<%BANNER%>

Life Cycle Assessment and Emergy Synthesis of a Theoretical Offshore Wind Farm for Jacksonville, Florida


PAGE 1

LIFE CYCLE ASSESSMENT AND EMERGY SYNTHESIS OF A THEORETICAL OFFSHORE WIND FARM FOR JACKSONVILLE, FLORIDA By STACEY L DOLAN A THESIS PRESENTED TO THE GRADUATE SCHOOL OF THE UNIVERSITY OF FLOR IDA IN PARTIAL FULFILLMENT OF THE REQUIREMENTS FOR THE DEGREE OF MASTER OF SCIENCE UNIVERSITY OF FLORIDA 2007

PAGE 2

2 2007 Stacey L Dolan

PAGE 3

3 To my grandparents, Catherine Alice and James Harold Bailey.

PAGE 4

4 ACKNOWLEDGMENTS I am extremely grateful to have had the opportunity to work with Dr. H. A. Ingley, III. He has been a great advisor, mentor and friend; and his guidance has been invaluable. I would also like to thank Dr. Mark T. Brown for introduci ng me to the concept of emergy, for being an incredible teacher, and for providing his expertise. In addition to my supervisory committee members, I would like to thank Dr. Angela S. Lindner for offering her pr oficiency in life cycle assessments, which was vital to my research.

PAGE 5

5 TABLE OF CONTENTS page ACKNOWLEDGMENTS...............................................................................................................4 LIST OF TABLES................................................................................................................. ..........8 LIST OF FIGURES................................................................................................................ .......10 ABSTRACT....................................................................................................................... ............12 CHAPTER 1 INTRODUCTION..................................................................................................................14 1.1 Electricity and Fossil Fuels...............................................................................................14 1.1.1 Environmental Impacts of Fossil Fuel Combustion...............................................15 1.1.2 Environmental Regulations of Air Emissions........................................................16 1.2 Wind Power................................................................................................................. .....17 1.2.1 Offshore Wind: Advantag es and Disadvantages....................................................18 1.2.2 Current State of Offshore Wind Technology.........................................................19 1.2.3 Floridas Wind Power Potential.............................................................................20 1.3 The Jacksonville Case...................................................................................................... .22 2 LITERATURE REVIEW.......................................................................................................32 2.1 Introduction to Life Cycle Assessments...........................................................................32 2.2 Life Cycle Assessments of Electricity Production Systems.............................................33 2.2.1 Fossil Fuel-Based Systems.....................................................................................33 2.2.2 Coal..................................................................................................................... ....34 2.2.3 Natural Gas.............................................................................................................35 2.2.4 Fuel Oil................................................................................................................. ..36 2.2.5 Wind Farm Systems...............................................................................................36 2.3 Introduction to Emergy Synthesis....................................................................................39 2.4 Emergy Analyses of Electricity Production Systems.......................................................43 2.5 Life Cycle Assessment and Emergy Synthesis.................................................................46 3 METHODOLOGY.................................................................................................................52 3.1 Power Generating Systems Models..................................................................................52 3.1.1 Turbine Model........................................................................................................52 3.1.2 Power Plant Models................................................................................................53 3.2 Life Cycle Assessment.....................................................................................................53 3.2.1 Scope, Boundaries, and Functional Unit................................................................53 3.2.2 Data Acquisition.....................................................................................................54 3.2.2.1 Wind farm raw materials extraction.............................................................56 3.2.2.2 Wind farm transport.....................................................................................57

PAGE 6

6 3.2.2.3 Wind farm construction................................................................................59 3.2.2.4 Wind farm operation and maintenance........................................................59 3.2.2.5 Wind farm decommissioning.......................................................................60 3.2.2.6 Fossil fuel-based power plan t raw materials extraction...............................60 3.2.2.7 Fossil fuel-based power plant transportation...............................................61 3.2.2.8 Fossil fuel-based power plant construction..................................................61 3.2.2.9 Fossil fuel-based power plant operation.......................................................62 3.2.2.10 Fuels extraction, processing, and refining..................................................64 3.2.2.11 Coal transport.............................................................................................64 3.2.2.12 Petroleum coke transport............................................................................65 3.2.2.13 Fuel oil transport........................................................................................66 3.2.2.14 Natural gas transport..................................................................................66 3.2.3 Lifetime Power Output...........................................................................................66 3.2.4 Environmental Im pact Assessment........................................................................67 3.2.4.1 Global warming potential.............................................................................68 3.2.4.2 Acid rain potential........................................................................................69 3.3 Emergy Synthesis........................................................................................................... ..69 3.3.1 Scope and Boundaries............................................................................................69 3.3.2 Data Acquisition.....................................................................................................70 3.3.2.1 Wind energy inputs to wind farm.................................................................71 3.3.2.2 Labor for wind farm transport......................................................................71 3.3.2.3 Labor for wind farm cons truction and decommissioning............................72 3.3.2.4 Labor for wind farm maintenance................................................................73 3.3.2.5 Labor for coal-fired power unit transportation.............................................73 3.3.2.6 Labor for natural gas combined-cycle unit transportation...........................73 3.3.2.7 Labor for coal-fired unit construction..........................................................74 3.3.2.8 Labor for natural gas combined-cycle unit construction..............................74 3.3.2.9 Labor for fuels transport...............................................................................75 3.3.2.10 Oxygen demand for combustion................................................................76 3.3.3 Emergy Accounting Table......................................................................................76 4 RESULTS........................................................................................................................ .......87 4.1 Life Cycle Assessment.....................................................................................................87 4.2 Emergy Synthesis........................................................................................................... ..90 5 SENSITIVITY ANALYSIS.................................................................................................101 5.1 Wind Farm.................................................................................................................. ....101 5.2 Coal-Fired Unit............................................................................................................ ...102 5.3 Natural Gas Combined-Cycle Unit.................................................................................103 6 CONCLUSIONS..................................................................................................................107 APPENDIX A LIST OF ASSUMPTIONS CATEGORI ZED BY LIFE CYCLE STAGE..........................110

PAGE 7

7 B LIST OF NREL LCI DATABASE MODULES USED.......................................................111 C UPSTREAM ELECTRICITY CALCULATIONS...............................................................112 D SAMPLE CALCULATION OF EMISSIONS USING NREL LCI DATABASE..............113 E SAMPLE ALLOCATION CALCULATI ONS FOR PETROLEUM PRODUCTS FROM CRUDE OIL.............................................................................................................114 F SAMPLE BACK-CALCULATION FOR SOX AND NOX BY FUEL TYPE, SCALED TO MATCH PRIMARY DATA..........................................................................................116 G WIND SPEED RAW DATA AND CALCULATIONS......................................................117 LIST OF REFERENCES.............................................................................................................118 BIOGRAPHICAL SKETCH.......................................................................................................125

PAGE 8

8 LIST OF TABLES Table page 1-1. Summary of offshore wi nd parks as of 2006.....................................................................24 2-1. Summary table of the coal life cycle inventory from Babbitt and Lindner LCA..............47 2-2. Summary table of life cycle CO2 emissions of power generating systems from various LCA studies...........................................................................................................48 2-3. Unit Emergy Values of common items and services.........................................................49 2-4. Comparison of emergy indicators for selected power plants for three different levels of emissions dilution..........................................................................................................49 3-1. Vestas V80-1.8 MW turbine specifications.......................................................................78 3-2. V80-1.8 MW turbine components, materials, and masses.................................................79 3-3. Materials required for the 360 MW coal-fired power plant...............................................79 3-4. Materials required for the 505 MW natu ral gas combined-cycle power unit....................79 3-5. Power plant construction equipment details......................................................................80 4-1. Global warming impact potentials for each power system................................................91 4-2. Acid rain impact potential s for each power system...........................................................91 4-3. Lifetime savings in global warming and aci d rain impact potentials resulting from implementation of the wind farm system...........................................................................91 4-4. Global warming and acid rain impact potentials for the fuel cycles..................................91 4-5. Emergy accounting table for the wind farm system..........................................................92 4-6. Emergy accounting table for coal-fired st eam turbine power unit based on the operational conditions of Plant Scherer.............................................................................93 4-7. Emergy accounting table for coal-fired st eam turbine power unit based on the operational conditions of St. Johns River Power Park.......................................................94 4-8. Emergy accounting table for natural gas co mbined-cycle power generating unit.............95 4-9. Summary of data and performance indi cators for the four power systems.......................96 5-1. Sensitivity analysis for the LCA of the wind farm..........................................................104

PAGE 9

9 5-2. Sensitivity analysis for the emer gy synthesis of the wind farm.......................................104 5-3. Sensitivity analysis for the LCA of th e coal-fired plant based on Scherer......................105 5-4. Sensitivity analysis for the emergy synthesi s of coal-fired plant based on Scherer........105 5-5. Sensitivity analysis for the LCA of the natural gas combined-cycle plant......................106 5-6. Sensitivity analysis for emergy synthesis of the natural gas combined-cycle plant........106

PAGE 10

10 LIST OF FIGURES Figure page 1-1. Annual crude oil production scenarios for th e mean resource estimate and different projected growth rates........................................................................................................26 1-2. U.S. CO2-equivalents emissions alloca ted to economic sectors........................................27 1-3. United States population density by counties....................................................................28 1-4. Offshore wind turbine foundation development for deep water........................................29 1-5. Wind power resources and wind power clas ses for the contiguous United States............30 1-6. NDBC buoys off the coast of Florida................................................................................31 2-1. Common symbols in systems diagramming......................................................................50 2-2. Global processes of the geobiosphere................................................................................51 2-3. General systems diagram illustrating emergy performance indicators..............................51 3-1. Cutaway diagram of Vestas V80-1.8 MW turbine............................................................81 3-2. Power curve for Vestas V80-1.8 MW turbine...................................................................82 3-3. Level 1.0 with embedded Level 2.0 diagram for wind farm system.................................82 3-4. Level 1.0 with embedded Level 2.0 di agram for power plant system...............................83 3-5. Level 3.0 diagram for wind farm system...........................................................................83 3-6. Level 3.0 diagram for power plant systems.......................................................................84 3-7. Level 3.0 diagram for JEAs current operation.................................................................84 3-8. The raising of nacelle and rotor by jack-up barge fitted with a crane...............................85 3-9. System diagram for emergy synthesis...............................................................................86 4-1. Global warming and acid rain impact potentia ls for the life cycle stages of the wind farm.......................................................................................................................... ......97 4-2. Global warming and acid rain impact potentials for the life cycle stages of the coalfired steam turbine unit based on Plant Scherer.................................................................97 4-3. Global warming and acid rain impact potentials for the life cycle stages of the coalfired steam turbine unit based on St. Johns River Power Park..........................................98

PAGE 11

11 4-4. Global warming and acid rain impact potentials for the life cycle stages of the natural gas combined-cycle unit based on Brandy Branch............................................................98 4-5. Side-by-side comparison of global warming and acid rain impacts over the complete life cycle for the four power generating systems...............................................................99 4-6. Comparison of global warming potential impact of life cycle stages that are common to all four power systems, neglecting the operation stage.................................................99 4-7. Global warming and acid rain impact potentials of the fuel cycles.................................100

PAGE 12

12 Abstract of Thesis Presen ted to the Graduate School of the University of Florida in Partial Fulfillment of the Requirements for the Degree of Master of Science LIFE CYCLE ASSESSMENT AND EMERGY SY NTHESIS OF THEOR ETICAL OFFSHORE WIND FARM FOR JACKSONVILLE, FLORIDA By Stacey L Dolan May 2007 Chair: H. A. Ingley, III Major: Mechanical Engineering Wind energy is currently the fastest growing renewable energy resource in the United States. There are, however, only limited locations that have strong enough wind speeds to be suitable as wind farm sites. Throughout the stat e of Florida there are mostly only Class 1 winds (less than 5.6 m/s), with some Class 2 (5.6 to 6.4 m/s) winds clos e to the coast. Current wind technology requires a minimum of Class 3 (6.4 to 7.0 m/s) for wind farms to be feasible. Transmission of the electricity produced is a sign ificant contributing factor to the cost of wind power, so minimizing distance is important for economic optimization. Offshore wind offers the advantage of higher wind speeds that are strong enough to be feasible for wind farms, enabling states for which onshore applications are not pos sible to harness wind power without having to transmit it from neighboring states. This research analyzed how the implementation of an offshore wind farm for Jacksonville, Florida would compare to that of a natural ga s combined-cycle unit and a coal-fired steam turbine power unit with regard to sustainability, global warming impact, and acid rain impact. An emergy analysis was conducted to compare the potential offshore wind fa rm to a purely coalfired steam turbine power unit, a steam turbine po wer unit fueled by a mix of coal and petroleum coke, and a natural gas combined-cycle power generating unit. Parameters for comparison

PAGE 13

13 included emergy yield ratio, environmental loading ratio, and emergy index of sustainability. A life cycle assessment was also conducted to quantify the resp ective contribu tions to the environmental impacts of global warming and acid rain of each power system. The environmental stressors inventoried for quantif ying the impacts were carbon dioxide, methane, nitrous oxide, sulfur dioxide, and nitrogen oxides. The emergy analysis determined that the wind farm had an emergy yield ratio of 11.6, compared to 18.2 for the coal system based on Scherer, 18.8 for the coal system based on St. Johns River Power Park, and 12.4 for the natural gas system. The wind farms environmental loading ratio was orders of magn itude lower, i.e. 0.1, while the coal systems range from 13.1 to 15.1 and the natural gas system was found to be 22.4. Similarly, the emergy index of sustainability for the wind farm was found to have an advantageously higher value 121.9, while the coal systems ranged from 1.2 to 1.4, and the na tural gas system was found to have a value of 0.6. Results of the life cycle assessment included th at the global warming and acid rain impacts of the wind farm were far lower than those of th e fossil fuel-fired systems. The wind farm was found to have a global warming impact of 24 kg CO2 equivalents/MWh, and an acid rain impact of 0.2 kg SO2 equivalents/MWh. The fossil fuel fire d systems were found to range from 682 to 1452 kg CO2 equivalents/MWh, and 5.0 to 6.4 kg SO2 equivalents/MWh.

PAGE 14

14 CHAPTER 1 INTRODUCTION 1.1 Electricity and Fossil Fuels Global energy consumption of fossil fuels has stead ily increased starting at the turn of the 19th century with the Industrial Revolution, and experienced a dras tic increase in the rate of consumption beginning in the 1950s. Currently the global consumption of energy is roughly 420 quadrillion British Thermal Units annually, equivalent to just over 200 million barrels of oil per day (EIA 2006). Coal, oil, and natural gas have various applications such as electricity production, heat generation, and fuel for transporta tion. The electricity pr oduction utilities sector is a significant consumer of fossil fuels, repr esenting 39% of the total energy consumed in the United States (USEPA 2006c). Further, the Un ited States is the country with the largest consumption of electricity, representing just over 25% of the worlds consumption (USCIA 2006). Electricity generated in the US in 2004 totaled 3,971 billion kilowatt-hours provided by a mixture of sources, comprising 70.7% fossil fu el-fired power plants 19.9% nuclear, 6.5% hydroelectric, 2.3% other renewables (wind, solar, etc.), and 0.6% other. Of the fossil fuel power plants, coal represented 49.8%, natu ral gas 17.9%, and petroleum 3% (EIA 2005). Because fossil fuels are a non-renewable resource, the worlds energy dependence on their consumption is not a sustainable practice. The Energy Information Administration of the U.S. Department of Energy has estimated the year in which peak oil recovery will occur using the mean resource estimate of 3,003 billion barr els ultimately recovered and three different projected annual growth rates of consumption. As can be seen in Figure 1-1, the projected peak years are to occur in 2050, 2037, or 2030, for the re spective growth rates of 1%, 2%, or 3%. Historic growth rates have been approximate ly 2% (Wood and Long 2000). These projections illustrate the pressing need for alternative power production derived from renewable resources to

PAGE 15

15 be developed in order to maintain a supply fo r our energy demands by offsetting the decline in available fossil fuels. 1.1.1 Environmental Impacts of Fossil Fuel Combustion Further motivation for this transition to re newable energy sources are the environmental impacts resulting from the combustion of fossil fuels. Anthropogenic greenhouse gas emissions from power plants, such as carbon dioxide, meth ane, and nitrous oxide, contribute to global climate change by accumulating in the atmosphere and blocking infrared radiation from escaping to space. The global warming potential of a process can be measured by the amount carbon dioxide equivalents released by that process and Figure 1-2 shows that, of the economic sectors, electricity production is the larg est contributor of car bon dioxide equivalents released in the United States. Another significant result of fossil fuel com bustion is acid rain. Sulfur dioxide and nitrogen oxides (NOX) emissions from fossil fuel-fired power plants react with water vapor in the atmosphere to form sulfuric acid and nitric acid resulting in acid rain, a term that encompasses any precipitation (rain, fog, mist or snow) with a pH of 5.5 or less. Acid rain has been determined to cause damage to plant life, e.g. the high-elevation spruce trees of the Appalachians; to fish and invertebrate aquatic species, e.g. trout populations in lakes and streams in the Adirondack Mountains in New York; and to historic monuments and buildings by corroding metals and deteriorating stone and paint (USEPA 2006b). Urban ozone is another environmental imp act to which fossil-fired power plants contribute by releasing volatile organic compounds (VOCs) and NOX, which react in the presence of sunlight to form ground-level ozone the main component of urban smog. Ozone poses various health risks, such as irritation and damage to the respiratory system, eyes, and

PAGE 16

16 mucous membranes, as well as detrimental envi ronmental effects, such as damaging sensitive tree species and crops (Carlin 2002). 1.1.2 Environmental Regulations of Air Emissions Legislation to control the levels of air pollutants in the Unite d States has its basis in the Clean Air Act (CAA) of 1970 and its amendments The CAA requires the EPA to set National Ambient Air Quality Standards (NAAQS) for pollutant s that have been shown to be harmful to human health. The EPA has se t these standards for six criteria pollutants, identifying concentrations above which advers e health effects can occur. Th ese criteria pollutants are ozone, carbon monoxide, nitrogen dioxide sulfur dioxide, particulate matter smaller than 10 microns, and lead (USEPA 2006a). These criteria pollutants must be m onitored, and if an area or community fails to meet these standards it is clas sified as being in nonattainment. The EPA then establishes a plan of action deta iling air pollution re duction measures that the community must implement and a set time frame within which to reduce the pollution levels to meet the NAAQS. All six of the criteria pollutants (although lead only in trace amounts) are emissions of fossilfired power plants (Carlin 2002). The main contributing emissions to global c limate change, however, are not included in the six criteria pollutants regulat ed by the NAAQS, such as carbon dioxide, methane, and nitrous oxide. Nevertheless, a range of governmental action is being ta ken to motivate a reduction in these emissions. Examples of th is legislation span from the local level, such as the Florida Renewable Energy Production Tax Cr edit, to the national level, for instance federal grants such as the USDA Renewable Energy Systems and Ener gy Efficiency Improvements Program, to the international level of the Kyoto Protocol of the United Nations Framework Convention on Climate Change (UNFCCC). The UNFCCC states its objective is to achieve stabilization of

