISO14040 and
Northern manual for Environmental Product
Declaration.
Produced by:
Tech-wise A/S (now Elsam Engineering A/S)
Web: www.techwise.dk
Contact: Henriette Hassing
Telephone: 7923 3333
E-mail: hha@techwise.dk (hha@elsam-eng.com)
Vestas Wind Systems A/S
Web: www.vestas.dk
Contact: Tina Skov-Pedersen
E-mail: tsp@vestas.dk
EPD certificate no.:
Approved by:
Valid to:
Background information:
Content of LCA to offshore farm:
Manufacturing of turbine and the transmission
grid, operation of turbine farm, lifetime,
transport to the site and to scrapping after
lifetime and dismantling and scrapping of turbine
and transmission grid after lifetime
Year of examination:
2002 with the basis of data from 2001
Functional unit:
1 kWh produced from Vestas V80 offshore farm
Lifetime:
20 years
Production site:
Horns Rev
Market area:
Denmark
Page 1 of 10
Appendix 2 for note no. 200128: "LCA of offshore and onshore sited wind farms". f
Life Cycle Analysis and System Delimitation

Technical/functional description
The following products comprise 1 kWh electricity produced from Vestas V80 2.0MW turbine
farms at Horns Reef.
The system comprises foundation, tower, nacelle and blades to offshore turbine and transformer
station, sea cable, cable junction station and onshore cable to grid connections. Net loss of the
transmission grid has also been included in the system, but 150 kV transformers on shore are not
included in the system.
System Boundaries
Crane & transport
Energy &
materials
Production of various
components of turbine
Materials & transport
Erection &
transport
Energy &
materials
Operation &
Maintenance
components of the
transmission grid
Dismantling & scrapping
Waste
Waste
Reuse of
materials
Allocation
Allocation is not relevant for turbines, as turbines only produce electricity and not heat. The
allocation is e.g. used at allocation of fuels consumption by combined electricity and heat.
Resource consumption
The most important resource materials (g/kWh):
Manufacturing/
dismantling
Renewable resource
Water for electricity
production
499
General water
66.63
Not renewable resource
Coal
0.73
Iron
0.42
Natural gas
0.364
Oil
0.994
CaCO3
0.16
Brown coal
Aluminium (Al)
Uranium
Operation
Transport
Total
18
4.62
0.03
0.005
517.03
71.255
0.06
0.004
0.025
0.191
0.00E+00
0
0.002
0.026
0.79
0.424
0.391
1.211
0.21
0.004
0.02
0
0
0.164
0.23
0.02
4.45E-05
0.004
3.50E-06
0
6.49E-10
0.024
4.80E-05
Page 2 of 10
Energy consumption
120
Renewable energy
Nuclear power plant
100
KJ/kWh
Fossil fuel
80
60
40
20
0
Manuf./dism..
Oper.
Transport
Totally energy consumption (KJ/kWh)

Manufacturing/
dismantling
Fossil fuel
Coal
Oil
Gas
Brown coal
Operation Transport
Total
18.25
41.748
17.836
1.5
8.022
1.225
0
1.092
0.098
19.75
50.862
19.159
5.25
0.5
5.75
25.93
0.96
0.002
26.892
4.90
0.380
7.29E-05
5.28
Renewable energy
Water
Nuclear power plant
Page 3 of 10
Emissions and environmental impact

100%
80%
60%
40%
20%
0%
Global
warming
Ozone depletion
Nutrient
Human
Enrichment Toxicity
Acidification
Ecotoxicity
Bulk
waste
Hazardous
waste
Radio active
waste
Transport
1,01E-05
0,00E+00
8,67E-06
5,95E-06
1,31E-06
1,01E-10
1,37E-07
1,81E-14
2,04E-11
Operation
9,76E-05
1,02E-07
5,83E-05
3,33E-05
8,43E-06
1,27E-05
3,52E-05
3,87E-05
5,84E-05
Manufact./Dismant. 8,13E-04
6,59E-06
4,38E-04
2,23E-04
8,62E-05
1,99E-04
9,61E-04
7,32E-04
5,21E-04
Manufact./Dismant.
Oper. Transport
The environmental effects are calculated by means of the Danish Environmental Protection
Agencys EDIP pc-tool.
Air emissions
CO2
CO
NOx
Manufacturing/
dismantling
Operation
Transport
[g/kWh]
[g/kWh]
[g/kWh]
6.8
0.023
0.73
0.002
0.09
0.0007
7.62
0.026
Total
[g/kWh]
0.05
0.007
0.001
0.058
SO2
0.02
0.002
1.62E-04
0.022
CH4
5.22E-03
3.69E-04
2.55E-06
5.57E-03
N2O
2.09E-04
4.86E-08
1.68E-05
4.22E-09
1.91E-06
3.8E-14
2.28E-04
5.28E-08
7.8E-06
1.08E-04
9.31E-07
0
1.91E-07
0
8.92E-06
1.08E-04
3.64E-05
3.1-04
0
1.77E-06
0
2.52E-07
3.64E-05
3.12E-04
Hg
NH3
VOC
Water emissions
Tot-N
COD
Page 4 of 10
Handling of waste after lifetime

