Alternative Energy Draft EA - NASA Visitor Center at Wallops Flight ...
Alternative Energy Draft EA - NASA Visitor Center at Wallops Flight ... Alternative Energy Draft EA - NASA Visitor Center at Wallops Flight ...
Proposed Action and Alternatives The power generated by the solar panels would be connected via underground distribution lines to a set of switchgear that would be enclosed in a small 5-meter by 6-meter (16-foot by 20-foot) pre-fabricated building. Solar panels would be installed in open, grassy areas of the Main Base (Figure 5). All solar panels would be installed facing south to maximize their power generating capability. All solar panels would be located and situated to have no effect on cultural resources, wetlands, or on pilots flying in the Aircraft Operating Area. The installation period for the solar panels would be approximately 2 months. Operation, Maintenance, and Decommissioning Operation, maintenance, and decommissioning for wind turbines would be the same as described under the Proposed Action Alternative. Maintenance and operation of solar panels would primarily consist of mirror washing every few weeks or mirror replacement as necessary. Existing WFF maintenance staff would be used to monitor and maintain the solar panels and transmission system; no new staff would be hired for the operation and maintenance of the solar panels. After the expected 25-year life span of the solar panels, the PV cell systems would be decommissioned. NASA would recycle the solar panels by sending the spent cells to a smelting or refining facility that specializes in reclaiming materials such as glass, aluminum frames, and semiconductor materials. 2.3.3 Alternative Two: Residential-Scale Wind Turbines and Solar Panels Under Alternative Two, NASA would install up to five 2.4 kW wind turbines at the Main Base and Mainland as described under the Proposed Action Alternative. In addition, NASA would install a system of solar panels at Wallops Main Base that would be capable of generating 10 GWh/year of power. To produce this amount of energy, WFF would install approximately 38,000 1.4-square-meter (15-square-foot) panels that would equal an area of approximately 6 hectares (15 acres). Panel spacing requirements (to avoid shading and allow maintenance) would increase the overall required land area dedicated to solar panels to approximately 32 hectares (80 acres). The power generated by the solar panels would be connected via underground distribution lines to a set of switchgears that would be enclosed in a small 5-meter by 6-meter (16-foot by 20-foot) pre-fabricated building. All solar panels would be installed facing south in open, grassy areas of the Main Base (Figure 5). All solar panels would be located and situated to have no effect on cultural resources, wetlands, or on pilots flying in the WFF Aircraft Operating Area. The installation period for the solar panels would be approximately 4 months. Operation, maintenance, and decommissioning of solar panels would be the same as described under the Alternative One. 2.3.4 Comparison of Costs Among Alternatives A primary reason for NASA’s preference for employing wind energy at WFF is its cost and relatively fast payback; it would be the most economically feasible of the alternatives. Table 6 below presents a summary of estimated savings or costs that would be realized for each alternative. It does not include costs for the installation of up to five residential-scale wind 28
turbines because these costs would be the same for each alternative since all three alternatives include an identical proposal for the installation of the residential-scale turbines. Table 6: Comparison of Costs Among the Action Alternatives Proposed Action Alternative One Alternative Two Annual energy production at WFF 10 GWh/year 10 GWh/year 10 GWh/year Total Installed Cost 1 $10.1 million $31.0 million $52.0 million Estimated 25-year Savings (Cost) 1, 2 $14.4 million ($5.1 million) ($24.8 million) 1 All costs are in 2010 dollars 2 Assumes $0.075/kWh at Year 1 with 3 percent annual escalation 2.4 NO ACTION ALTERNATIVE Under the No Action Alternative, NASA would not fund or construct renewable energy sources at WFF to supplement the current supply of electricity that is provided by the local electric cooperative. The requirements for the implementation of sustainable practices for energy efficiency and reductions in GHG emissions, and for the use of renewable energy set forth in the 2005 EPAct, EO 13423, and EO 13514 would not be met by WFF. WFF would not meet its own goals of reducing GHG emissions and supporting NASA’s goal to set an example for environmental stewardship and accountability by a Federal agency. Additionally, WFF would not work towards its goal of reducing annual operating costs by investing in self-sufficient, renewable energy generation. The cost of electricity would continue to depend on the cost of the traditional, non-renewable energy sources used to produce it; as the supply and availability of fossil-fuel burning energy sources decreases, fuel costs are expected to continue to rise and ultimately the cost of electricity to the end user, WFF, would increase. 29
- Page 1 and 2: DRAFT ENVIRONMENTAL ASSESSMENT WALL
- Page 3 and 4: DRAFT ENVIRONMENTAL ASSESSMENT ALTE
- Page 5 and 6: INTRODUCTION Executive Summary This
- Page 7 and 8: Executive Summary increase the over
- Page 9 and 10: Executive Summary Resource Proposed
- Page 11 and 12: Executive Summary Resource Proposed
- Page 13 and 14: Executive Summary Resource Proposed
- Page 15 and 16: TABLE OF CONTENTS EXECUTIVE SUMMARY
- Page 17 and 18: TABLE OF CONTENTS 5.2.1 Post-Constr
- Page 19 and 20: TABLE OF CONTENTS Figure 4: Potenti
- Page 21 and 22: ACHP Advisory Council on Historic P
- Page 23 and 24: NPS National Park Service NRHP Nati
- Page 25 and 26: Mission, Purpose and Need, Backgrou
- Page 28 and 29: Mission, Purpose and Need, Backgrou
- Page 30 and 31: 1.4.2 Need Proposed Action and Alte
- Page 32 and 33: Proposed Action and Alternatives Fi
- Page 34: Proposed Action and Alternatives 2.