PAGE 17

17 greenhouse gas concentrations in the atmosphere at a level that w ould prevent dangerous anthropogenic interference with the climate system (1992). The importance of a conversion to non-foss il fuel-based, sustainable energy production systems is being recognized throughout the worl d, but this conversion is an immense task requiring great changes in energy infrastructure industry, legislation, technology, economy, etc. Because of this, it will necessarily be a slow and gradual transiti on. Thus, the initiation of this transition is a pressing issue in or der to be far enough into implem entation that as the fossil fuel supply declines there will not be a global energy shortage and the intrin sic devastating impacts such an event could have. 1.2 Wind Power Wind power is currently the worlds fastes t growing renewable electricity production system because it is the most economically compet itive with fossil fuels (Pellerin 2005). Current wind turbine technology was developed in Denmark in the late 1970s with the first wind farms installed in the U.S. in California in the 1980s At this time wind en ergy cost roughly 40 cents per kilowatt-hour, but has decreased over the last several decades to 4 to 6 cents per kilowatthour due to large growth in the industry (Pel lerin 2005). Globally, wind en ergy has increased at an average rate of 32% annually over the fi ve-year span from 1998 to 2002 (AWEA 2003). In Europe, governments are subsidizing the cost of wind power installa tions as a response to the Kyoto Protocol. The benefit of this subs idy is clearly demonstrated by Europe collectively representing 72.8% of the globa l installed wind power capacity in 2004 (AWEA 2005). The top five countries in the world ranked by installe d wind capacity are Germany, Spain, United States, Denmark, and India. Germany is the country wi th the greatest amount of installed capacity (16,629 MW), and Denmark leads with respect to the proportion that wind power contributes to the countrys total energy production, supplying ju st over 20%. The U.S. has a total installed

PAGE 18

18 capacity of 11,603 MW as of D ecember 2006, representing 15.6% of the worlds installed wind power capacity (GWEC 2007). The United States offers a federal production tax credit for wind energy, but its expiration in December 2003 and delay in renewal until October 2004 hindered market growth for that time period. However, it is again beginning to experience a more competitive annual increase consistent with market averages (AWEA 2005). 1.2.1 Offshore Wind: Advantages and Disadvantages Offshore wind power generation offers both ad vantages and disadvantages compared to onshore wind plants. Offshore winds are typica lly characterized as having stronger, more consistent speeds, and are less turbulent than onshore winds because of the lack of landscape and buildings to impede the flow, which results in increased power production. Cities and towns tend to be more densely populated closer to the coast, as can be seen in Figure 1-3, and offshore wind also allows for closer proximity to these densely populated coastal cities with high value load centers, reducing electricity transmission co sts for these locations. Onshore turbines are limited in size by such physical constraints as roadway size for shipping the turbines to the installation site and cranes for installing th em. Offshore locations, where there are fewer physical barriers, may allow for larger turbines to be installed, which may be economically advantageous (Musial 2005). Aesthetics are a common public concern rega rding wind farms, and offshore sites are a far enough distance from the coast th at their visual and auditory impacts can be greatly reduced compared to onshore. For instance, the large turbines for the proposed Cape Wind project in Massachusetts are 3.6 MW each and stand 417 feet in height from base to tip of the verticalpositioned blade. They will be 5.6 miles offshore from Cotuit and will appe ar to a viewer on the coast only one half inch in height above the horizon (Cape Wind Associates, LLC 2006).

PAGE 19

19 There are, however, drawbacks to offshore wind power as well. Offshore wind farms are more expensive due to larger construction and installation costs since they require a more substantial foundation structure, installation of underwater tr ansmission lines, and special installation equipment. They also may have in creased maintenance and repair costs due to the damaging effects of a harsher operating environment, i.e. salt water, ocea n currents, ice build-up, and storms. In 2004, average costs for the 617 MW of installed offshore wind capacity worldwide were 8-15 cents/kWh (Musial 2005), doubl e or more than the cost of onshore. Offshore and onshore wind utilities share some of the same human and environmental impact concerns, such as interference with air traffic and risks to migratory birds. Offshore wind, however, also brings rise to additional concerns such as habitat loss to marine life. It is speculated, though, that offshore wind also may actually create the opposite effect, providing new habitat by means of the artificial reef eff ect of the submerged support structure. For example, the state of Delaware has an Artific ial Reef Program administered by the Delaware Department of Natural Resources and Environmen tal Control's Division of Fish and Wildlife. This program has installed elev en artificial reefs since 1995 in the Delaware Bay and along the Atlantic coast to enhance fisheries habitat and benefit structure-oriented fish (DNREC 2005). Other concerns that are exclusiv e to offshore wind include the risk s of marine traffic collisions, social implications of altering cherished coasta l scenery, vibrations hindering marine animals navigational sensory systems, and seabed distur bance that might decrease marine archaeological value. 1.2.2 Current State of Offshore Wind Technology There are currently no installed offshore wi nd power plants in the United States, but several have been proposed, in cluding one for Cape Cod, Massachusetts and one for Long Island, New York. Several offshore wind farms ar e currently operating in Europe, such as the

PAGE 20

20 Nysted and Horns Rev plants in Denmark and th e Scroby Sands and North Hoyle plants in the United Kingdom. Table 1-1 summarizes the offshor e wind parks that have been installed as of 2006. The site conditions for these wind plants are different than those for the proposed U.S. sites, however, because they are in shallow, sheltered waters, less than 20 meters deep. Monopile foundations, which have been used in Europe, are suitable for these depths, up to 30 meters. Different supporting structure options for wind turbines in deeper waters are currently being developed, such as tripod f oundations that are bottom-fixed for depths of 20-80 meters and floating structures for depths of 40-900 meters, but these have not previously been implemented at these depths (Figure 1-4). Another factor that is hindering the U.S. development of offshore wind plants is that offshore wind resource data are scarce. The da ta that do exist are from data collecting buoys, automated measurement stations, and estimates of 10 meter wind speeds and power production potential by satellite instruments. These data are mostly for the ocean surface or only several meters above, and the models used for power estimates have been onshore models, extending their application to off the coast. Thus, they are not necessarily optimal for accurate offshore wind resource assessment. The National Renewabl e Energy Laboratory has started a program to produce validated wind resource maps and power data for priority offshore re gions at a height of 50 meters above the surface. The program is planned to take several years and is beginning in 2006 with the Atlantic coast, spanning from Nort hern Florida to New England, the Great Lakes, and the western Gulf of Mexico (Elliot and Swartz 2006). 1.2.3 Floridas Wind Power Potential The state of Florida is the fourth most populated state in the country. Moreover, its population is increasing at a faster than averag e rate, having increased 11.3% from April 1, 2000 to July 1, 2005, compared to the nation as a whole experiencing a 5.3% increase (U.S. Census

PAGE 21

21 Bureau 2006a). This increasing population brings with it increased energy de mands. Traditional wind power options for Florida are highly limited, however, because there are only Class 1 winds (less than 12.5 mph) throughout the state with some Class 2 winds (12.5 to 14.3 mph) close to the coast. Current wind technology requ ires a minimum of Cla ss 3 (14.3 to 15.7 mph) for wind farms to be economically feasible. A map of Floridas wind resources and an explanation of wind speed classe s can be found in Figure 1-5. With regard to offshore wind, however, Florida is a much more appropriate candi date due to its large ratio of coastal area to total land area compared to most other states, as well as its concentrated coastal populations. Jacksonville, Florida, is the focus of our re search. Jacksonville is a densely populated coastal city on Floridas northern Atlantic coast. The impact of hurricanes and tropical storms on an offshore wind plant is an important concer n for such southern locations as Florida, and must be considered. Jacksonville is a location where hurricanes hit less frequently than more Southern cities, especially those on the Gulf Coast. The National Oceanic and Atmospheric Administrations (NOAA) Atlantic Oceanographic and Meteorolog ical Laboratorys Hurricane Research Division reports that from 1851 to 2004 Florida has endured 110 hurricanes, 35 of which were major (Category 3 or higher). Of th e 110 hurricanes, only 22 were in the Northeast quadrant of the state, compared to 36 in the Southwest, 41 in the Southeast, and 55 in the Northwest. Of the 35 major hurricanes, only 1 hit the Northeast, compared to 12, 15, and 12 for the other respective parts of the state (Landsea 2005). Wind power offers many advantages to foss il fuel based electricity production, such as being a less polluting, renewable source of energy th at is not dependent on foreign imports and is economically competitive with traditional power production systems. Onshore applications are

PAGE 22

22 not well suited to all geogra phic locations, and offshore wind farms offer an alternative electricity production option for coastal regions where land wind speeds are prohibitively low. 1.3 The Jacksonville Case Jacksonville Electric Authority (JEA) is a municipally-owned utility company that provides the electric utility se rvices for the City of Jacksonville, estimated 2003 population of 773,781 (US Census Bureau 2006), and parts of thr ee adjacent counties. In Fiscal Year 2005, JEA served an average of 391,831 accounts, and sold approximately 16.2 billion kilowatt-hours (kWh) of electricity (JEA 2006). As of 2005, JE As maximum electricity generating capacity is 3080 MW (JEA 2005); this capacity is achieved through a combination of sole and jointownership of 19 electricity generating units. A de scription of the individual power plant units including their capacities, turbin e types, and fuel types is gi ven in Table 1-2. Jacksonville Electric Authority implements a fuel diversifica tion strategy to remain competitive in the energy market; the fuel array providing electricity production in 2005 consisted of approximately 56% coal, 27% petroleum coke, 6% oil (both distillate and residual), 6% natural gas, and 5% other (JEA 2005). Jacksonville Electric Authority 's expansion pl ans include working with three other Florida utility companies to jointly pl an and construct a $1.4 billi on, 800 MW power plant for the purpose of meeting future energy needs of North Fl orida and in order to p rovide reliable power at an affordable price in an environmentall y responsible manner (J EA 2006). Jacksonville Electric Authority 's commitment to seeking cl eaner sources of energy includes a Clean and Green Power Program, in which JEA signed a Memorandum of Understanding with Sierra Club and the American Lung Association to meet th e voluntary goal of supplying 4 percent of its generating capacity from clean or green s ources by the year 2007, and 7.5 percent by 2015. Clean or green sources include solar, biomass, wind, landfill gas, sewer plant digester gas, and

PAGE 23

23 certain natural gas technologies (JEA 2002). Fu ture plans include purch ases of biomass energy (up to 75 MW from a plant in central Florida) and construction of a 13 MW biomass generation plant (fueled by yard waste from the city of J acksonville). Jacksonville Electric Authority has also entered into a Wind Generation Agreemen t in which JEA has agreed to purchase 10 MW of capacity over a 20-year period generated from a wind power plant in Ainsworth, Nebraska from Nebraska Public Power District (JEA 2006) In its Annual Disclosure Report of 2005, JEA states, Wind generation is one of the most preferred and cost effective Green Power alternatives. Prior to its agreem ent with NPPD, wind generation was not a feasible alternative for JEA due to a lack of sustainable wind re sources in the Jacksonville area (JEA 2006). Although Jacksonville does not have strong enough onshore winds, it is within close proximity to a potentially feasible offshore wi nd farm location. The National Buoy Data Center (NBDC), operated by the National Ocean and A tmosphere Administration (NOAA), maintains a set of data-collecting bu oys that record wind speed, direction, temperature, etc. and makes these data available to the public on their website. Figure 1-6 shows the NDBC buoys for the state of Florida. Buoy number 41008, off the northeast coas t of Jacksonville, has gathered data for over 11 years and measured an average wind speed ov er this time period of approximately 7 m/s (class 3 winds). This buoy is at a water de pth of 18 m, shallow enough for current monopile technology to be implemented for the wind tu rbines foundations. J acksonville Electric Authority 's interests in expansion, fuel dive rsification, and clean en ergy (particularly wind energy), and Jacksonvilles propinqu ity to this offshore location make it an ideal candidate for an offshore wind farm assessment. The recent growing interest in offshore wind power applications for the United States necessitates much research sp anning all aspects of such sy stems, including wind resource

PAGE 24

24 assessments, feasibility studies, economic assessment s, environmental impact assessments, etc. The focus of our research is on the latter, a ssessing air pollution imp acts of installing and operating an offshore wind farm co mpared to two different conven tional, fossil fuel-fired power plants for electricity production. The two conve ntional power systems ex amined were a natural gas combined-cycle unit and a coal-fired stea m turbine unit. The environmental impacts examined throughout the power plants life times were global warming and acid rain. An emergy analysis was also performed to identify th e emergy yield and a measure of sustainability of the power generating systems. Table 1-1. Summary of o ffshore wind parks as of 2006. No. of Turbine Site Wind Farm Site Country Year Manu facturer Turbines Model Total (MW) Norgersund Sweden 1990 Wind World 1 W25-220 kW 0.22 Vindeby Denmark 1991 Bonus 11 B35-450 kW 4.95 Lely Netherlands 1994 NedWind 4 NW40-500 kW 2.00 Tuno Knob Denmark 1995 Vestas 10 V39-500 kW 5.00 Dronten Netherlands 1996 Nordtank 28 NTK43-600 kW 16.80 Bockstigen Sweden 1997 Wind World 5 W37-550 kW 2.75 Blyth UK 2000 Vestas 2 V66-2.0 MW 4.00 Utgrunden Sweden 2000 Enron Wind 7 EW70-1.5 MW 10.50 Middlegrunden Denmark 2001 Bonus 20 B76-2.0 MW 40.00 Yttre Stengrunden Sweden 2001 NEG Micon 5 NM72-2.0 MW 10.00 Horns Rev Denmark 2002 Vestas 80 V80-2.0 MW 160.00 Ronland Denmark 2002 Vestas 4 V80-2.0 MW 8.00 Ronland Denmark 2002 Bonus 4 B82.4-2.3 MW 9.20 Samso Denmark 2003 Bonus 10 B82.4-2.3 MW 23.00 Setana Japan 2003 Vestas 2 V47-660 kW 1.32 Frederikshavn Denmark 2003 Vestas 2 V90-3.0 MW 6.00 Frederikshavn Denmark 2003 Bonus 1 B82.4-2.3 MW 2.30 Frederikshavn Denmark 2003 Nordex 1 N90-2.3 MW 2.30 Nysted Denmark 2003 Bonus 72 B82.4-2.3 MW 158.40 Arklow Bank Ireland 2003 GE 7 GE104-3.6 MW 25.20 Wilhelmshafen Germany 2003 Enercon 1 E112-4.5 MW 4.50 North Hoyle UK 2003 Vestas 30 V80-2.0 MW 60.00 Scroby Sands UK 2004 Vestas 30 V80-2.0 MW 60.00 Kentish Flats UK 2004 NEG Micon 30 NM92-2.75 MW 82.50 Dollart/Emden Germany 2006 1 4.5 MW 4.50 Barrow UK 2006 Vestas 30 V90-3.0 MW 90.00 Beatrice UK 2006 2 5.0 MW 10.00 Total 803.44

PAGE 25

25 Table 1-2. Description of JEAs current pow er generating stations and individual units. Year Capacity Station Unit Installed Type Fuel (MW) Kennedy 3 May-73 CT LO 54 4 Aug-73 CT LO 54 5 Jul-73 CT LO 54 7 Jun-00 CT G/LO 193 Total 247 Northside Generating Station 1 May-02 ST PC/C/G 298 2 Feb-02 ST PC/C/G 298 3 Jul-77 ST HO/G 518 3 Feb-75 CT LO 52 4 Jan-75 CT LO 52 5 Dec-74 CT LO 52 6 Dec-74 CT LO 52 Total 1322 Brandy Branch 1 May-01 CT G/LO 193 2 May-01 CT G/LO 193 3 Oct-01 CT G/LO 193 4 Jan-05 ST WH/G 180 Total 759 Saint Johns River Power Park 1 Apr-82 ST C/PC/LO 336 2 Apr-82 ST C/PC/LO 336 Total 672 Plant Scherer 4 Feb-89 ST C/LO 180 Girvin 1 Jul-97 IC LG 1 Combined Total 3180 Notes CT Combustion Turbine G Natural Gas ST Steam Turbine PC Petroleum-coke IC Internal Combustion WH Waste Heat LO Light Fuel Oil/Distillate/Diesel (No. 2) LG Landfill Gas HO Heavy Fuel Oil/Residual (No. 6) Not included in this research

PAGE 26

26 Figure 1-1. Annual crude oil production scenar ios for the mean resource estimate and different projected growth rates. Re printed with permission from: Wood, John and Gary Long. Long Term World Oil Supply (A Resource Base/Production Path Analysis). Energy Informati on Administration. 2000. United States Department of Energy. Last accessed October 2006. .

PAGE 27

27 Figure 1-2. U.S. CO2-equivalents emissions allocated to economic sectors. Reprinted with permission from: United States Environmental Protection Agency (USEPA). Inventory of U.S. Greenhouse Ga s Emissions and Sinks: 1990-2004. 2006d. USEPA 430-R-06-002. Last accessed November 2006. .

PAGE 28

28 Figure 1-3. United States population density by counties. Reprinted with permission from: United States Census Bureau. U.S. P opulation Density (By Counties). 2006c. Last accessed October 2006. .

PAGE 29

29 Figure 1-4. Offshore wind turbine foundation deve lopment for deep water. Reprinted with permission from: Musial, Walt. Offshor e Wind Energy Potential for the United States. Wind Powering AmericaA nnual State Summit. National Renewable Energy Laboratory. Evergreen, CO, 2005.

PAGE 30

30 Figure 1-5. Wind power resources and wind power classes for the contiguous United States. Reprinted with permission from: Energy Efficiency and Renewable Energy (EERE). Wind Energy Resource Potential. 2005. Unites States Department of Energy. Last accessed October 2006. .