After ended lifetime, the entire turbine is dismantled (after 20 years) and the transmission grid (after
40 years) and both should be sent to scrapping. The foundation is dismantled down to 1 metre
below the seabed. It is assumed, that materials e.g. steel, cobber, aluminium, zinc, lead etc. are
recycled, whereas insulating materials as bitumen, oil, rubber, etc. are incinerated and glass fibre,
plastic (PVC), PrePreg (blade material) are deposited. The below table shows the various waste
management scenarios for Horns Reef offshore farm.
Materials
Steel blades
Rust less steel
Cast iron
Cobber
Aluminium
Plastic, PVC
Glass fibre
Oil
Lead
Zinc
Scenario
90% recycling
90% recycling
90% recycling
95% recycling
90% recycling
100% deposit
100% deposit
100% incineration
90% recycling
90% recycling
Not declarable aspects

More important elements for turbines, which have not be mentioned here, is the visual influence
and the impacts on flora and fauna. These factors cannot be measured, but an environmental impact
assessment (EIA) is to be undertaken for turbine projects in connection with its approval.
Page 5 of 10
Vestas Wind Energy

V80 Onshore farm
Danish Environmental Product

Declaration (EPD)
Based on LCA elaborated
after ISO14040 and
Northern manual for Environmental Declaration
of Contents.
Produced by:
Tech-wise A/S
Web: www.techwise.dk
Contact: Henriette Hassing
E-mail: hha@techwise.dk
Vestas Wind Systems A/S
Web: www.vestas.dk
Contact: Tina Skov-Pedersen
E-mail: tsp@vestas.dk
EPD certificate no.:
Approved by:
Valid to:
Background information:
Content of LCA to onshore turbine farm:
Manufacturing of turbine and electrical grid,
operation of turbine farm, lifetime, transport to
site and to scrapping after lifetime, and
dismantling and scrapping of turbine and
transmission grid cable after lifetime.
Year of examination:
2002 with basis on data from 2001
Functional unit:
1 kWh produced from Vestas V80 onshore
turbine farm
Lifetime:
20 years
Production site:
Tjreborg
Market area:
Denmark
Page 6 of 10
Life cycle analysis and system delimitation

Technical/functional description
The following products comprise 1 kWh electricity produced from Vestas V80 2MW onshore
turbine farm at Tjreborg.
The system comprises foundation, tower, nacelle and blades to onshore turbine and transformer
station, 10 kV onshore cables to electricity connection. Grid loss of the onshore cable and 10/60 kV
transformer in the distribution grid are not included in the system.
System boundaries
Crane & transport
Energy &
materials
Materials & transport
components of turbine
Erection &
transport
Energy &
Materials
Operation &
Maintenance
Production of 10 kV
onshore cable for
Electrical connection
Waste
Dismantling and
scrapping
Reuse of
materials
Waste
Allocation
Allocation is not relevant for turbines, as turbines only produce electricity and not heat. Allocation
is e.g. used for allocation of fuel consumption at combined electricity and heat
Resource consumption
The most important resource materials (g/kWh):
Manufacturing/
Dismantling
Renewable resource
Water for el production
General water
Not renewable resource
Coal
Iron
Natural gas
Oil
CaCO3
Brown coal
Aluminium (Al)
Uranium
Operation Transport
Total
375
68.3
15
4.7
0
0
390
73
0.624
0.2
0.062
0.003
0
0
0.686
0.203
0.3
1.1
0.15
0.21
0.14
2.78E-05
0.021
0.001
0.151
0.01
0.001
0
0.02
0
0
0
3.60E-06 3.30E-10
Page 7 of 10
0.322
1.261
0.151
0.23
0.14
3.14E-05
Energy consumption
120
Renewable energy
Nuclear power plant
100
Fossil fuel
80
KJ/kWh
60
40
20
0
Manuf./Disma.
Oper.
Transport
Totally energy consumption (KJ/kWh)
Fossil fuel
Coal
Olil
Gas
Brown coal
Renewable energy
Water
Nuclear power
plant
Manufacturing/
dismantling
Operation
Transport
Total
15.6
46.2
14.7
5.25
1.55
6.342
1.029
0.5
0
0.42
0.049
0
17.15
52.962
15.778
5.75
19.51
0.78
20.29
3.08
0.4
3.72E-05
3.48E+00
Page 8 of 10
Emissions and environmental impact