- Page 37 and 38: Residential-Scale Turbines Proposed
- Page 40 and 41: This page intentionally left blank.
- Page 42: Proposed Action and Alternatives mo
- Page 45 and 46: 2.3 PROPOSED ACTION AND ALTERNATIVE
- Page 48: This page intentionally left blank.
- Page 51: Decommissioning Proposed Action and
- Page 55 and 56: SECTION THREE: AFFECTED ENVIRONMENT
- Page 58 and 59: This page intentionally left blank.
- Page 60: Affected Environment The Virginia S
- Page 63 and 64: Affected Environment FIRM Community
- Page 66 and 67: This page intentionally left blank.
- Page 68 and 69: 3.1.4 Climate Change Table 8: Calen
- Page 70 and 71: Wind Affected Environment For Wallo
- Page 72 and 73: Affected Environment The Accomack C
- Page 74 and 75: Affected Environment On the souther
- Page 76 and 77: Affected Environment phoeniceus), B
- Page 78: Affected Environment The Saxis Wil
- Page 81 and 82: Affected Environment For the once-p
- Page 83 and 84: Affected Environment less common, w
- Page 85 and 86: Affected Environment were also obse
- Page 88 and 89: This page intentionally left blank.
- Page 90 and 91: Affected Environment Over the entir
- Page 92: 3.2.4.1 Birds Henslow’s Sparrow A
- Page 95 and 96: Affected Environment Monitoring was
- Page 97 and 98: Loggerhead Shrike Affected Environm
- Page 99 and 100: Affected Environment known or recor
- Page 101 and 102: Table 17: Occupational Distribution
turbines because these costs would be the same for each altern<strong>at</strong>ive since all three altern<strong>at</strong>ives<br />
include an identical proposal for the install<strong>at</strong>ion of the residential-scale turbines.<br />
Table 6: Comparison of Costs Among the Action <strong>Altern<strong>at</strong>ive</strong>s<br />
Proposed Action <strong>Altern<strong>at</strong>ive</strong> One <strong>Altern<strong>at</strong>ive</strong> Two<br />
Annual energy production <strong>at</strong> WFF 10 GWh/year 10 GWh/year 10 GWh/year<br />
Total Installed Cost 1 $10.1 million $31.0 million $52.0 million<br />
Estim<strong>at</strong>ed 25-year Savings (Cost) 1, 2 $14.4 million ($5.1 million) ($24.8 million)<br />
1 All costs are in 2010 dollars<br />
2 Assumes $0.075/kWh <strong>at</strong> Year 1 with 3 percent annual escal<strong>at</strong>ion<br />
2.4 NO ACTION ALTERNATIVE<br />
Under the No Action <strong>Altern<strong>at</strong>ive</strong>, <strong>NASA</strong> would not fund or construct renewable energy sources<br />
<strong>at</strong> WFF to supplement the current supply of electricity th<strong>at</strong> is provided by the local electric<br />
cooper<strong>at</strong>ive. The requirements for the implement<strong>at</strong>ion of sustainable practices for energy<br />
efficiency and reductions in GHG emissions, and for the use of renewable energy set forth in the<br />
2005 EPAct, EO 13423, and EO 13514 would not be met by WFF.<br />
WFF would not meet its own goals of reducing GHG emissions and supporting <strong>NASA</strong>’s goal to<br />
set an example for environmental stewardship and accountability by a Federal agency.<br />
Additionally, WFF would not work towards its goal of reducing annual oper<strong>at</strong>ing costs by<br />
investing in self-sufficient, renewable energy gener<strong>at</strong>ion. The cost of electricity would continue<br />
to depend on the cost of the traditional, non-renewable energy sources used to produce it; as the<br />
supply and availability of fossil-fuel burning energy sources decreases, fuel costs are expected to<br />
continue to rise and ultim<strong>at</strong>ely the cost of electricity to the end user, WFF, would increase.<br />
29
Change language