PAGE 31

31 Figure 1-6. NDBC buoys off the coast of Florid a. The location of buoy 41008 is the site chosen for the theoretical offshore wind farm. Reprinted with permission from: National Data Buoy Center (NDBC). S tation 41008 Grays Reef. National Oceanic and Atmospheric Administra tion. Last accessed November 2006. .

PAGE 32

32 CHAPTER 2 LITERATURE REVIEW 2.1 Introduction to Life Cycle Assessments Life cycle assessment (LCA) is an analysis t ool for quantifying environmental impacts of a product or process from the cradle to grave, i. e. from raw material acquisition to eventual product and waste disposal. LCAs have many uses, such as providing a means to systematically compare inputs and outputs of two products or proce sses; to identify the stages of a process or a products life cycle have the grea test environmental or public he alth impacts; to establish a comprehensive baseline to which future resear ch can be compared; to assist in guiding the development of new products; to provide in formation to decision makers in industry, government, and non-governmental organizations ; and to verify a products environmental claims or declarations (SETAC 2004). Life cycl e assessment guidelines and examples have been established by the Inte rnational Organization for Standa rdization (ISO) 14040 family of standards. A life cycle assessment consists of three stages : inventory analysis, impact assessment, and improvement analysis. The inventory analys is consists of scoping the system under consideration, and data collection. The scopi ng process defines the LCAs purpose, boundary conditions, and assumptions. Streamlining may be used when defining the boundary conditions, identifying which stages of the process or produ cts life cycle will be co nsidered and which will be assumed to be outside the scope of analysis There are also two rules used to further streamline the scope, the five percent and one percen t rules. The five percent rule allows for the elimination of a material fr om the analysis if it is 5% of the total product mass. The one percent rule allows for the elim ination of an input if it is 1% of the total input mass. Materials or inputs with inherent toxicity are exceptions to these rules and mu st be included in the analysis

PAGE 33

33 regardless of their percent of total mass or inpu ts (USEPA 2006e). A functional unit (FU) of analysis, defined as the amount of product, materi al, or service to which the LCA is applied, is used to put the data on a common basis for direct comparison. For example, if the life cycle of Styrofoam cups is being compared to that of ceramic mugs, one appr opriate functional unit would be 12 ounces of fluid, and all inputs and outputs would be put on the scale of their contribution per 12 ounces. When conducting a life cycle assessment, the e nvironmental impacts of interest and the stressors that result in these impacts mu st be identified (e.g. global warming and CO2, respectively), and the production of these stressors is inventoried throughout all life cycle stages within the system boundary. The impact analys is stage of an LCA takes these data and systematically quantifies the resulting environmental impact s. Thus, the LCA methodology yields numerical results that allow for dire ct, analytical comparison between the resulting impacts of the systems under study. Finally, the improvement analysis stage of the life cycle assessment is using the results of the study to determine ways in which the pr ocess or product under investigation can be improved. This can be done by identifying the most harmful or detrimenta l stages, analyzing the material and energy inputs, outputs, and pro cesses involved in thos e stages, and seeking alternatives that would be less harmful. The methodology of an LCA, i.e. simultaneously analyzing the various stages with respect to the same parameters of interest, is what allows for easy pinpointing of the stages th at require the most attention in the improvement analysis. 2.2 Life Cycle Assessments of El ectricity Production Systems 2.2.1 Fossil Fuel-Based Systems Over 70% of U.S. electricity is generated fr om fossil fuel-fired power plants, with coal accounting for nearly 50%, natural gas roughly 18%, and petroleum 3% (EIA 2005). Although

PAGE 34

34 emissions due to the combustion of fossil fu els at power plants are monitored and well documented, taking a life cycle approach to invent orying emissions through several or all stages of power generation and its associated fuel cycles and examining the environmental impacts of such systems offers a more holistic and complete analysis. Numerous life cycle assessments have been performed on various electricity pr oduction systems, including fossil fuel, solar, hydroelectric, nuclear, and wind powered systems. 2.2.2 Coal A life cycle inventory of coal used for el ectricity production in Florida (Babbitt and Lindner 2005) compared four differe nt coal-fired utilities in Flor ida, inventorying the energy and material inputs and emissions for the raw ma terial extraction, materials processing (coal combustion), and material disposal stages of the life cycle using SimaPro software. This research inventoried nearly forty emissions to land, air, and water, including carbon dioxide, sulfur dioxide, mercury, and lead. This invent ory established that 1330 kg of carbon dioxide are released per 1000 kg of coal combusted, on averag e for the four utilities (Babbitt and Lindner 2005). Table 2-1 is a summary ta ble of the general results of th is research, giving, for example, the water and land requirements and the total emissions to land air, and water per 1000 kg of coal combusted. This table also serves as an ex ample of typical, general results that a life cycle inventory can generate. The Department of Energys National Rene wable Energy Laboratory performed a Life Cycle Assessment of Coal-Fired Power Production (Spath et al 1999), which examined three different pulverized coal-fired systems. It a ssessed a plant with emi ssions and an operating efficiency that represents the current U.S. average of coal-fired plants; a ne w coal-fired plant that meets the New Source Performance Standards (N SPS); and an advanced plant utilizing a low emission boiler system (LEBS). The life cycle st ages included in the study were coal mining,

PAGE 35

35 transportation, and electricity generation. Resource consumption, air emissions, water emissions, solid waste generated, and energy requir ements were inventoried with respect to the functional unit of per kilowatt-hour of electricity produced. This research determined that 1022 g/kWh of carbon dioxide were emitted from the Average plant, compared to 941 g/kWh of carbon dioxide from the NSPS plant, and 741 g/kW h from the LEBS plant (Spath et al. 1999). For all three systems, greater than 93% of the carbon dioxide emissions were produced from the electricity generation stage of the life cycle. The other most contributing stages were the limestone production and limestone scrubbing reac tion stages for the Average and NSPS plants, and the transportation stage for the LEBS plan t (Spath et al. 1999). The three stressors inventoried that were used in assess ing the global warming impact were CO2, CH4, and N2O. The global warming impact was found to be 1042.1 g CO2 equivalent/kWh for the Average system, 959.5 g CO2 equivalent/kWh for the NSBS system, and 756.9 g CO2 equivalent/kWh for the LEBS system (Spath et al. 1999). 2.2.3 Natural Gas The National Renewable Energy Laboratory also performed a Life Cy cle Assessment of a Natural Gas Combined-Cycle Power Generatio n System (Spath and Mann 2000). This study examined the construction and decommissioning of the power plant, construction of the natural gas pipeline, natural gas extraction, proces sing, and distribution, a mmonia production and distribution (used for NOX removal), and power generation stages. The power generation unit that served as the model for this study was a 505 MW unit, consisting of two gas turbines, a condensing reheat steam turbine, and a three pres sure heat recovery steam generator. This research found that over 99% of the air emissions from this system over the life cycle were carbon dioxide. After CO2, the next most abundant emission was methane, 74% of which was from the natural gas extraction, processing, and distribution stages, in the form of fugitive

PAGE 36

36 emissions (Spath and Mann 2000). In decreasing order of quantity released, the remaining emissions inventoried were non-methane hydrocarbons (NMHC), NOX, SOX, CO, particulates, and benzene. The global warming impact for th e natural gas combined-cycle unit was calculated based on CO2, CH4, and N2O emissions, and was determined to be 499.1 g CO2 equivalent/kWh (Spath and Mann 2000). 2.2.4 Fuel Oil LCALCCA of oil fired steam turbine power plant in Singapore (K annan et al. 2004) examined the life cycle and performed a life cycl e cost analysis of a hypothetical 250 MW fuel oil-fired steam turbine unit used for power produc tion in Singapore, a coun try that generates the majority of its electricity from oil and natural gas. This research included the materials extraction and manufacture for the power plant, fuel oil extraction and processing, fuel oil transportation, plant construction, operation, and decommissioning (including demolition and recycling) stages. It assume d a power plant lifetime of 25 ye ars, load factor of 70%, and efficiency of 33%. The focus of this LCA was on specific energy use and global warming impact. The specific energy use was determin ed to be 11.875 MJ/kWh, 98% of which was due to upstream processes of fuel oil (Kannan et al. 2004). The greenhouse gases inventoried were CO2, CH4, and N2O, and the global warming impact was found to be 932 g CO2 equivalent/kWh, 89.64% of which was from the operation stage alone (Kannan et al. 2004). 2.2.5 Wind Farm Systems There have also been several life cycle assessments performed on wind turbine power generating systems. Energy and CO2 life-cycle analyses of wind turbinesreview and applications (Lenzen and Munksgaard 2001) as sessed 72 previously performed energy and CO2 analyses of wind turbines for both on-land and offshore systems in many different countries, including the U.S., U.K., Germany, Denmark, Sw itzerland, Belgium, Argentina, Brazil, Japan,

PAGE 37

37 and India. This research found that due to diffe rences in assumptions (e .g. load factors, number of years of wind farm operation) and in the chosen scope and boundaries of the studies (e.g. including transportation, construction, decommis sioning, etc.), country of manufacture, and power ratings of the different tu rbines, the results of these 72 st udies demonstrated considerable variation. Energy intensity, define d as required energy invested in the system for manufacture, transport, etc., per unit of electricity produced, normalized over the life cycle was found to vary from 0.014 to 1 kWhin/kWh. Carbon dioxide intensity, that is, CO2 emitted per unit of electricity produced, normalized over the life cycle, was found to vary from 7.9 to 123.7 g CO2/kWh (Lenzen and Munksgaard 2001). Life cycle assessment of a wind farm and related externalitie s (Schleisner 1999) compared energy and emissions from the life cy cle of an offshore wind farm to a land-based wind farm. This research implemented a life cycle assessment model developed by the Riso National Laboratory in Denmark that quantifies the energy use and related emissions for the production, manufacture and transportation of 1 kg of material under Danish conditions. Both of the systems upon which this research was based were real systems. The offshore wind farm LCA was based on Tuno Knob wind farm, a 5 MW farm consisting of ten Vestas V39-500 kW turbines located 6 km off the coast of Jutla nd, Denmark. The land-base d wind farm was based on Fjaldene, a 9 MW farm situated in Jutland, co nsisting of eighteen V39-500 kW turbines. The stages included in this LCA were resource extraction, resource transportation, materials processing, component manufacture, component transportation, turbine construction, turbine operation, decommissioning, and turbine product di sposal. Assuming an estimated operating efficiency of 40%, a lifetime of 20 years, a nd a total power output of 250 GWh, it was found that the energy payback time for the Fjaldene wi nd farm was 0.26 years, and 0.39 years for Tuno

PAGE 38

38 Knob. Emissions normalized over the lifetime were found to be 9.7 g CO2/kWh, 0.02 g SO2/kWh, and 0.03 g NOX/kWh for the land-based Fjaldene wind plant, compared to 16.5 g CO2/kWh, 0.03 g SO2/kWh, and 0.05 g NOX/kWh for the Tuno Knob offshore plant (Schleisner 1999). The European Commission has funded a resear ch project that has utilized life cycle assessments in order to analyze the external ities of energy. This program, ExternE, was implemented at the national level by over 50 resear ch teams in over 20 count ries in Europe since 1991. Under this program, each participating co untry performed fuel cycle analyses for conventional fossil fuel-based energy systems and life cycle assessments for renewable energy power generating options. The ExternE project included an LCA for land-based wind farms in Germany and Greece, and both an onshore and o ffshore wind farm LCA for Denmark (European Commission 1997). Denmarks ExternE projec t for the two wind farms was conducted by Schleisner (1999) on Tuno Knob and Fjal dene, as previously presented. Greeces ExternE implementation examined a 1.575 MW wind power plant, consisting of seven 225 kW Vestas turbines on the island of Andros. Stages included in the study were resources extraction, materials processing, component manufacture turbine constr uction, turbine operation, plant decommissioning, component fina l disposal, and transportation between each stage. Assuming a load factor of 35%, wind ava ilability of 80%, and a lifetime of 20 years, it was found that the wind farm produced 8.2 g CO2/kWh, 0.079 g SO2/kWh, and 0.032 g NOX/kWh (European Commission 1997). Germanys ExternE implementation was based on Nordfriesland Windpark in SchleswigHolstein, consisting of fiftyone 250 kW Husumer Schiffswerft HSW-250 turbines, for a total capacity of 127.5 MW. Construction, transport, operation, and dismantling of the turbines were

PAGE 39

39 included in the LCA. The research assumed a total power output of 486 GWh over a 20 year lifetime, based on 2 years of wind data measured at the park. It was established that the wind farm produced 6.46 kg CO2, 15 g SO2, 20 g NOX, 20 g CH4, 0.07 g N2O, and 4.6 g particulates per MWh of electricity produced (European Co mmission 1997). Germanys ExternE research also examined the effects of wind turbines on bird s. Seven locations with 69 wind turbines were observed for one year and it was concluded that 32 birds could have been killed by collisions with the turbines. It was concluded that ne ither solitary wind turbin es nor wind parks pose a serious threat to birds, especially when comp ared to other common threats such as traffic (European Commission 1997). Although there have been several LCAs perfor med for offshore wind farms, it is important to note that the data and consequently the results of LCAs are site-specific, and to date, an LCA for an offshore wind farm for the United States has not been published. Table 2-2 summarizes the life cycle carbon diox ide emissions of the aforementioned fossil fuel-based and wind powered electricity production sy stems, as well as additional references. It can be seen from this table that fossi l fired systems range from 499.1 to 1050 g CO2/kWh, with natural gas representing the lowe r end of the range, followed by fuel oil systems spanning the middle of the range, and coal-fired power syst ems having the largest ca rbon dioxide emissions over the life cycle. Wind power systems ha ve been found to range from 6.46 to 123.7 g CO2/kWh, with offshore systems producing greate r emissions than land-based wind farms. 2.3 Introduction to Emergy Synthesis Emergy is a concept conceived by Howard T. Odum, resulting from several decades of research on energy quality in ecosystems and human systems throughout the 1960s, s, and s (Brown and Ulgiati 2004). The term emer gy was coined by David Scienceman, a visiting scholar from Australia working with H.T. Odum and is a contraction of the phrase embodied

PAGE 40

40 energy. Emergy is defined as an expression of a ll the energy of one kind previously used in the work processes and input flows that are required to generate a product or service. Those work processes include both work done by society an d by nature. Emergy can be thought of as energy memory and is a way of including all i nputs to a system on a common basis. This common unit of measure for emergy is the solar emjoule, abbrev iated sej (Brown and Ulgiati 2004). Energy is constantly undergoing transformations from one qual ity to another, and these different qualities demonstrate th e existence of an energy hierarc hy. For example, one joule of fossil fuels has higher quality than one joule of sunlight, and one joule of electricity has higher quality than one joule of fossil fuel s. The quality of an energy type is related to its flexibility and ease of use (Odum 1994). The quality of en ergy increases as the energy becomes more concentrated. Solar energy is the most abundant energy, but is also the most diffuse energy and has the lowest quality. As energy is tran sformed to higher qual ities it becomes more concentrated and is therefore available in sma ller quantities. During every energy transformation some energy loses its ability to do work, as stated by the 2nd Law of Thermodynamics, and this further contributes to higher quality energy being less abundant. Energy quality is measured by the Unit Emergy Value (UEV), which can be calcul ated on either an energy or mass basis. The solar transformity is the energy-based UEV, which measures emergy per unit available energy and has units of sej/J. Specific emergy is the mass-based UEV, which measures emergy per unit mass and has units of sej/g. UEVs can be thought of as a measure of efficiency, since they are a ratio of output to required inputs (Brown a nd Ulgiati 2004). Energy quality can also be calculated on a monetary basis with units of sej/$. Unit Emergy Values for some common items are given in Table 2-3 (Brown and Ulgiati 2004).

PAGE 41

41 Exergy is commonly used for energy analysis because it is a measure of the energy in a product that is available to do wor k, and the ability to do work is th e typical aspect of interest for an energy analysis. In contrast to exergy, how ever, emergy includes all previous energy inputs that were required in making the product, regard less of whether those inputs contribute to the final products available energy. Because it in cludes inputs from the environment as well as those from society, emergy accounting can be thought of as a way of measuring the true wealth of a system on the larger, biosphere scale, in contrast to traditi onal energy analyses where certain inputs and services are neglected because they do not have an associated energy measure in fuel equivalents (Brown and Herendeen 1996). Exampl es of such inputs are environmental services (e.g. oxygen supply for combustion or pollution abat ement); environmental energy and material inputs (e.g. solar energy that was co nverted to biomass and eventual ly converted to fossil fuels); or human services inputs (e.g. labor). Power generation systems are systems where services provided by the environment are largely unaccounted for, such as heat dissipation, absorption and dilution of harmful emissions, and insolation and biomass required to create the fuels. Therefore, emergy accounting may provide a means to include and quantify this work in the analysis and reveal the systems level of environmental loading and sustainability. A fundamental first step in em ergy synthesis is to construct a system diagram to clearly illustrate and define the system boundaries, comp onents, interactions, and flows. Figure 2-1 explains the more commonly used systems diag ramming symbols. Examples of these symbols include sun or tides as sources; a tank of water or a reserve of food or fuels as storages; building a wooden table or cooking a meal as interactions; biomass as produ cers; and animals or people as consumers. For further explanation of sy stems diagramming and symbols, refer to Environmental Accounting: Emergy and E nvironmental Decision Making (Odum 1996).