100%
80%
60%
40%
20%
0%
Global
warming
Ozone- Acidificatio Nutrient

depletion
n
enrichment
Human
Toxicity
Ecotoxicity
Bulk waste
Hazardous Radioactiv
waste
e waste
Transport
5,05E-06
4,19E-06
2,79E-06
6,13E-07
1,75E-11
1,14E-07
2,81E-15
Operation
8,17E-05
6,18E-05
3,53E-05
8,53E-06
1,29E-05
2,76E-05
3,78E-05
6,67E-05
Manuf./Dismant.
7,34E-04
6,15E-06
4,47E-04
2,37E-04
7,65E-05
1,40E-04
8,58E-04
3,47E-04
4,36E-04
Manuf./Dismant.
Operation
3,17E-12
Transport
The environmental effects are calculated by means of the Danish Environmental Protection
Agencys EDIP pc-tool.
Manufacturing/
dismantling [g/kWh]
Operation
[g/kWh]
Transport
[g/kWh]
Total
[g/kWh]
Air emissions
CO2
CO
NOx
6.1
0.02
0.69
0.002
0.043
0.0003
6.833
0.0223
0.05
0.008
0.0006
0.0586
SO2
0.02
0.002
9.03E-05
0.02209
CH4
3.55E-03
4.83E-04
3.10E-06
4.036E-03
N2O
2.06E-04
4.57E-08
2.22E-05
5.56E-09
1.39E-07
2.19E-14
2.28E-04
5.126 E-08
9.1-06
4.43E-05
1.23E-06
0.00E+00
1.39E-07
0.00E+00
1.047E-05
4.43E-05
2.13E-05
2.24E-04
0
1.53E-06
0
1.27E-07
2.13E-05
2.257E-04
Hg
NH3
VOC
Water emissions
Tot-N
COD
Page 9 of 10
Handling of waste after lifetime

After ended lifetime (20 years) the whole turbine is to be dismantled and 10 kV onshore cables to
electricity connection should be sent for scrapping. It is assumed, that materials as steel, cobber,
aluminium, zinc, lead etc. are to be recycled, while insulating materials, bitumen, oil, rubber etc. are
to be incinerated and glass fibre, plastic (PVC), PrePreg (blade material) are to be deposited. Below
table shows the various waste management scenarios for Tjreborg onshore turbine farm.
Materials
Steel blades
Rustles steel
Cast iron
Cobber
Aluminium
Plastic, PVC
Glass fibre
Oil
Lead
Zinc
Scenario
90% recycling
90% recycling
90% recycling
95% recycling
90% recycling
100% deposit
100% deposit
100% incineration
90% recycling
90% recycling
Not declarable aspects