PAGE 42

42 Figure 2-2 is an example system diagram of global processes of the geobiosphere. Important to note is that the system components, including the external sources, are arranged from left to right in order of energy quality, i.e. in order of in creasing transformity or specific emergy. Notice that the three ex ternal energy inputs to the eart h are solar energy, tidal energy, and deep earth heat. It is these three energy flows upon which all emergy accounting calculations are based. These three flows act as a single coupled system driving the geobiosphere. Values for the inflows of these three energy sources to the geobiosphere have been measured, and thus transformities for so lar energy (1 sej/J, by de finition), tidal energy (7.39E+04 sej/J), and deep earth heat (1.20E+04 sej/J ) were calculated. From this the total solar emergy driving the earth was determined to be 15.83E+24 sej/year. For a more detailed explanation of these calculations, refer to Brown and Ulgiati (2004). Some of the parameters used to measure sy stem performance in an emergy synthesis are emergy yield ratio (EYR), emergy investment ratio (EIR), environmental loading ratio (ELR), and emergy index of sustainability (EIS). Figur e 2-3 is a systems diagra m that illustrates and defines these parameters. The emergy yield ratio is the ratio of the system yield, which is the sum of all the emergy flows driving the process or system, to the purchased goods and services from outside sources. This ratio is a way to measure how much imported emergy the process or system requires in order to produce its yield. Another way to interpret the EYR is that it measures the extent to which the system make s use of the local renewable and nonrenewable resources in order to produce its yield. The em ergy investment ratio is the ratio of the emergy imported to the system for goods and services to the local renewable and nonrenewable resources that also drive the system. The EIR is a way to measure to what extent the process or system utilizes the local resources, both renewable and nonrenewable, compared to how dependent it is

PAGE 43

43 on imported goods and services. The environmental loading ratio is the ratio of the sum of the imported goods and services and the local nonrene wable sources to the renewable environmental inputs. It is a way to measure the extent to which the system depends upon environmental emergy inputs, and therefore can be thought of as a measure of level of stress the system puts on the environment. Lastly, the emergy sustainability index is the ratio of the emergy yield ratio to the environmental loading ratio. This parameter is a way to measure the sy stems contribution to the economy per unit of environmental stress. 2.4 Emergy Analyses of Electri city Production Systems Emergy synthesis serves as a useful tool fo r assessing the performance of electricity production systems for several reasons. Similar to life cycle assessment, emergy accounting includes in the analysis indirect as well as dir ect energy inputs, material s, and services. This parallels the inclusion of all lif e cycle stages in an LCA, and not solely the operation or product use stage. Another advantage of emergy synthesi s for power generation systems is its ability to account for environmental inputs and services in the analysis, such as oxygen supply, cooling water supply, and environmental absorption of emissions. Emergy evaluations and environmental loadi ng of electricity produc tion systems (Brown and Ulgiati 2002) compared six different renewable and nonrene wable power generating systems in Italy, namely, coal, natural gas, oil, geothe rmal, hydroelectric, and wind power systems, in terms of energy and emergy. Parameters used to assess the systems performances were output/input energy ratio, emergy-based yield rati o, and environmental loading ratio. Carbon dioxide generated by each system was also asse ssed. The 2.5 MW wind farm model used for the analysis consisted of ten 225 kW turbines. The model coal plant was 1280 MW, the methane plant was 171 MW, and the oil plant was 1280 MW. It was found that the wind power plant had an energy ratio of 7.66 (energy out put/energy input), while the coal plant had an energy ratio of

PAGE 44

44 0.25, the methane plant 0.36, and the oil plant 0.30. The carbon dioxi de released, normalized to the amount of electricity produced for each syst em, was found to be 36.15 g/kWh for the wind farm, 1109.82 g/kWh for the coal system, 759.48 for the methane system, and 923.19 for the oil system (Brown and Ulgiati 2002). The emergy yield ratio was also determined fo r each system. It was found to be 7.47 for the wind farm, 5.48 for the coal-fired power unit, 6.60 for the methane-fired unit, and 4.21 for the oil-fired unit. The environm ental loading ratio for the wind sy stem was determined to be an order of magnitude lower than the fossil fuel plants, having a value of 0.15, compared to 10.37 for the coal plant, 11.78 for the methane plant, and 14.24 for the oil plant. Another performance indicator included in the analysis was the emergy i ndex of sustainability (E IS), the ratio of the emergy yield ratio to the environmental loading ratio. The wind turbines EIS was calculated as 48.300, while the coal plant was 0.529, methane pl ant was 0.560, and oil plant was 0.295 (Brown and Ulgiati 2002). A high EIS value implies a high emergy yield compared to its respective environmental load. These values, therefore, indicate that the wind system performs with a significantly higher emergy yield per unit of environmental loading. Two other parameters were included in this rese arch that have not been previously defined, emergy density (ED) and percent renewable (%R) Emergy density is defined as the emergy yield per unit area of the power generating plant. As a result of the diffuse nature of wind energy in comparison to fossil fuels, it was found that the ED of the wind farm was three orders of magnitude lower than that of the fossil fuel plants, with a value of 1.19E12, compared to 2.18E15 for coal, 2.61E15 for methane, and 2.48E15 for oil. The percent renewable is defined as the ratio of the local renewable inputs to the total inputs for the system. The wind systems %R was calculated as 86.61, while th e coal plants %R was 8.79, th e methane plants was 7.83, and

PAGE 45

45 the oil plants was 6.56. This parameter can be thought of as another index for measuring sustainability because it identifies the fraction of the system that is driven by renewable inputs, i.e., the fraction of the system that does not re ly upon externally supplie d goods and services or temporary storages of energy (fossil fuels) that will eventually run out. Quantifying the environmenta l support for dilution and abatement of process emissions The case of electricity production (Ulgiati and Brown 2002) is an emergy synthesis that focused on quantifying in greater detail the necessary environmental services provided to electricity production systems, and presenting how the inclusion of these services in th e analysis affects the emergy performance indicators. It was an exte nsion of the aforementioned study, performed by the same authors, further examining four of the six power plants in Ital y: coal (1280 MW), oil (1280 MW), methane (171 MW), and geothermal (20 MW). These four were chosen because only the emissions from the operational stage of electricity generation were considered while emissions resulting from the constr uction stages were neglected. Emissions from the geothermal plant during operation include thos e that are released from deep heat reservoirs, such as H2S, Radon, and CH4. Ulgiati and Brown performed an emergy eval uation for each of the four power systems three different ways. The first analysis incl uded no environmental services required for the dilution of emissions; the second analysis accoun ted for the environmenta l services required to dilute thermal and chemical emissions resul ting from the operation of the power generation systems down to legal limits; and the third analys is included the environmental services required to dilute the thermal and chemi cal emissions down to natural b ackground levels. The results of this study demonstrate that incl uding the environmental service of emissions dilution in the emergy synthesis has considerable effects on the performance indicators. The transformities of

PAGE 46

46 each system increase when emission dilution is accounted for, since environmental emergy inputs to the system increase. The methane plan t showed the smallest in crease in transformity, from 1.70E+05 to 1.73E+05 sej/J, attributable to its relativel y clean combustion. The emergy yield ratios were reduced in all cases, ra nging from a reduction by a factor of 4 for the geothermal plant, a factor of 2 for coal, a fact or of 1.7 for oil, and a factor 1.6 for the methane plant, when comparing the no dilution case to the case of dilution dow n to natural background levels. As expected, environmental loading ratio s were increased in all cases when emissions dilution services were included in the analysis. Finally, the emergy index of sustainability (EYR/ELR) was reduced for all systems when em issions dilution was accounted for, since the emergy yield ratios decreased while the environm ental loading ratios increased. A summary of these data is given in Tabl e 2-4 (Ulgiati and Brown 2002). Emergy synthesis serves as an alternative method to evaluate the energy flows of a system. It provides a way to account for differences in energy quality, for environmental services provided to a system, as well as a means to measur e a systems level of sustainability. Recently, galvanizing issues such as global warming have brought about a growing awareness and concern for recognizing the limits of the geobiosphere and th e environmental services that it can provide. Emergy synthesis may serve as a useful tool for future decision-making for assessing and comparing human dominated systems that rely heavily on inputs and services from the geobiosphere. 2.5 Life Cycle Assessment and Emergy Synthesis Life cycle assessment and emergy synthesis compliment each other in many ways. Both are a useful tool for presenting a holistic view of a product or pro cess. LCAs traditionally focus more on environmental stressors and their corr esponding impacts, while emergy analyses focus more on energy and system sustainability; both address a broader scope than looking solely at

PAGE 47

47 the products use or process operational stage. LCAs quantify the enviro nmental impacts of the process or product throughout its life cycle, including stages that are often neglected from analysis. Emergy synthesis account s for all the energy of one type that was previously used up in the transformations required to produce the fi nal product. Emergy synthesis also accounts for environmental services that drive the system, not just the inputs having a monetary value as are typically included in an analysis for a product of human interest or a human dominated process. Combining life cycle assessment with emergy synt hesis to evaluate a process results in a comprehensive analysis that provides multiple methodologies for measuring net energy and environmental performance of the system. Table 2-1. Summary table of the coal life cy cle inventory from Babbitt and Lindner (2005). System Inputs System Outputs Coal 2011 kg Electricity 9.68 GJ Chemicals and other materials 430 kg CCPs 216 kg Energy 2.31 GJ Emissions to air 1350 kg Fuels 27.6 m3 Emissions to water 60.7 kg Equipment 3220 ton-mile Emissions to land 11.2 kg Infrastructure 330 processes Water 7.36 x 106 m3 Land 185 m2 Note: All values are base d on a functional unit of pe r 1000 kg of coal combusted.

PAGE 48

48 Table 2-2. Summary table of life cycle CO2 emissions of power generating systems from various LCA studies. Fuel Reference Power Unit Description CO2 Units Coal Babbit & Lindner 2005 4 Florida plants 1330 kg/1000 kg coal Spath et al. 1999 Average 1022 g/kWh Spath et al. 1999 NSPS 941 g/kWh Spath et al. 1999 LEBS 741 g/kWh Tahara et al. 1997 1000 MW unit 915.9 g/kWh Hondo 2005 1000 MW unit 975.2 g/kWh Gagnon et al. 2002 Average of numerous LCAs 960-1050 g/kWh San Martin 1989 DOE estimated "average" 964 g/kWh Natural Gas Spath & Mann 2000 Combined Cycle 499.1 g CO2-eq./kWh Gagnon et al. 2002 Average of numerous LCAs 443 g/kWh San Martin 1989 DOE estimated "average" 484 g/kWh Fuel Oil Kannan et al. 2004 O il Steam Turbine 932 g CO2-eq./kWh Tahara et al. 1997 1000 MW unit 755.7 g/kWh Hondo 2005 1000 MW unit 742.1 g/kWh Gagnon et al. 2002 Average of numerous LCAs 778 g/kWh San Martin 1989 DOE estimated "average" 726 g/kWh Wind Lenzen & Munksgaard 2001 72 various wind farms 7.9-123.7 g/kWh Schleisner 1999 Fjaldene (onshore) 9.7 g/kWh Schleisner 1999 Tuno Knob (offshore) 16.5 g/kWh European Commissi on 1997 Greece 8.2 g/kWh European Commission 1997 Germany 6.46 g/kWh Hondo 2005 300 kW turbine 29.5 g/kWh Gagnon et al. 2002 Average of numerous LCAs 9 g/kWh San Martin 1989 DOE estimated "average" 7.4 g/kWh

PAGE 49

49 Table 2-3. Unit Emergy Values of common items and services. Item Transformity (sej/J) Specific Emergy (sej/g) Sunlight 1.00E+00 Global wind circulation 2.50E+03 Peat 3.20E+04 6.70E+08 Coal 6.70E+04 Cotton 1.40E+05 Corn 1.60E+05 2.40E+09 Electricity 3.40E+05 Butter 2.20E+06 Silk 6.70E+06 Phosphate fertilizer 1.70E+07 Shrimp (aquaculture) 2.20E+07 Steel 8.70E+07 7.80E+09 Human Labor 6.32E+16 Table 2-4. Comparison of emer gy indicators for selected power plants for three different levels of emissions dilu tion (Ulgiati and Brown 2002). Required dilution Thermal and chemical Thermal and chemical No dilution of emissions down to emissions down to emissions legal limits natural background Geothermal Transformity (sej/J) 1.47E+05 1.47E+05 1.47E+05 EYR 7.47 4.78 1.87 ELR 0.15 0.44 0.90 EYR/ELR 48.30 10.95 2.07 Thermal (oil) Transformity (sej/J) 2.00E+05 2.00E+05 2.33E+05 EYR 4.21 4.14 2.54 ELR 14.24 14.29 17.52 EYR/ELR 0.30 0.29 0.14 Thermal (coal) Transformity (sej/J) 1.71E+05 1.71E+05 2.04E+05 EYR 5.48 5.35 2.59 ELR 10.37 10.42 13.51 EYR/ELR 0.53 0.51 0.19 Thermal (methane) Transformity (sej/J) 1.70E+05 1.70E+05 1.73E+05 EYR 6.60 6.54 4.13 ELR 11.78 11.79 12.98 EYR/ELR 0.56 0.55 0.32

PAGE 50

50 Figure 2-1. Common symbols in systems diag ramming. Reprinted with permission from: Odum, Howard T. Environmental AccountingEmergy and Environmental Decision Making New York: John Wiley & Sons, Inc., 1996.

PAGE 51

51 Figure 2-2. Global processes of the geobiosphe re. Reprinted with permission from: Odum, Howard T. Environmental AccountingEmergy and Environmental Decision Making New York: John Wiley & Sons, Inc., 1996. Figure 2-3. General systems diagram illustrating emergy performance indicators. Reprinted with permission from: Brown, M.T., and S. Ulgiati. Emergy-based indices and ratios to evaluate sustainability: m onitoring economies and technology toward environmentally sound innovation. Ecol ogical Engineering 9 (1997): 51-69.

PAGE 52

52 CHAPTER 3 METHODOLOGY This chapter outlines the procedures followed for the life cycle assessment and emergy synthesis of the theoretical 180 MW wind farm, 360 MW coal-fired power generating unit, and the 505 MW natural gas combined-cycle (NGCC) power generating unit. For both the LCA and emergy synthesis, data collection was a primary ta sk, and this chapter deta ils the sources of all the data used in the models and any assumptions that had to be made in order to perform the analyses. These assumptions are also given in tabular form categorized by life cycle stage in Appendix A. 3.1 Power Generating Systems Models 3.1.1 Turbine Model For the theoretical offshore wind park, Vestas V80-1.8 MW turbines were used as the model. Vestas is the leading manufacturer of offshore wind turbines, currently representing approximately 50% of all offshore wind installa tions. The V80-1.8 MW tu rbine is the largest turbine that Vestas imports to North America. As of 2006, 625 of these turbines have been installed, for a total capacity of 1,125 MW. Th e V80-1.8 MW turbine is the North American version of the V80-2.0 MW turbine, which has been used extensively in Europe. The two models are identical with the exception of their generators and gearboxes. The V80-2.0 MW model has had 1,578 installations, for a total cap acity of 3,156 MW. This is a widely used turbine model with a su ccessful track recor d, both on land and offshore. The V80-2.0 MW turbine was the model installed at the Horns Rev wind park in Denmark. Installed in 2002, it is currently the worlds largest offshore wind park, c onsisting of 80 turbines for a total capacity of 160 MW. A cutaway diagram of the V80-1.8 MW turbines nacelle and its power curve are shown in Figures 3-1 and 3-2, respectively; the t echnical specifications are given in Table 3-1.

PAGE 53

53 3.1.2 Power Plant Models Jacksonville Electric Authority (JEA) curren tly produces electricity with both steam turbines and gas turbines, running a fuel mix of co al, petroleum coke, distillate fuel oil, residual fuel oil, and natural gas. To meet their growing electrici ty demands, recent power plant installations at JEA have been the combined-cycle gas turbine units at Brandy Branch (first constructed in 2001 as simple cycle and retr ofitted to combined-c ycle in 2005) and the circulating fluidized bed (CFB) co al plants at Northside Genera ting Station (2002). Therefore, two different conventional power plants were co nsidered in this res earch. The first was a 360 MW coal fired steam turbine unit consisting of a pulverized coal boiler, baghouse filter, conventional limestone flue gas clean-up (FGC) sy stem, a steam turbine, and a heat recovery steam generator (Spath et al. 1999). The sec ond system was a 505 MW combined cycle natural gas unit, comprising 2 Siemens Westinghouse W501F gas turbines, a condensing reheat steam turbine, and a three pressure heat recove ry steam generator (Spath and Mann 2000). 3.2 Life Cycle Assessment 3.2.1 Scope, Boundaries, and Functional Unit The stages included in the life cycle analysis of the wind farm were raw material extraction and manufacture, wind farm construction, wind farm operation, and wind farm decommissioning (not including disposal). Transportation was incl uded for the shipment of the turbine parts from Denmark to Jacksonville. The life cycle stages included for the coal a nd natural gas combinedcycle power units were raw mate rials extraction (including fuel s), power plant transportation, power plant construction, fuels transportation, and power plant operation. Decommissioning was not included in the analysis for the fossil-based po wer plants because it is JEAs current protocol to keep all retired units in inactive reserve for emergency use or future conversion to new systems (JEA 2006). Parts manufacture was not in cluded for any of the power systems due to

PAGE 54

54 lack of available data. Level diagrams (Figures 3-3 and 3-4) were created to visually display each of the systems including the inventor ied inputs and outputs of each stage. These level diagrams were expanded to Level 3.0 to show more detail for each system. These can be seen in Figures 3-5 through 3-7. Fi gures 3-6 and 3-7 are both for the power plant systems. Figure 3-6 illustrates the life cycle st ages for the construction of the power plants, which can be compared to that of the wind farm, whereas Figure 3-7 depicts the life cycle stages of the fuel cycles for JEAs current operation. In Figure 3-7 there are 3 simultaneous processes occurring, one for coal, one for oil and petrol eum coke, and one for natural gas. Oil and petroleum coke are grouped into the same pro cess because they are both crude oil products. The inventoried stressors were carbon dioxide methane, nitrous oxide, sulfur oxides and nitrogen oxides. The functional unit of kilogr ams of emission per MWh of electricity produced was used for the analysis of both the wind and th e fossil fuel-based systems. This allowed for direct comparison of the systems regard less of their gene rating capacities. 3.2.2 Data Acquisition The data acquisition process utilized several resources. Jacksonville Electric Authority, Vestas, and Sargent & Lundy LLC provided significant amounts of primary data, which were the preferred data sources when available. Th e National Renewable En ergy Laboratory (NREL) maintains a Life Cycle Inventory (LCI) Database which is a U.S. national compilation of input and output data of common industrial processe s organized into modules. The modules are organized in such a way that the emissions of the process itself are given, as well as a list of the required upstream inputs, but the emissions for these upstream inputs are not included. However, these upstream inputs each have their own separate module. Therefore, upstream emissions can be determined by linking data from the process module to th e other modules of the required input processes. Employing this techni que, these modules were used extensively for

PAGE 55

55 process emission calculations, such as fuels extr action and transportation. Upstream electricity emissions were determined using domestic summ ary statistics from the U.S. Department of Energys Energy Information Administration. A summary table of the NREL LCI Database modules used throughout this research can be f ound in Appendix B. Please refer to Appendix C for upstream electricity emission factors and Appendix D for a sample calculation using the NREL LCI Database. Only the fi rst level upstream inputs were in cluded in the analysis while second level upstream inputs and beyond were consid ered out of the scope of our research. For example, a barge is a required input for the Petroleum Refining module, so emissions for the combustion of diesel from the barge transport were included (first level upstream); however, emissions for the extraction and refining of the diesel used in the barge were not included (second level), nor were the emissions resulting from the combustion of fuels required for the extraction and refining (third leve l), etc. Worth noting is that the NREL LCI Database has not been subjected to an internal review. However, the database has been compiled using only peerreviewed data sources, and its use has b een suggested in the literature (Curran 2004). For the cases where primary data for the pow er systems could not be obtained and the NREL LCI Database did not apply, information avai lable in the literature on previous life cycle assessments of electricity generating systems was used. If data could not be obtained from the preferred data sources, i.e. JEA, the NREL LCI Database, or the literature, then miscellaneous resources, such as manufacturing company websites, were utilized as data sources. For example, GEs company website was referenced to determ ine the weight of the locomotive used in the model for the transport of coal. Allocation of data was required for processes that produce more than one product included in the analysis. Although a pr ocess has a certain quantity of inputs, outputs, and emissions

PAGE 56

56 associated with it, they must be divided a ppropriately among the co-products, based on the required energy and material inputs for each. Si nce JEA utilizes three petroleum products, i.e. residual fuel oil, distillate fuel oil, and petroleum coke, the in puts and outputs from the crude oil extraction stage and the petroleum refining stage we re allocated to these three products. Several other co-products are also produced in petrol eum refining, but the porti ons of the inputs and outputs allocated to these co-produ cts were not used in this life cycle assessment. A sample allocation calculation is de monstrated in Appendix E. 3.2.2.1 Wind farm raw materials extraction The materials included in the wind farm analys is are only the bulk materials that comprise the V80-1.8 MW turbines. These consist of steel, concrete, copper, and glass reinforced epoxy. The sea cables were not included in this analysis due to lack of available data and because they were assumed to represent a negligible mass fraction of the total materials. This assumption is supported by a previous life cycl e assessment of an offshore wind park that provided mass data for the sea cables, which represented 1.6% of the total mass of the wind park (Schleisner 2000). The mass data for the materials that comprise the turbines were obtained directly from Vestas in the turbines product brochure and through phone conversat ions with Vestas engineers, with the exception of the generator. The mass an d materials composition of the generator for the V80-1.8 MW turbine could not be determined, however, data were found for a Vestas 225 kW turbine from Greeces nationa l implementation of the ExternE Program (European Commission 1997). These data were scaled up from 225 kW to 1.8 MW to give the weight of the generator. To gi ve a level of confidence to this calculation, the mass of the entire 225 kW turbine was also scaled up and compared to the actual mass of the 1.8 MW turbine, and a 15.7% error was found. This percent error wa s concluded to be acceptable and further discussion of the results of this assumption is included in the Sensitivity Analysis chapter.

PAGE 57

57 Danish emission factors were used for these materi als since Vestas manufactures their turbines in Denmark. These emission factors were f ound in the literature (Schleisner 2000). The parts of the turbine included in the anal ysis were the nacelle, generator, hub, rotor, tower, transition piece, boat landing platform, and monopile foundation. The nacelle, which is the encasement of the generato r, gearbox, controls systems, tr ansformers, brakes, etc., was assumed to be 100% steel with the exception of th e generator within it. Materials data for the generator could not be found, so it was assumed to be 50% steel and 50% copper, as assumed in a similar wind farm LCA (European Commissi on 1997). The rotors for the Vestas V80-2.0 turbine are 100% glass reinforced epoxy. Th e hub, tower, monopile foundation, transition piece, and boat landing platform are 100% steel. Th e coupling piece is composed of a specially developed, high strength cement grout, but preci se composition could not be found, and was therefore assumed to be made of Portland ce ment. The turbine components, their material composition, and mass data can be found in Table 3-2. 3.2.2.2 Wind farm transport Since the actual departure lo cation through which Vestas sh ips turbines to the United States was unable to be determined, the turbin es were assumed to be shipped from Aarhus, Denmarks principal port and second largest cit y. Also, Aarhus is only 40 km from Randers, Denmark, where Vestas is located. From the Vest as website, it was concl uded that the turbines would be transported by rail the 40 km to Aar hus and then shipped by ocean bulk freighter to Jacksonville Port, Florida, a r ounded-up distance of 4600 miles. For both the rail transport and the ocean freighter transport, the National Re newable Energy Laboratory Life Cycle Inventory Databases (NREL LCI) Transportation module wa s used to calculate fuel consumption and emissions.

PAGE 58

58 The train used in the analysis was a GE E volution Series locomotiv e with a weight of 415,000 lb (GE 2006) towing a series of Freight Car America flatbed cars. It was assumed that each turbine required twelve 89-foot 100-ton flatbe ds (two for each of the three blades due to their length, one for each of th e three foundation segments, one for the monopile foundation, one for the transition piece, and one for the nacelle generator, and hub) giving a total of 1200 flatbeds. It was also assume d that each locomotive could tow 100 flatbeds, so 12 locomotives were used. For the ocean freighter, a bulker was chosen ove r a tanker or a container ship due to the characteristics of the cargo it is to transport. More specifically, the Panamax ship, the largest ship that can transit the Panama Canal, was c hosen based on the deadweight specifications. Deadweight tonnage is defined as the weight that the freighter carries, mostly cargo but also fuels, crew, etc., measured in long tons. Lightweight is defined as the weight of the ship itself. The total weight of the 100 turbines is r oughly 67,300 tons and a Panamax bulker can carry between 60,000 to 100,000 deadweight tons (dwt) (Maritime Business Strategies, LLC 2006). The lightweight displacement (the weight of the ship itself) of the Panamax is 10,000 tons (Alexanders Gas and Oil Connectio ns Reports 1997). The amount of fuel required for the trip was calculated using the NREL LCI Database Transportation module, and the weight of the fuel was calculated based on a diesel density of 850 kg/m3. The weight of the diesel required was determined to be approximately 2600 tons, so a rounded-up weight of 5000 tons to account for fuel, crew, and crew supplies was added to the we ight of the bulker. Th e total weight of the bulker loaded with the wind farm, fuel, crew, and supplies is approximately 82,300 tons. The NREL LCI Database was employed to calculate th e emissions generated from this transport.

PAGE 59

59 3.2.2.3 Wind farm construction The Vestas website states that for offshore in stallations a jack-up barge is used that can transport four turbines (excluding foundations) at a time (Vestas 2007). Using these data to also calculate the number of trips for the foundations and transition pieces, since each turbine weighs 309,000 kg (330 tons) and each complete foundati on (including transition pieces, coupling pieces, and boat landing platforms) weighs 301,000 kg (301 tons), it was assumed that the barge could transport 4 foundations per trip as well. Fi gure 3-8 illustrates the in stallation of a nacelle and rotor by jack-up barge and crane. The dist ance from Jacksonville Port to the location of Buoy 41008 is approximately 90 miles. The NR EL LCI Database Transportation module was also used for the fuel consumption and emissions for the construction stage. The weight of the amount of fuel required (as determined by th e NREL LCI Database) was also included in the weight of the barge, which therefore was calculate d iteratively, since more fuel is required to transport a ship carrying more fuel. Also included in the constr uction stage of the wind park was the fuel consumed by the crane fitted on the jack-up barge. The crane wa s assumed to be a Manitowoc crane, model 2250. It has a lifting capacity of 330 tons to a height of 300 feet. The crane is driven by a Caterpillar engine, model 3406C, a 6-cylinder diesel engine rated at 343 kW and 460 hp, at 2100 rpm. It has a rated fuel efficiency of 17.5 23.7 gal/h. Therefore, an average fuel efficiency of 20.6 gal/h was assumed for the analysis. A pile driv er is used for installing the monopile foundations, however, the fuel efficiency of a pile driver could not be found. It was therefore assumed to have the same fuel rating as the Manitowoc crane. 3.2.2.4 Wind farm operation and maintenance The only inventoried emissions resulting from the turbine operation stage are due to maintenance. Vestas states that lubricating grease for components in the nacelle must be

PAGE 60

60 replaced every six months (Elsam Engineeri ng A/S 2004). Thus, it was assumed that each turbine would receive biannual ma intenance inspections, provided by boat. Vestas also states that 1 four-member crew is scheduled to comp lete one maintenance se rvicing per 1.5 days (Poulsen 2004). It was therefore as sumed that a total of 150 trips ar e required every 6 months to service the 100 turbines The boat was assumed to weigh 30 tons, and a roundtrip distance of 200 miles was used for the calculation. Its fuel consumption and emissions were calculated using the transportation modul e of the NREL LCI Database. 3.2.2.5 Wind farm decommissioning The decommissioning stage was assumed to be identical to the construction stage, with the exception of the monopile foundations. It is current protocol to leave in th e seabed the sections of the foundations that are belo w the ocean floor, while the segment above the seabed is cut off and removed (Elsam Engineering A/S 2004). This was accounted for in the model, in that the trips transporting the foundations we re assumed to carry half the f oundation weight of the trips in the construction stage. This was assumed based on the length of the foundations being 40 meters and the distance driven into the seabed roughly 20 meters. The number of required trips for the jack-up barge, however, remains the same. Ag ain, the Transportation module of the NREL LCI database was used for the fuel re quirements and inventoried stressors. 3.2.2.6 Fossil fuel-based power plant raw materials extraction The materials data for the construction of th e two fossil fuel-fired pow er plants were both based on NREL life cycle assessment papers (Spath et al. 1999; Spath and Mann 2000). Similar to the wind farm analysis, only the bulk material s used in construction were considered. The power plants were assumed to be composed entire ly of steel, iron, aluminum, and concrete. U.S. emission factors were used for these materials since that is where they were assumed to be manufactured. The material requirements for th e two power plants are given in Tables 3-3 and

PAGE 61

61 3-4. Unlike the wind farm analysis, the power pl ant analysis must also include raw material extraction for the fuels used during the operation st age. Therefore, crude oil extraction, natural gas extraction, and coal mining were included in this stage. Data for this were obtained from the Primary Fuels Production module of the NREL LCI Database. 3.2.2.7 Fossil fuel-based power plant transportation The coal-fired steam turbine power unit was assumed to be manufactured by Siemens, which produces its steam turbin es at its manufacturing plant in Charlotte, North Carolina (Siemens 2007a). The distance from Charlotte to Jacksonville was found to be 400 miles, and transportation was assumed to be by rail. The tr ansportation emissions were calculated using the NREL LCI Transportation module. The natural gas combined-cycle power unit was also assumed to be manufactured by Siemens, whose gas turbine manufacturing faci lity is located in Hamilton, Ontario (Siemens 2007b). The distance from Hamilton, Ontario to Jacksonville was found to be 1200 miles and the NGCC power unit was also assumed to be transported by rail. Emissions were calculated using the NREL LCI Transportation module. 3.2.2.8 Fossil fuel-based power plant construction Construction data for the two power plant models were obtained through phone conversations with several engi neers from the Chicago, Illinois headquarters of Sargent & Lundy LLC, a leading construction contract or to the electric power industr y. Data were obtained for an 800 MW coal-fired steam turbine unit, and a 500 MW natural gas combined-cycle unit, consisting of two gas turbines and one heat recovery steam turbine. These data were then scaled as a function of generating capacity size for use in this research. The data obtained from Sargent & Lundy included an estimated number of cranes, dozers, scrapers, pile drivers, and trucks required for construction. A summary of these data can be found in Table 3-5.

PAGE 62

62 3.2.2.9 Fossil fuel-based power plant operation Since these units would be installed for JE A, the operational stage was assumed to be representative of JEAs current operating trends. Primary emi ssions data were obtained from JEA for the CO2, SOX, and NOX emissions for each of their 18 units. JEA reported that the SOX, and NOX emissions were measured with continuous emission monitors fitted on each of JEAs units, and the CO2 emissions were calculated using th e DOE AP-42 emission factors based on the units fuel consumption. Meth ane and nitrous oxide emissions re mained to be determined, so to be consistent with JEAs methods, the CH4 and the N2O emissions were also calculated using DOE AP-42 emission factors. The emissions fact ors used are based on fuel type, so for units using multiple fuels, emissions per composite megawatt-hour were calculated based on each fuels contribution to 1 MWh, using JEAs reporte d average heating values of the fuels. A sample of this calculatio n is given in Appendix F. The operational stage of the natural gas combined-cycle unit was modeled after the operation of JEAs Brandy Branch Station. Brandy Branch is a natural gas combined-cycle unit that was first installed in 2001 as three separate 193 MW simple cycle gas-fired turbines. In 2005, Brandy Branch was retrofitted and converted to a combined-cycle plant with the addition of a 180 MW heat recovery steam turbine, re sulting in a total capacity of 759 MW. The operational conditions of Brandy Branch that were applied to the 505 MW combined-cycle model unit of the current research include both intensive and extens ive factors. Such intensive factors include operating on a fuel mix comprising 95.6% natural gas and 4.4% distillate fuel oil, and running at a loading factor of 59.3%. A capacity factor of 60% was assumed. Extensive operational data had to be scaled down to appl y to the 505 MW capacity si ze of the model, such as annual fuel consumption and electrical output.

PAGE 63

63 The operational stage of the coal-fired steam turbine was assumed to operate based on two different power plants at JEA, Plant Scherer and St. Johns Rive r Power Park, and therefore two separate scenarios were generate d. Plant Scherer is an 841 MW co al-fired genera ting unit jointly owned by JEA and Florida Power and Light (F PL). Under the Scherer Unit 4 Purchase Agreement, JEA is entitled to 23.64% of Sche rers capacity (180 MW), while FPL receives the other 76.36%. Plant Scherer operates on 99.96% coal and 0.04% distillate fu el oil at a loading factor of 91.7%. The first scenario of the coal -fired plant was modeled to operate according to these conditions, and a capacity factor of 60% wa s assumed. This plant was chosen to represent one of the scenarios for the ope rational stage of the coal-fired unit to provide a life cycle assessment of a purely coal-fired system. St. Johns River Power Park, consisting of tw o 336 MW circulating fluidized bed steam turbines, was chosen as the second scenario for the operationa l conditions for the coal-fired power unit because it runs on a fuel mix of roughly 82% coal, 17% petroleum coke, and 1% distillate fuel oil, at a load ing factor of 91.7%. As above, the second scenario was modeled to operate according to these conditions, and a cap acity factor of 60 % was again assumed. Including these operating conditions affects the entire life cycle of the coal-fired system by necessitating the inclusion of th e fuel cycles for the additional fuels, e.g. petroleum coke extraction, refining, transport, etc. St. Johns River Power Park was chosen as a second scenario for the coal-fired plant because of its inclusion of petroleum coke as a fuel source. Jacksonville Electric Authority has been in the process of in creasing their use of petr oleum coke due to its economic benefit, having generated 17% of thei r total power supply from petcoke in 2002, and having increased to 27% by 2005 (JEA 2006a).

PAGE 64

64 3.2.2.10 Fuels extraction, processing, and refining For fuels extraction, processi ng, and refining stages, the NREL LCI Databases Primary Fuels Production module was used. JEAs coal-fir ed plants run on bituminous coal (JEA 2006a), so the Bituminous Coal Production database was us ed for calculations of emissions. For natural gas, the Natural Gas Extraction and Processing da tabase was referenced. For petroleum coke and fuel oil, the Crude Oil Extraction and Petr oleum Refining databases were used. These two databases provide emissions based on the extr action and refining of 1000 kg of crude oil, so allocation was implemented in order to assign emissions to each of the resulting petroleum products. 3.2.2.11 Coal transport Jacksonville Electric Authority has fuel contract s to supply the majority of their fuels, and obtains the rest in the open market. In 2005, JEA purchased 82% of their coal requirements through Southern Coal & Land Company and the remaining 18% through RAG Coal Sales of America (now know as Foundation Energy Sales, Inc.). Coal is supplied to JEA through a combination of rail and ship. JEA owns 4 sets of 90-car trains operated by CSX Transportation Inc., with each car having a carryi ng capacity of 105 tons of coal. Coal arriving by rail comes from mi nes in Kentucky and West Virginia (JEA 1997). These four trains were modele d as GE Evolution Series loco motives towing 90 Aluminum Quad Hopper cars, which have a load capacity of 117.05 tons (Freig htCar America 2006), the most similar to JEAs aluminum hopper cars for which data were found. Coal transported by ship or ba rge arrives at the St. Johns Ri ver Coal Terminal, a 30-acre site located on Blount Island that can handle up to 3 million tons of coal per year. The coal is then transported to the Power Park by a 3.2 mile -long enclosed conveyor system. Receiving coal by ship offers the economic benefit of being ab le to purchase coal on the spot market when

PAGE 65

65 prices are lower than those of JEAs coal pur chasing contracts (JEA 1997). The ships were modeled as Panamax ocean cargo bulkers. Emissions resulting from coal transporta tion were calculated using the NREL LCI Database Transportation module. It was assume d that 75% of the coal arrived by rail and the remaining 25% arrived by ship. The distance used for rail transport was the average distance between Lexington, KY and Jacksonville and Charle ston, WV and Jacksonville. This distance was calculated to be 555 miles, so a rounded up distance of 600 miles was assumed. For the coal arriving by ship, it was found that the U.S. imports 99% of its coal from Columbia, Venezuela, Indonesia, and Canada (EIA 2007). Thus, the fo llowing ports were chosen from each country and distances to Jacksonville were calculated: Santa Marta, Columbia; Maracaibo, Venezuela; Jakarta, Indonesia; and Char lottetown, Canada. These dist ances were weighted by their respective fraction of U.S. coal imports that th ey represent, and this final weighted average distance of 2165 miles was used for the ship tr ansport emissions calculations using the NREL LCI Transportation module. 3.2.2.12 Petroleum coke transport In 2005 JEA purchased 64% of their petcoke requirements from Oxbow LLC, 25% from Energy Coal SpA, and the remaining 11% in the spot market (JEA 2006a). Since petcoke is a by-product of petroleum refining, it was assumed that JEA receives their petcoke by ship from U.S. refineries. Texas (including offshore), Al aska, California, and Louisiana produce 78% of the total crude oil produced in the U.S. It was assumed that the crude oil is processed at refineries in relatively close proximity to extrac tion sites. The following port cities were chosen, one for each of the four states, and average di stances to Jacksonville by sea were calculated: Baton Rouge, LA; Baytown, TX; Valdez, AK; and Sa n Francisco, CA. It was assumed that the Valdez and San Francisco tankers would travel through the Panama Canal, and the Baton Rouge