More important elements for turbines, which are not to be mentioned here, are the visual influence
and impacts on flora and fauna. These factors cannot be measured, but an environmental impact
assessment(EIA) is to be undertaken for the turbine project in connection with the approval.
Page 10 of 10
Appendix 3
Energy Balance
Comparison of results from the Danish Wind Industry Associations Wind Power
Note no. 16 1997.
In April 2002, the Danish wind turbine owners association published a data sheet about
Wind Energy T4 about the turbines energy balance, which indicates an energy payback period for a 1.5 MW offshore turbine to be about 3 months. The calculation behind
this result appears from the wind turbine industrys Wind Power note 16 from December 1997 The Energy Balance of Modern Wind Turbines (hereafter WPN16). The
principles in these calculations provide a basis for the below description.
The energy consumption for manufacturing, erection and scrapping of a turbine including the foundation has been calculated by means of a so-called energy multiplier, which
indicates the global direct and indirect energy consumption in various trades in comparison with their turnover (TJ/mill. DKK). So, the multipliers contain both the energy
quantities, which are consumed in Denmark as well as abroad (by the energy that directly and indirectly are used for producing the imported goods, which directly and indirectly enters into the production in question). The energy multipliers are to be found in
Input-output tables and analyses, which is published once a year by Statistics Denmark. However, there is a four-year delay, so that the latest energy multipliers which
exist at present are from 1999.
Based on the knowledge about the turbines value and the individual components share
of this value, it is possible to estimate the energy consumption for the manufacturing of
the turbine. The same applies to erection, servicing and scrapping.
In WPN16 the energy balance of a 600 kW onshore turbine, manufactured in 1995 has
been set up. Connection has been included to the extent that the transformer, which is
necessary in order to switch the turbine to the high-tension grid (10-20 kV), has been
included. This corresponds with the delimitation made in the LCA for Tjreborg Turbine Farm, where the internal grid between the turbines has been included due to the
fact that the calculation in this case covers the entire turbine farm. As the article dates
back to 1997, the energy multipliers for 1995 have not been available, and therefore it
has been decided to perform a projecting based on the values for 1987 and 1991.
The results for the 600 kW onshore located turbine are upgraded in WPN16 to a 1.5
MW offshore located turbine based on the information about the planned offshore farms
in Denmark and the offshore programme. This means that transformers and grid connection are not fully included in the Wind Power Note, in which the delimitation differs
from the LCA, as the complete connection to the grid on shore has been included.
The energy consumption means the gross energy consumption, which includes energy
which is added in the form of fuels to a site, and not the produced energy. This delimita-
Page 2 of 2
Doc. no.200269
tion has also been used when making up the consumption of energy at Horns Reef and
Tjreborg Turbine Farms.
By using the similar method to estimate the energy consumption for turbines at Horns
Reef and at Tjreborg, the result per turbine will be:
Direct and indirect global energy consumption
(MWh/turbine)
Horns Reef
Tjreborg
2.329
2.329
2.356
573
896
896
-728
-321
4.853
3.477
Manufacturing a turbine
Erection and connection
Maintenance
Dismantling and scrapping
Total
The results in the above table are based on information about the value of the turbines
and breakdown of the components from Vestas Wind Grids A/S, whereas Elsam A/S
has provided information about the value of the foundations and the transmission grid,
which are part of the erection and the grid connection. Regarding maintenance, dismantling and scrapping the values in the WPN16 have been upgraded in proportion to the
value and weight of the turbines.
The turbines produced energy is converted into how much energy that would enter into
a coal-burning power station (consumed fuels), in order to produce the same quantity of
energy on a coal-burning power station.
With an annual production of 8,088 MWh per turbine at Horns Reef and 5,634 MWh
per turbine at Tjreborg, the energy payback period has been estimated to be 3.1 and
3.2 months, respectively, as shown in below table. Below table also shows a comparison
with the results from a WPN16.
Electricity
production
per turbine
600 kW onshore turbine

roughness class 1
2 MW onshore turbine,
Tjreborg farm
1,5 MW offshore turbine
2 MW offshore turbine,
Horns Reef farm
Primary energy
consumption at
power station
(mill. KWh)
Mill kWh/year
Mill
TJ
kWh
1,393
3,202
11,528
Energy consumption
through a
lifetime
TJ
Energy recovery
Years
Months
2,958
0,26
3,1
5,634
12,95
46,59
13,7
0,27
3,2
5,046
8,088
11,6
18,60
41,76
66,95
11,06
20,9
0,26
0,26
3,1
3,1
The stated payback period indicates the time the turbine should be operating in order to
save the amount of fuel on a coal-burning craft station, which is similar to what is consumed for the turbine in its lifetime.

Life Cycle Assessment of Offshore and Onshore Sited Wind Farms.

Caricato da

Informazioni sul documento

Copyright

Formati disponibili

Condividi questo documento

Condividi o incorpora il documento

Opzioni di condivisione

Hai trovato utile questo documento?

Questo contenuto è inappropriato?

Copyright:

Formati disponibili

Life Cycle Assessment of Offshore and Onshore Sited Wind Farms.

Caricato da

Copyright:

Formati disponibili

Note

Elsam Engineering A/S