PAGE 66

66 and Baytown tankers would travel around the southern tip of Florida. Th e average distance of these four locations to Jacksonville, weighted by percent contributi on to U.S. crude oil production, was found to be 3150 miles. 3.2.2.13 Fuel oil transport JEA maintains a 45 to 60 day supply of oil inve ntory, and purchases its fuel oil in the open market (JEA 2006a). Being a petroleum product, th e transportation of fuel oil was assumed to be the same as petroleum coke transportation, detailed above. 3.2.2.14 Natural gas transport Jacksonville Electric Authority has a 20 year contract that began in 2001 to purchase a 7,300,000 mmBtu per year of natural gas through EPM (now BGLS). This value is planned to increase to 22,265,000 mmBtu per year in 2007. JE A has a contract to use the Florida Gas Transmission interstate pipeline for transporta tion of 19,710,000 mmBtu per ye ar. In fiscal year 2005, JEA purchased the majority of their natural gas from EPM. Natural gas transport emissions were calcula ted using both the Natural Gas Precombustion database (from the Energy and Fuels Precombusti on module) and the Natural Gas Extraction and Processing database (from the Primary Fuels Pr oduction module) of the NREL LCI Database. The Precombustion module accounts for extraction, pr ocessing, transport, and storage of fuels. Therefore, data from the Extraction and Processing database were subtract ed from the data from the Precombustion database to isolate the emissi ons due solely to natu ral gas transport and storage. 3.2.3 Lifetime Power Output The lifetime power output of the wind farm was calculated as the product of the wind farms capacity, a capacity factor of 30%, a nd the number of hours ope rating over its 20-year lifespan. This results in a power output of 9,467,280 MWh. The lif etime power outputs of the

PAGE 67

67 fossil fuel-fired systems were similarly calculate d as the product of thei r capacities, a capacity factor of 60%, a loading factor of 91.7% for th e coal-fired unit and 59.3 % for the natural gasfired unit, and the number of hours in their 30-year lifespans. Th is results in a lifetime power output of 52,088,975 MWh for the coal-fired units ( both the Scherer-based and St. Johns River Power Park-based units), and 47,251,983 MWh for the natural gas-fired unit. The reason the power outputs for the coal plan t and the NGCC unit were based on different loading factors is because they were assumed to operate as JEA cu rrently operates similar systems. JEA runs its coal-fired units more continuously than its NGCC unit. Brandy Branch, the natural gas combined-cycle unit at JEA, underwent 103 startups in 2004, compared to only 9 start-ups for St. Johns River Power Park. 3.2.4 Environmental Impact Assessment The impact assessment was conducted using th e Environmental Risk Evaluation Method as outlined by Allan and Shonnard (2002). In th is method, the dimensionless risk index is calculated by Equation 3-1. B i iIIP EP IIP EP ex essRiskInd Dimensionl )] )( [( )] )( [( ) ( (3-1) where EP is the exposure potential, II P is the inherent impact potential, i is the indexed compound, and B is the benchmark compound. Th e dimensionless risk index for global warming and acid rain are referred to by Allen and Shonnard (2002) as global warming potential (GWP) and acid rain potential (ARP) respectively. GWP values used in the impact assessment for CO2, CH4, N2O and NOX are 1, 21, 310, and 40, respectively; ARP values for SO2 and NO2 are 1 and 0.7, respectively (Allan and Shonnard 2002). Some of the data sources used reported air emissions as SOX and NOX, while other data sources reported air emissions as SO2 and NO2 only. In this impact assessment, all of the SO2 and SOX data were lumped together, using the

PAGE 68

68 ARP for SO2. Similarly, the NO2 and NOX data values were grouped together with GWP for NOX and the ARP for NO2 applied, based on availability of da ta and dimensionless risk index values. To assess the total inde x, I, for global warming and acid ra in impacts resulting from the air emissions inventoried from all stages of th e electricity production systems, Equation 3-2 was used, in accordance with the method outlined by Allan and Shonnard (2002). i i im ex essRiskInd Dimensionl I ] ) [( (3-2) where i is the indexed stressor (i.e., CO2, CH4, N2O, SO2, NOX), the Dimensionless Risk Index is either the GWP of i or the ARP of i (depending on which impact is being assessed), and m is the total mass of i emitted throughout all the life cycle stag es considered per functional unit. More details of the GWP and ARP are given below. 3.2.4.1 Global warming potential According to the Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change, the GWP is the cumulative infrared energy capture from the release of 1 kg of a greenhouse gas relative to that from 1 kg of carbon dioxide, the benchmark compound (Allan a nd Shonnard 2002). This can be expressed by Equation 3-3. n CO CO n i i idt C a dt C a GWP0 2 2 0 (3-3) where ai is the predicted radiative forcing of gas i (W/m2) (a function of the chemicals infrared absorption properties and Ci), Ci is the predicted concentration in the atmosphere (ppm), and n is the number of years over which the integration is performed. Substituting the calculated GRPi values and the mass of emissions into Equation 3-2 above produces impact potential units of kg of CO2 equivalents per MWh.

PAGE 69

69 3.2.4.2 Acid rain potential The acid rain potential of a compound is dete rmined by the number of moles of H+ it creates per number of moles of the compound (Allan and Shonnard 2002). The acidification is expressed on a mass basis (Equation 3-4) wher e i is again the compound of interest and i is the number of moles H+ per kg i. SO2 is the benchmark compound for acid rain potent ial (Allan and Shonnard 2002). ARPi= i/ SO2 (3-4) Substituting the ARPi values and the mass of emi ssions into Equation 3-2 above produces impact potential units of kg of SO2 equivalents per MWh. 3.3 Emergy Synthesis 3.3.1 Scope and Boundaries The emergy analysis included the same stages as the life cycle assessment, i.e. raw materials extraction and manufact ure, transportation, constructi on, and operation for all three power generating systems, and decommissioning was also included for the wind farm system. A system diagram representing the construc tion, operation, and maintenance of the power plant systems and the wind farm system is shown in Figure 3-9. The external sources included in the analysis are wind, fuels, materials, machiner y, and human services. The two main storages are the assets of the power plants and the wind farm. For simplicity, separate components in the systems diagrams were not drawn for the natura l gas combined-cycle power unit and the coalfired steam turbine power unit, because the two components would be identical. Thus, the JEA PP (Jacksonville Electric Authority power plant) component shown in Figure 3-9 represents either of the systems. Separate emergy acc ounting tables were constructed for these two systems, however, because the ener gy, materials, and service flows are of different quantities. The dashed line in the system diagram is a mone tary flow and represents an exchange of money

PAGE 70

70 coming into the system obtained through the sale of el ectricity, and then le aving the system in exchange for human services. There is also a frac tion of this monetary fl ow that remains in the system as profit; however, this was not included in the analysis and was therefore neglected from the system diagram. Also for simplicity, the constr uction and maintenance stages are represented by the same interaction symbol, one for each power system, si nce they both combine materials with fuels, machinery, and human services, but they operate at different times in the life cycle, never simultaneously. The outflows of the construction/ maintenance interaction symbols feed into the storages of the power systems assets. The ope ration stages are represented by the interaction symbols located within the boxed boundaries of th e individual power systems. The inflows for the coal and natural gas-fired systems are fuels, assets, and human services, while the inflows for the wind park are wind, assets, and human services. The outflows of the interactions representing the operational stage are electricity. Inputs that were considered to be outside the scope of our research include the emergy flows of the construction equipment and cooling water required, and were not included in the analysis. All interactions and storages in the system diagram have heat sinks exiting through the botto m of the symbols, representing the inherent losses of these components. Examples of thes e losses include energy lost during combustion in the form of heat, or wear and depreciati on of assets over the systems life time. 3.3.2 Data Acquisition The emergy synthesis was performed with the same data used in the life cycle assessment, but some additional data were also required. Additional data included in the emergy analysis were hours of labor for each stage, type of la bor (graduated or not sp ecialized), wind energy inputs to the wind farm, and oxyge n demand for combustion of fuels. Primary data provided by Sargent & Lundy LLC were used for labor for th e construction stage of the fossil-fired power

PAGE 71

71 units, and data from the literature were used for the wind farm construction stage. Labor data for other stages had to be assumed, based on equipmen t requirements, etc. for the process. Oxygen demand for combustion of fuels was calculated based on mole ratios of the associated combustion process, which were then converted to mass ratios. 3.3.2.1 Wind energy inputs to wind farm Energy inputs to the wind farm system were calculated based on the kinetic energy of the air in the control volume of the wind farm. The size of the contro l volume was calculated as the product of the sea area required for the wind farm based on spacing the turbines one half mile apart (Bryant 2007) for a total sea area of 25 square miles (65 square kilometers), and the height of the turbines, measured to th e tip of the blades in their ve rtical position (120 m, based on 80 m tower height and 40 m blade length). This re sults in a tota l control volume of 7.8 cubic kilometers. An average wind speed of 6.98 mete rs per second, as reco rded by NOAAs National Data Buoy Centers Buoy 41008 was used for the velocity. The raw wind speed data used for this calculation as well as the conversion calcul ations performed are given in Appendix G. The kinetic energy of the wind was calculate d assuming an air density of 1.225 kg/m3. The wind energy input to the wind park was determined to be 6.38E+15 J. 3.3.2.2 Labor for wind farm transport Labor for the transport of the power units was calculated based on the mode of transportation used, size of vehicl e, and number of required trips. For the transport of the wind turbines the twenty-five miles from Randers to Aarhus by rail, it was assumed that 120 workers were involved. This allowed for 10 people for each of the 12 locomotives towing 100 flatbeds. It was assumed to take one complete eight-hour work day, for a total of 960 man-hours. It is standard procedure record all flows in an emergy synthesis on a yearly basis. Therefore, for stages such as transportation, construction, and decommissioning, it is necessary to normalize all

PAGE 72

72 flows by dividing the total energy, material, and service flows by the life time of the system. Normalizing the transportation labor over the wind farm life time of twenty years results in 48 man-hours/year, or 5.48E-03 years/year. The transportation of the wind turbines from Aarhus to Jacksonville by sea was assumed to require a crew of 100 people and take two weeks to complete, including the time required to load the turbines onto the Panamax bulker. This resulted in 11,200 man-hours, assuming eight hours of labor for the average day dur ing the trip. Normalizing over the life time of the wind park results in 560 man-hours/year, or 6.39E-02 y ears/year for the overseas transport stage. 3.3.2.3 Labor for wind farm constr uction and decommissioning Labor involved for the construction of the wi nd farm was assumed to be a crew of 200 workers, half of which were assumed to be gr aduated labor and the other half non-specialized labor. Construction labor data were obtained from a life cycl e assessment performed by Elsam Engineering A/S for Vestas. Installation of each tower requires 20 hours, each nacelle 10 hours, each foundation 20 hours, and each ro tor and set of three blades 6 hours (Elsam Engineering A/S 2004). An additional 5 hours per turbine was in cluded for miscellaneous construction labor. This results in a tota l of 1,220,000 man-hours. Normalizing this to a yearly ba sis results in 61,000 man-hours/year, or 6.96E+00 y ears/year (3.48E+00 years/year each of graduated labor and non-specialized labor). Labor data for decommissioning of the wind park were also obtai ned from the Elsam Engineering LCA. The number of hours required for dismantling is exactly the same as those required for installation. The only differences in the construction and decommissioning stages are that construction requires pile drivi ng, whereas decommissioning requires that the foundations be cut off at the surface of the seabed and the remaining buried segments be left in the ocean floor. This difference, however, does not have an effect on the required labor time,

PAGE 73

73 remaining at 20 hours per foundation (Elsam Engi neering A/S 2004). Therefore, the total manhours required for decommissioning is also 56,000 man-hours/year, or 6.39E+00 years/year. Consistent with the construction stage, the labor for decommissioning was assumed to be comprised of half graduated labo r and half non-specialized labor. 3.3.2.4 Labor for wind farm maintenance Calculation of labor for maintenance of the wind farm is based on the required biannual service calls to each of the turbines. One f our-member crew is scheduled to complete one maintenance servicing per 1.5 days (Poulsen 2004). It was therefore assumed that a total of 150 eight-hour work days are required for four peopl e every 6 months to service the 100 turbines, for a total of 9600 man-hours per ye ar, or 1.10E00 years/year. 3.3.2.5 Labor for coal-fired power unit transportation The coal-fired steam turbine unit was assumed to be transported by rail from the Siemens manufacturing facility in Charlo tte, NC. The 400 mile distance was assumed to take 14 hours, a rounded-up estimate for moving at an average sp eed of 30 mph. The number of 89-foot, 100-ton flatbed cars required for the tr ansport was determined by the total weight of the power unit (83,540 tons), resulting in a rounded up number of 900 flatbeds. Thus, it was assumed that 9 locomotives would be required, each towing 100 flat bed cars. Consistent with the wind farm transportation calculation, it was assumed that 10 workers were required for each locomotive and set of 100 flat cars, resulting in a total crew of 90. Therefore, the labor required for the steam turbine transport was determined to be 1260 manhours, or 4.79E-03 years/year when normalized to a yearly basis using a power plant life time of thirty years. 3.3.2.6 Labor for natural gas combined-cycle unit transportation Labor for the natural gas combine-cycle unit transportation was calculated in the same manner as detailed above for the coal-fired steam turbine. The gas turbine unit was assumed to

PAGE 74

74 be transported by rail from the Siemens manufact uring plant in Hamilton, Ontario, a distance of 1200 miles, taking 40 hours at an average speed of 30 mph. The total mass of the gas turbine combined-cycle unit is 72,028 tons, requiring a rounde d up number of 750 fl atbed cars. Thus, it was assumed that eight locomotives were required, resulting in a crew of 80 workers. The total labor for the gas turbine transp ort was found to be 3200 man-hours, or 1.22E-02 years/year when normalized over the power plant life time. 3.3.2.7 Labor for coal-fired unit construction Data for the construction stage of the coal fired plant were obtained through phone conversations with engineers from Sargent & L undy LLC. These data were based on a reference project for the construction of an 800 MW co al-fired steam turbine unit, which required 1500 workers during peak construction, with fewer work ers during the beginning and ending phases of construction, and lasting 52 months. These data were then scaled to apply to the 360 MW unit for our research, resulting in 675 workers during peak construction, and c onstruction lasting for 24 months. This calculated time frame for cons truction is supported by other data found in the literature, i.e. that a 360 MW co al-fired unit requires two years for construction (Spath et al. 1999). Assuming that non-peak construction phase s require 300 workers and last for four months at the beginning and end of construction (making up one-th ird of the total construction time), the total labor requir ed for construction was assumed to be 3,168,000 man-hours, or 105,600 man-hours/year (1.20E+01 years/ year) when normalized over th e thirty year life time of the power plant. 3.3.2.8 Labor for natural gas combined-cycle unit construction The reference data provided by Sargent & L undy engineers for the construction of the natural gas combined-cycle (NGCC) unit were ba sed on a 500 MW unit, which was reported to require roughly 80% of the labor of the 800 MW co al-fired steam turbine unit. It was therefore

PAGE 75

75 determined that the NGCC unit requires 128% of th e labor of the coal-fired system when put on the basis of per MW of capacity. This ratio was used to calcul ate the labor required for the 505 MW unit that is the model under analysis for the current research, wh ich resulted in 1215 workers during peak construction, 540 during non peak times, and construction lasting for 43 months. It was again assumed that the non-peak construction represented one-third of the total construction time, or in this case 7 months each at the beginning and end of construction. These calculations and assumptions result in 10,270,800 man-hours, or 342,360 man-hours/year (3.91E+01 years/year). 3.3.2.9 Labor for fuels transport Labor for the fuels transport for the coal syst em was calculated based on the required trips by rail to transport a years supply of coal. The 360 MW coal syst em modeled after Plant Scherer, for which 99.96% of its power generation is supplied by coal, requires approximately 790,000 tons of coal per year. Making use of JEA s utility-owned trains, this would require 90 fully-loaded shipments, i.e. all 90 hopper cars f illed to their 105-ton cap acity. It was assumed, however, that shipments received were one-third of this maximum capacity, received three times more frequently, due to possible limitations of receiving capabilities a nd fuel storage facilities. It was assumed that a crew of 10 workers is re quired for each 90-car train, and the 600-mile average distance trip from Kentucky or West Vi rginia takes 20 hours, assuming a speed of 30 mph. Accounting for round-trip labor, this results in 108,000 man-hour s per year, or 1.23E+01 years/year of non-specialized labor. Labor for the fuels transport fo r the steam turbine unit modele d after St. Johns River Power Park was calculated similarly; how ever, the transport of petroleum coke and distillate fuel oil by ship was also included. The total number of trips required by rail for coal delivery was calculated to be 75 in order to transport the required 646,000 tons of coal per year. The number

PAGE 76

76 of shipments of petcoke by small ocean tanke r with a carrying capacity of 60,000 deadweight tons (Maritime Business Strategi es LLC 2007) was determined to be 2 per year, in order to transport the required 101,000 tons of petcoke consumed annually by the power unit. The number of shipments by small ocean tanker required to transport the 4000 tons of distillate fuel oil required by the power unit per year was determin ed to be one. The rail labor was calculated in the same manner as for the Scherer based scenar io, and the labor for the ship transportation of the petcoke and fuel oil was assumed to take 1 week with a crew of 100 working standard eight hour shifts, per shipment. This results in to tal labor values of 30,000 man-hours for the rail transport and 24,000 man-hours for the tanker ship transport, or 6.16E+00 years/year of nonspecialized labor. Labor required for the natural gas transport for the natural gas combined-cycle power unit was assumed to be negligible, since it is delivered by pipeline to Jacksonville Electric Authority. 3.3.2.10 Oxygen demand for combustion Oxygen demand was included in the emergy synt hesis as a renewable input required for the combustion of fuels used throughout all stag es of the power generating systems life times, e.g. fuel required for fuels extraction, etc. The oxygen demand was calculated based on mole ratios in the combustion reaction for each fuel The combustion equation for petroleum coke could not be determined, so it was assumed to ha ve the same oxygen demand as coal. Electricity required for upstream processes was also assume d to have the same oxygen demand as coal, since coal provides roughly 50% of the el ectricity produced in the United States. 3.3.3 Emergy Accounting Table After the systems diagram was constructed to cl early define the scope (Figure 3-9), a table that includes all the actual fl ows of materials, energy, and la bor was generated for each power generating system. Another column in this table is the Unit Emergy Value (UEV) for each item.

PAGE 77

77 The actual flow amounts (in grams or Joules) were multiplied by the UEVs (in sej/g or sej/J) to give the emergy flows for each item (in solar emjoules). Following typical emergy accounting procedure, all flows were put on an annual basis, thereby requiring that flows for construction, transportation, and decommissioning be normalized to a yearly basis by dividing these values by the systems life time. The wind parks expected life time was assumed to be twenty years, while the coal-fired and natural gas combined-cyc le power plants expected life times were both assumed to be thirty years. The emergy flows were then summed to give an emergy value to the product, in this case electricity. Lastly, the determined emergy value of the product was divided by the quantity of electricity to give the system s UEV for electricity. Two transformities were calculated, one that includes labor and services and one that does not. Performance indicators were calculated for each of the three systems, including the emergy yield ratio, emergy investment ratio, environmental loading ratio, emergy index of sustainability, and percent renewable.

PAGE 78

78 Table 3-1. Vestas V80-1.8 MW turbine specifications. Rotor Diameter 80 m Area swept 5027 m2 Nominal revolutions 15.5/16.8 rpm Number of blades 3 Power regulation Pitch/OptiSlip Air brake Full blade pitch by th ree separate hydraulic pitch cylinders Tower Hub height 78 m Operational Data Cut-in wind speed 4 m/s Nominal wind speed (1800 kW) 15 m/s Cut-out wind speed 25 m/s Generator Type Asynchronous with OptiSlip Nominal output 1800 kW Operational data 60 Hz 690 V Gearbox Type Planet/parallel axles Control Type Microprocessor-based control of all the turbine functions with the optio n of remote monitoring. Output regulation and optimization via OptiSlip and OptiTip pitch regulation. Weight Nacelle 67 metric tonnes (t) Rotor 37 t Tower 195 t

PAGE 79

79 Table 3-2. V80-1.8 MW turbine com ponents, materials, and masses. Component Material Mass (kg/turbine) Blades glass reinforced epoxy (GRE) 21000 Hub steel 16000 Nacelle steel 58534 Generator 50% steel-50% copper 8466 Tower steel 205000 Monopile Foundations steel 200000 Transition Piece steel 90000 Boat Landing Platform steel 10000 Coupling Piece concrete 1000 Total610000 Table 3-3. Materials required for th e 360 MW coal-fired power plant. Material Amount required (kg) Concrete 57152880 Steel 18259560 Iron 222840 Aluminum 150840 Total 75786120 Table 3-4. Materials required for the 505 MW natural gas combined-cycle power unit. Material Amount required (kg) Concrete 49363245 Steel 15670150 Iron 206040 Aluminum 103020 Total 65342455

PAGE 80

80 Table 3-5. Power plant construction equipment details. Hours Used Coal-Fired Natural Gas Equipment Steam Turbine Combined-Cycle Model used in analysis 2 large 700 1250 Manitowoc crane, model 2250 cranes 330 ton lifting capacity Caterpillar 6-cylinder diesel engine, model 3406C Engine rated at 343 kW, 460 hp, 2100 rpm Fuel efficiency of 17.5 23.7 gal/h 10 small 1400 2500 Manitowoc crane, model 6D16-TLA2B cranes 50 ton lifting capacity Caterpillar 6-cylinder diesel engine, model 3126B Engine rated at 149kW, 200hp, 2000 rpm Fuel efficiency of 8.8 to 10.2 gal/h Wheel 200 350 Medium-sized Caterpillar, model H24H dozers C15 ACERT engine rated at 328 kw, 440 hp Fuel efficiency of 10.9 to 23.5 gal/h Scrapers 200 350 Medium-sized Caterpillar, model 623G C15 ACERT engine rated at 328 kw, 440 hp Fuel efficiency of 10.9 to 23.5 gal/h Off5000 9000 Caterpillar off-highway truck, model 773F highway 60 ton max payload trucks C27 ACERT engine rated at 740 hp, 1800 rpm Fuel efficiency of 34.3 to 42.5 gal/h

PAGE 81

81 Figure 3-1. Cutaway diagram of Vestas V801.8 MW turbine. Reprinted with permission from: Vestas Wind Systems A/S. Rande rs, Denmark. 2007. Last accessed March 2007.

PAGE 82

82 Figure 3-2. Power curve for Vestas V80-1.8 MW turbine. Reprinted with permission from: Vestas Wind Systems A/S. Randers, Denmark. 2007. Last accessed March 2007. Figure 3-3. Level 1.0 with embedded Le vel 2.0 diagram for wind farm system.

PAGE 83

83 Figure 3-4. Level 1.0 with embedded Leve l 2.0 diagram for power plant system. Figure 3-5. Level 3.0 diagram for wind farm system.

PAGE 84

84 Figure 3-6. Level 3.0 diagram for power plant systems. Figure 3-7. Level 3.0 diagram for JEAs current operation.

PAGE 85

85 Figure 3-8. The raising of nacelle and rotor by jack-up barge fitted with a crane. Reprinted with permission from: Vestas Wind Systems A/S. Randers, Denmark. 2007. Last accessed March 2007.

PAGE 86

86 Figure 3-9. System diagram for emergy synthesis.

PAGE 87

87 CHAPTER 4 RESULTS 4.1 Life Cycle Assessment Overall results of the impact assessment are given in Table 4-1, the global warming potential impact of each power system, and Table 4-2, the acid rain potential impact of each power system. These values are depicted gra phically in Figures 4-1 through 4-4. The wide, shaded blue bars represent global warming imp act, and these values correspond to the scale on the left y-axis, whereas the narrower green bars re present acid rain impacts, and these values are read from the scale on the right y-axis. The wind farm system was found to have a global warming impact of 24 kg CO2 equivalents per MWh of electric ity produced, compared to 1452 for the coal-fired steam turbine unit based on operating conditions of Plant Scherer (CoalScherer); 1146 for the coal fired steam turbine unit based on operating c onditions of St. Johns River Po wer Park (CoalSRPP); and 682 for the natural gas combined-cycle power unit based on operating conditions of Brandy Branch (NGCCBB). Similarly, the acid rain potential impact of the wind farm was also more than an order of magnitude lower than the steam turbin e or gas turbine units, having a value of 0.2 kg SO2 equivalents per MWh, compared to 6.4 for the coal plant based on Scherer, 5.0 for the coal plant based on St. Johns River Po wer Park, and 6.1 for the natural gas combined-cycle unit. For the wind farm, the life cycle stage with the greatest environmental impacts was found to be the materials extraction stage, followed by the power unit transportation stage, construction, decommissioning, and lastly, operati on/maintenance. In contrast, the operation stage for the fossil fuel-fired systems is by far th e stage with the greatest environmental impact, followed by fuels extraction and fuels transpor t, respectively. The power unit materials

PAGE 88

88 extraction, power unit transport, and power unit c onstruction stages all ne gligibly contribute to the systems environmental impact potentials. Figure 4-5 is a side-by-side comparison of th e total environmental impacts of the four power systems modeled. This fi gure clearly depicts the drasti c differences in both global warming and acid rain impacts of the wind farm wh en compared to all three of the fossil fuelfired power systems. In terms of carbon dioxi de equivalents savings, the wind farm produces 1428 kg CO2 equivalents per MWh less than the coal fi red unit based on Plant Scherer. Over the twenty-year life time of the wind farm, this results in a savings of roughly 13,500,000,000 kg, or 15 million tons of CO2 equivalents. Similarly, the wi nd farm results in a savings of approximately 12 million tons of CO2 equivalents over its life time when compared to the coal unit based on operating conditions of St. Johns River Power Park. When compared to the natural gas combined-cycle unit, the wind farm produced 658 kg CO2 equivalents per MWh less, resulting in a savings of roughly 7 million tons CO2 equivalents over its life time. As for savings in acid rain emissions, over its li fe time the wind farm results in approximately 65,000 fewer tons SO2 equivalents than the Scherer-based coal plant, 63,000 tons less than the natural gas combined-cycle unit, and 50,000 tons less than the St Johns River Power Park-based coal plant. These values can be found in Table 4-3. A comparison of the life cycle stages that ar e common to all four systems, namely, power unit materials extraction, power unit transport, and power unit construction, is shown in Figure 4-6. The material requirements for the power sy stems are all on the same order of magnitude, with the wind farm consisting of 61,000,000 kg of materials, the coal plant 75,786,000 kg, and the natural gas unit 65,342,000 kg. However, the lif etime power output of the wind farm is an order of magnitude less, having a valu e of 9,467,000 MWh, compared to 52,089,000 MWh for

PAGE 89

89 the coal plant and 47,252,000 MWh for the natural gas unit. This results from several factors, namely, the wind farm having a smaller capacity of 180 MW compared to the 360 MW coal plant and the 505 MW natural gas unit; the wind fa rms shorter life time of 20 years as opposed to 30 years for the fossil-fired units; and the wi nd farm operating at a lo wer capacity factor of 30% as compared to 60% for the fossil-fired unit s. Therefore, as illustrated by Figure 4-6, the material requirements are greater for the wind fa rm system when normali zed to a basis of per megawatt-hour of electricity produced. This is as expected, since wind energy is less concentrated than fossil fuel energy and therefor e more equipment is necessary to harness an equal amount of energy. It can also be seen in Figure 4-6 how this increased materials requirement for the wind farm per MWh of electri city produced has a trickle-down effect on the other two life cycle stages in the grap h, power unit transport and construction. The global warming and acid rain potential impacts for each of the fuel cycles were also determined. These fuel cycles include the fu els extraction and pro cessing, transport, and combustion stages only. The fuel cycles analyzed were natural gas, distillate fuel oil burned in a gas combined-cycle turbine, distillate fuel o il burned in a steam turbine, coal, and petroleum coke. These data illustrate the environmental impact potentials as a function of fuel type, whereas the previously discussed impacts were ca lculated as a function of the power generating units operating fuel mix. Thus, those data fo r each life cycle stage were proportional to the fraction of the composite MWh that each fuel supp lied. The fuel cycles environmental impacts, however, represent the impacts for the case where 100% of the MWh is supplied by that fuel. These data are given in Table 44 and graphically in Figure 4-7. It was found that the coal fuel cycle has the largest global warming impact poten tial, followed by petroleum coke, distillate fuel oil combusted in a gas combined-cycle turbine, DFO combusted in a steam turbine, and lastly,

PAGE 90

90 natural gas. As for acid rain, coal was also f ound to have the highest im pact potential, followed by natural gas, petroleum coke, DFO burned in a steam turbine, and lastly, DFO burned in a gas combined-cycle turbine. 4.2 Emergy Synthesis The emergy accounting tables for the four power generating systems are given in Tables 45 through 4-8. These tables include the calculati ons of the transformities for the electricity produced by each system. Table 4-9 summarizes th e data of each system based on type of input, e.g. services, renewable input, etc. It also gives the performance indicators determined for each system. It was found that the wind farm system pe rforms slightly lower but on the same scale as the fossil fuel-based systems in terms of emer gy yield ratio, having a value of 11.6, compared to 18.2 for the coal system based on Scherer, 18.8 fo r the coal system based on St. Johns River Power Park (SJRPP), and 12.4 for the natural gas system based on Brandy Branch. The emergy investment ratios were also on the same scale, with the coal (SJRPP) system having the lowest value of 0.06, the coal (Scherer) system 0.06, th e wind farm 0.08, and the natural gas system 0.09. The environmental loading ratio, however, for the wind farm system was found to be much lower than those of the other systems. The wind farms ELR was determined to be 0.1, while the coal systems ranged from 13.1 to 15.1 and the natural gas system was found to be 22.4. Because of the large differences in the envi ronmental loading ratios, the emergy index of sustainability (EIS) for the wind farm is much gr eater, with a value of 121.9. The coal systems were found to have EISs of 1.2 to 1.4, and the natural gas system 0.6. Finally, the percent renewable performance indicator also showed large differences in the wind system compared to the conventional power systems. The wind fa rm was determined to be driven by 91.3% renewable inputs, while the coal systems ranged from 6.2% to 7.1%, and the natural gas system 4.3%.

PAGE 91

91 Table 4-1. Global warming impact potentials for each power system. Wind Farm Coal Scherer Coal SJRPP NGCC BB Materials Extraction 21.1 8.1 8.1 7.7 Fuels Extraction & Processing 104.9 119.1 118.3 Power Unit Transport 2.2 0.1 0.1 0.2 Fuels Transport 31.6 37.4 28.2 Construction 0.3 3.1E-04 3.1E-04 6.0E-04 Operation 0.2 1307.4 980.8 527.3 Decommissioning 0.3 Total (kg CO2-eq/MWh) 24.0 1452.1 1145.5 681.7 Note: Values are given in CO2 equivalents per MWh Table 4-2. Acid rain impact pot entials for each power system. Wind Farm Coal Scherer Coal SJRPP NGCC BB Materials Extraction 1.6E-01 3.1E-02 3.1E-02 3.0E-02 Fuels Extraction & Processing 1.0 1.1 5.5 Power Unit Transport 2.0E-02 6.3E-04 6.3E-04 1.8E-03 Fuels Transport 0.3 0.4 0.5 Construction 1.6E-03 2.3E-06 2.3E-06 4.6E-06 Operation 1.6E-03 5.0 3.5 0.1 Decommissioning 1.5E-03 Total (kg SO2-eq/MWh) 0.2 6.4 5.0 6.1 Note: Values are given in SO2 equivalents per MWh Table 4-3. Lifetime savings in global warming and acid rain impact potentials resulting from implementation of the wind farm system. GWP Impact (kg CO2-eq/MWh) ARP Impact (kg SO2-eq/MWh) Lifetime Power Output (MWh) CO2-eq Savings (tons) SO2-eq Savings (tons) Wind Farm 24.0 0.2 9,467,280 NGCC Unit (BB) 681.5 6.2 47,251,983 6,861,604 62,579 Coal ST (Scherer) 1452.4 6.4 52,088,975 14,906,739 64,653 Coal ST (SJRPP) 1141.5 5.0 52,088,975 11,662,378 49,970 Table 4-4. Global warming and acid rain impact potentials for the fuel cycles. GWP (kg CO2-eq/MWh) ARP (kg SO2-eq/MWh) Natural Gas 656.7 6.3 DFO (gas CC turbine) 1046.2 2.0 DFO (steam turbine) 897.8 2.3 Coal 1444.5 6.4 Petroleum Coke 1323.0 5.3

PAGE 92

92 Table 4-5. Emergy accounting table for the wind farm system. Unit Emergy Solar Reference # Item Amount Units Value Emergy for (sej/unit) (sej/yr) UEV Wind Farm Transport* 1 Diesel 6.39E+12 J 1.11E+05 7.09E+17 [1] 2 Oxygen 3.64E+08 g 5.16E+07 1.88E+16 [2] 3 Labor (not specialized) 6.94E-02 years 2.49E+16 1.73E+15 [3] Construction* 4 Steel 2.92E+06 g 5.31E+09 1.55E+16 [1] 5 Copper 2.12E+07 g 3.36E+09 7.11E+16 [1] 6 Glass Reinforced Epoxy 1.05E+08 g 1.50E+09 1.58E+17 [3] 7 Cement 5.00E+06 g 2.59E+09 1.30E+16 [1] 8 Diesel 1.94E+12 J 1.11E+05 2.15E+17 [1] 9 Oxygen 1.11E+08 g 5.16E+07 5.70E+15 [2] 10 Labor (not specialized) 3.48E+00 years 2.49E+16 8.67E+16 [3] 11 Labor (graduated) 3.48E+00 years 4.98E+16 1.73E+17 [3] Wind Farm operation and Maintenance 12 Diesel 5.04E+11 J 1.11E+05 2.48E+16 [1] 13 Oxygen 2.87E+07 g 5.16E+07 6.59E+14 [2] 14 Wind 6.38E+15 J 2.52E+03 1.61E+19 [1] 15 Labor (not specialized) 1.10E+00 years 2.49E+16 2.76E+16 [3] Wind Farm Decommissioning* 16 Diesel 1.91E+12 J 1.11E+05 2.12E+17 [1] 17 Oxygen 1.09E+08 g 5.16E+07 5.63E+15 [2] 18 Labor (not specialized) 3.48E+00 years 2.49E+16 8.67E+16 [3] 19 Labor (graduated) 3.48E+00 years 4.98E+16 1.73E+17 [3] Total Inputs 1.76E+19 Product 20 Electricity Produced 1.70E+15 J 1.03E+04 1.76E+19 [4] *Items have been normalized to an annual basis by dividing by 20 year wind farm lifetime References for Unit Emergy Values [1] Brown & Ulgiati 2004 [2] Brown & Ulgiati 2002 [3] Ulgiati & Brown 2002 [4] This work, final result of calculations

PAGE 93

93 Table 4-6. Emergy accounting table for coal-fir ed steam turbine power unit based on the operational conditions of Plant Scherer. Unit Emergy Solar Reference # Item Amount Units Value Emergy for (sej/unit) (sej/yr) UEV Fuels Extraction 1 Coal 7.91E+12 J 6.71E+04 5.30E+17 [1] 2 Diesel 2.44E+14 J 1.11E+05 2.71E+19 [1] 3 Electricity 1.00E+14 J 3.40E+05 3.40E+19 [1] 4 Natural Gas 4.54E+12 J 8.05E+04 3.65E+17 [1] 5 Residual Oil 2.62E+13 J 9.06E+04 2.37E+18 [1] 6 Oxygen 2.71E+10 g 5.16E+07 1.40E+18 [2] Fuels Transport 7 Diesel 1.86E+13 J 1.11E+05 2.07E+18 [1] 8 Oxygen 1.06E+09 g 5.16E+07 5.49E+16 [2] 9 Labor (not specialized) 1.23E+01 years 2.49E+16 3.07E+17 [3] Power Unit Transport* 10 Diesel 7.78E+11 J 1.11E+05 8.63E+16 [1] 11 Oxygen 4.44E+07 g 5.16E+07 2.29E+15 [2] 12 Labor (not specialized) 4.79E-03 years 2.49E+16 1.19E+14 [3] Construction* 13 Concrete 1.91E+09 g 3.48E+09 6.63E+18 [1] 14 Steel 6.09E+08 g 5.31E+09 3.23E+18 [1] 15 Iron 7.43E+06 g 2.50E+09 1.86E+16 [1] 16 Aluminum 5.03E+06 g 1.63E+10 8.20E+16 17 Diesel 1.11E+12 J 1.11E+05 1.23E+17 [1] 18 Oxygen 6.35E+07 g 5.16E+07 3.28E+15 [2] 19 Labor (not specialized) 6.02E+00 years 2.49E+16 1.50E+17 [3] 20 Labor (graduated) 6.02E+00 years 4.98E+16 3.00E+17 [3] Operation 21 Coal 1.83E+16 J 6.71E+04 1.23E+21 [1] 22 Oxygen required 1.91E+12 g 5.16E+07 9.85E+19 [2] Total Inputs 1.41E+21 Product 23 Electricity produced 6.25E+15 J 2.25E+05 1.41E+21 [4] *Items have been normalized to an annual basis by dividing by 30 year power plant lifetime References for Unit Emergy Values [1] Brown & Ulgiati 2004 [2] Brown & Ulgiati 2002 [3] Ulgiati & Brown 2002 [4] This work, final result of calculations

PAGE 94

94 Table 4-7. Emergy accounting table for coal-fir ed steam turbine power unit based on the operational conditions of St Johns River Power Park. Unit Emergy Solar Reference # Item Amount Units Value Emergy for (sej/unit) (sej/yr) UEV Fuels Extraction 1 Coal 2.21E+12 J 6.70E+04 1.48E+17 [1] 2 Diesel 6.92E+13 J 1.10E+05 7.62E+18 [1] 3 Electricity 4.26E+13 J 1.85E+05 7.88E+18 [1] 4 Natural Gas 4.00E+13 J 8.10E+04 3.24E+18 [1] 5 Residual Oil 2.97E+13 J 1.10E+05 3.27E+18 [1] 6 Oxygen 1.33E+10 g 5.16E+07 6.87E+17 [2] Fuels Transport 7 Diesel 1.77E+13 J 1.30E+05 2.30E+18 [1] 8 Oxygen 1.01E+09 g 5.16E+07 5.21E+16 [2] 9 Labor (not specialized) 6.16E+00 years 2.49E+16 1.53E+17 [3] Power Unit Transport* 10 Diesel 2.83E+12 J 1.30E+05 3.67E+17 [1] 11 Oxygen 4.44E+07 g 5.16E+07 2.29E+15 [2] 12 Labor (not specialized) 4.79E-03 years 2.49E+16 1.19E+14 [3] Construction* 13 Concrete 1.91E+09 g 5.08E+08 9.68E+17 [1] 14 Steel 6.09E+08 g 2.77E+09 1.69E+18 [1] 15 Iron 7.43E+06 g 2.77E+09 2.06E+16 [1] 16 Aluminum 5.03E+06 g 1.77E+10 8.90E+16 [1] 17 Diesel 3.06E+11 J 1.30E+05 3.97E+16 [1] 18 Oxygen 6.35E+07 g 5.16E+07 3.28E+15 [2] 19 Labor (not specialized) 6.02E+00 years 2.49E+16 1.50E+17 [3] 20 Labor (graduated) 6.02E+00 years 4.98E+16 3.00E+17 [3] Operation 21 Coal 5.12E+15 J 6.70E+04 3.43E+20 [1] 22 Petroleum Coke 1.07E+15 J 1.10E+05 1.18E+20 [1] 23 Distillate Oil 5.99E+13 J 1.30E+05 7.79E+18 [1] 24 Oxygen required 6.23E+11 g 5.16E+07 3.22E+19 [2] 25 Labor (not specialized) 0.00E+00 years 2.49E+16 0.00E+00 [3] Total Inputs 5.30E+20 Product 26 Electricity produced 6.82E+15 J 7.77E+04 5.30E+20 [4] *Items have been normalized to an annual basis by dividing by 30 year power plant lifetime References for Unit Emergy Values [1] Brown & Ulgiati 2004 [2] Brown & Ulgiati 2002 [3] Ulgiati & Brown 2002 [4] This work, final result of calculations

PAGE 95

95 Table 4-8. Emergy accounting table for natural gas combined-cycle power generating unit. Unit Emergy Solar Reference # Item Amount Units Value Emergy for (sej/unit) (sej/yr) UEV Fuels Extraction 1 Coal 0.00E+00 J 6.70E+04 0.00E+00 [1] 2 Diesel 1.84E+13 J 1.10E+05 2.03E+18 [1] 3 Electricity 7.67E+13 J 1.85E+05 1.42E+19 [1] 4 Natural Gas 9.32E+14 J 8.10E+04 7.55E+19 [1] 5 Residual Oil 1.26E+13 J 1.10E+05 1.39E+18 [1] 6 Oxygen 7.68E+10 g 5.16E+07 3.96E+18 [2] Fuels Transport 7 Natural Gas 5.64E+14 J 8.10E+04 4.57E+19 [1] 8 Oxygen 4.05E+10 g 5.16E+07 2.09E+18 [2] 9 Labor (not specialized) 0.00E+00 years 2.49E+16 0.00E+00 [3] Power Unit Transport* 10 Diesel 2.01E+12 J 1.10E+05 2.21E+17 [1] 11 Oxygen 1.15E+08 g 5.16E+07 5.92E+15 [2] 12 Labor (not specialized) 1.22E-02 years 2.49E+16 3.04E+14 [3] Construction* 13 Concrete 1.65E+09 g 5.08E+08 8.36E+17 [1] 14 Steel 5.22E+08 g 2.77E+09 1.45E+18 [1] 15 Iron 6.87E+06 g 2.77E+09 1.90E+16 [1] 16 Aluminum 3.43E+06 g 1.63E+10 5.60E+16 [1] 17 Diesel 2.00E+12 J 1.10E+05 2.20E+17 [1] 18 Oxygen 1.14E+08 g 5.16E+07 5.88E+15 [2] 19 Labor (not specialized) 1.95E+01 years 2.49E+16 4.86E+17 [3] 20 Labor (graduated) 1.95E+01 years 4.98E+16 9.71E+17 [3] Operation 21 Natural Gas 1.88E+16 J 8.10E+04 1.52E+21 [1] 22 Distillate Oil 6.41E+14 J 1.10E+05 7.05E+19 [1] 23 Oxygen required 1.39E+12 g 5.16E+07 7.16E+19 [2] 24 Labor (not specialized) 0.00E+00 years 2.49E+16 0.00E+00 [3] Total Inputs 1.81E+21 Product 25 Electricity produced 5.67E+15 J 3.20E+05 1.81E+21 [4] *Items have been normalized to an annual basis by dividing by 30 year power plant lifetime References for Unit Emergy Values [1] Brown & Ulgiati 2004 [2] Brown & Ulgiati 2002 [3] Ulgiati & Brown 2002 [4] This work, final result of calculations

PAGE 96

96 Table 4-9. Summary of data and performan ce indicators for the four power systems. Summary of data Wind Farm Coal Scherer Coal SJRPP NGCC Units R Renewable input 1.61E+19 9.99E+19 3.29E+19 7.76E+19 sej N Nonrenewable input, without services 0.00E+00 1.23E+21 4.69E+20 1.59E+21 sej SN Services and investments for fuel supply 0.00E+00 3.07E+17 1.53E+17 0.00E+00 sej F Purchased plant inputs other than fuel, without services 1.24E+18 7.66E+19 2.76E+19 1.46E+20 sej SF Labor in plant and services for plant manufacture 2.89E+17 4.50E+17 4.50E+17 1.46E+18 sej Y Yield (R+N+F), without services 1.73E+19 1.41E+21 5.29E+20 1.82E+21 sej YS Yield (R+N+SN+F+SF), with services 1.76E+19 1.41E+21 5.30E+20 1.82E+21 sej Indices Solar Transformity without services, (R+N+F)/energy of output 1.02E+04 2.25E+05 7.76E+04 3.20E+05 sej/J Solar Transformity with services, (R+N+SN+F+SF)/energy of output 1.03E+04 2.25E+05 7.77E+04 3.21E+05 sej/J EYR Emergy Yield Ratio, EYR = (R+N+SN+F+SF)/(F+SF+SN) 11 .6 18.2 18.8 12.4 EIR Emergy Investment Ratio, EIR = F/(R+N) 0.08 0.06 0.06 0.09 ELR Environmental Loading Ratio, ELR = (N+SN+F+SF)/R 0.1 13.1 15.1 22.4 EIS Emergy Index of Sustainability, EIS = EYR/ELR 121.9 1.4 1.2 0.6 %R Percent renewable, (R/YS) 91.3% 7.1% 6.2% 4.3% Note: SN represents services associ ated with nonrenewable inputs, e.g. labor required for fuels transport. SF represents services associated with importe d goods, e.g. services required for construction.

PAGE 97

97 0 5 10 15 20 25Materials Extraction TransportConstructionOperationDecomissioningLife Cycle StageGlobal Warming Impact (kg CO2eq/MWh)0 0.02 0.04 0.06 0.08 0.1 0.12 0.14 0.16 0.18Acid Rain Impact (kg SO2-eq/MWh) Figure 4-1. Global warming and acid rain impact potentials for the life cycle stages of the wind farm. 0 200 400 600 800 1000 1200 1400Power Plant Materials Extraction Coal MiningOil Extraction and Refining (DFO) Coal Transport DF Oil Transport Power Unit Transport ConstructionCoal Operation DF Oil OperationLife Cycle StageGlobal Warming Impact (kg CO2-eq/MWh)0 1 2 3 4 5 6Acid Rain Impact (kg SO2-eq/MWh) Figure 4-2. Global warming and acid rain impact potentials for the life cycle stages of the coal-fired steam turbine unit based on Plant Scherer.

PAGE 98

98 0 100 200 300 400 500 600 700 800 900Power Plant Materials Extraction Coal MiningOil Extraction and Refining (PC) Oil Extraction and Refining (DFO) Coal Transport Petcoke Transport DF Oil Transport Power Unit Transport ConstructionCoal Operation Petcoke Operation DF Oil OperationLife Cycle StageGlobal Warming Impact (kg CO2-eq/MWh)0 0.5 1 1.5 2 2.5 3 3.5Acid Rain Impact (kg SO2-eq/MWh) Figure 4-3. Global warming and acid rain impact potentials for the life cycle stages of the coal-fired steam turbine unit base d on St. Johns River Power Park. 0 100 200 300 400 500 600Power Plant Materials Extraction Natural Gas Extraction and Processing Oil Extraction and Refining (DFO) Natural Gas Transport DF Oil Transport Power Unit Transport ConstructionNatural Gas Operation DF Oil OperationLife Cycle StageGlobal Warming Impact (kg CO2-eq/MWh)0 1 2 3 4 5 6Acid Rain Impact (kg SO2-eq/MWh) Figure 4-4. Global warming and acid rain impact potentials for the life cycle stages of the natural gas combined-cycle unit based on Brandy Branch.

PAGE 99

99 0 200 400 600 800 1000 1200 1400 1600Wind FarmNGCC Unit (BB)Coal ST (Scherer)Coal ST (SJRPP)Power Generating UnitGlobal Warming Impact (kg CO2-eq/MWh)0 1 2 3 4 5 6 7Acid Rain Impact (kg SO2-eq/MWh) Figure 4-5. Side-by-side comparison of gl obal warming and acid rain impacts over the complete life cycle for the four power generating systems. 0 5 10 15 20 25Materials ExtractionPower Unit TransportConstructionGWP Impact (kg CO2-eq/MWh) Wind Farm Coal Scherer Coal SJRPP NGCC BB Figure 4-6. Comparison of global warming poten tial impact of life cy cle stages that are common to all four power systems, neglecting the operation stage.

PAGE 100

100 0.0 200.0 400.0 600.0 800.0 1000.0 1200.0 1400.0 1600.0Natural GasDFO (gas CC turbine) DFO (steam turbine) CoalPetroleum CokeGlobal Warming Impact (kg CO2-eq/MWh)0.0 1.0 2.0 3.0 4.0 5.0 6.0 7.0Acid Rain Impact (kg SO2-eq/MWh) Figure 4-7. Global warming and acid rain impact potentials of the fuel cycles.

PAGE 101

101 CHAPTER 5 SENSITIVITY ANALYSIS A number of assumptions had to be made in order to perform the life cycle assessment and emergy synthesis. Therefore, a sensitivity analysis was performed in order to assess the extent to which the validity of these assumptions may have affected the results. For both the life cycle assessment and emergy synthesis several different s cenarios were analyzed for each of the power systems. 5.1 Wind Farm For the wind farm, Scenario 1 represents doubling the number of trips required for overseas transport from Aarhus, Denmark to J acksonville, Florida from one trip to two by Panamax ocean bulker. This was chosen as a scenario because although the carrying capacity of the Panamax in deadweight tons was known, it could not be determined if the size constraints of the Panamax bulker would necessitate more than one trip to transport the turbines due to their large dimensions. This scenario results in a 30 % increase in global warming impact potential for the power unit transportation stage of the life cycl e. This, however, corresponds to a relatively small 2.7% increase in total global warming impact potential over the wind farms life cycle. Scenario 1 for the wind farm was also analyzed for the emergy synthesis. This resulted in the emergy yield ratio decreasing by approximately 10 %, the environmental loading ratio increasing by roughly 12%, and the emergy index of sustainability decreasing by 20%. Scenario 2 for the wind farm is based on doubling the number of maintenance services from twice per year to four times per year. Although the assumption of the turbines requiring biannual service calls is based on primary data from Vestas, this scenario was chosen to account for any necessary unscheduled maintenance for re pairs, should the turbines become damaged or stop functioning properly. Scenario 2 results in a 100% increase in global warming impact

PAGE 102

102 potential for the operational stage, which corresp onds to a 0.7% increase in total impact potential over the complete life cycle. With regards to emergy accounting, Scenario 2 resulted in a 5% decrease in emergy yield ratio (EYR), a 5% incr ease in environmental load ing ratio (ELR), and a 10% decrease in emergy index of su stainability (EIS). Both Scen ario 1 and 2 for the life cycle assessment of the wind farm are shown in Tabl e 5-1, while these two scenarios for the emergy synthesis are shown in Table 5-2. Worth noting is that these scenarios have a la rger effect on the emergy synthesis than the life cycle assessment, and this is a result of labo r. The changes in global warming impacts for the life cycle assessment for these scenarios are a di rect result of the changes in quantity of fuel combusted. In contrast, the emergy synthesi s accounts for fuel and labor, so doubling the number of trips for transportati on in Scenario 1 not only doubles fu el consumption but also labor requirements, which in turn affects all of the pe rformance indicators since they are all a function of either fuels or labor or both. 5.2 Coal-Fired Unit For the coal-fired steam turbine unit, only the unit based on Plant Sche rer is presented, as the unit based on St. Johns River Power Park has th e same results for the two scenarios chosen. Scenario 1 represents doubling th e fuels and labor required for the construction stage. This was chosen as a scenario because these values we re calculated based on rough estimates made by Sargent & Lundy engineers, since da ta for this stage could not be found in the literature. In terms of changes in environmental impact potentials for the LCA, this results in a negligible 0.00002% increase over the complete life cycle of the power unit. With regard to the emergy synthesis, the EYR and the EIS decreased by less than 1%, and the ELR increased by less than 1%.

PAGE 103

103 Scenario 2 represents doubli ng the number of required loco motives and flatbed cars for power unit transport. This scenario was chosen because the number of fl atbed cars required for transport was based solely on the 230-ton carry ing capacity of the flatbeds, and not size constraints. Although the size c onstraints of the flatbed cars th emselves were known (89 feet), the dimensions of the steam turbine parts we re not known. Scenario 2 results in a 0.002% increase in global warming impact potential over th e life cycle. The effects of Scenario 2 were also negligible with regard to the emergy synt hesis. The emergy yield ratio decreased by 0.05%, the environmental loading ratio increased by 0.0 02%, and the emergy index of sustainability decreased by 0.1%. Table 5-3 gives the sensitivity analysis for the LCA for the coal-fired power unit and Table 5-4 gives its emergy synthesis sensitivity analysis. 5.3 Natural Gas Combined-Cycle Unit The sensitivity analysis scenarios for the NGCC unit were chosen to be the same as Scenario 1 and 2 for the coal-fir ed steam turbine unit, since these same stages were the ones based largely on assumptions and estimations. Ta ble 5-5 gives the LCA sensitivity results for the NGCC unit, and Table 5-6 gives the emergy s ynthesis sensitivity analysis. Results were similar to that of the coal-fired unit, i.e. per cent changes resulting from the two scenarios were found to be negligible. The global warming imp act potentials changed by less than 1% for both scenarios. The EYR and EIS both decreased by approximately 1%, while the ELR increased by less than 1% for Scenario 1. For Scenario 2, th e EYR and EIS decreased by less than 1% and the ELR increased by less than 1%. In conclusion, it was found that the assumpti ons did not weigh heavily on the results, especially for the fossil fuel-fired plants. Th e wind farm was found to be more sensitive to assumptions made, however, not to an unreasonable extent. The largest change in LCA results was found for Scenario 1 for the wind farm, incr easing its impact potential by 2.7%. The largest

PAGE 104

104 change in emergy synthesis results was also f ound in Scenario 1 for the wind farm, i.e. a 19.6% reduction in the emergy index of sustainability. For all scenarios, the genera l trends in the results remain. Table 5-1. Sensitivity analysis for the LCA of the wind farm. Base Case Scenario 1 % Change Scenario 2 % Change Materials Extraction 21.1 21.1 21.1 Fuels Extraction & Processing Power Unit Transport 2.2 2.8 29.5% 2.2 Fuels Transport N/A N/A N/A Construction 0.3 0.3 0.3 Operation 0.2 0.2 0.3 100.0% Decommissioning 0.3 0.3 0.3 Total (kg CO2-eq/MWh) 24.0 24.3 2.7% 24.2 0.7% Table 5-2. Sensitivity analysis for the emergy synthesis of the wind farm. Summary of data Base Case Scenar io 1 % Change Scenario 2 % Change R Renewable input 1.61E+19 1.61E+19 0.0% 1.61E+19 0.0% N Nonrenewable input, without services 0.00E+00 0.00E+00 0.0% 0 0.0% SN Services and investments for fuel supply 0.00E+00 0.00E+00 0.0% 0 0.0% F Purchased plant inputs other than fuel, without services 1.24E+18 1.42E+18 14.8% 1.293E+18 4.5% SF Labor in plant and services for plant manufacture 2.89E+17 2.91E+17 0.6% 3.162E+17 9.4% Y Yield (R+N+F), without services 1.73E+19 1.75E+19 1.1% 1.74E+19 0.3% YS Yield (R+N+SN+F+SF), with services 1.76E+19 1.78E+19 1.1% 1.771E+19 0.5% Indices Solar Transformity without services, (R+N+F)/energy of output 1.02E+04 1.03E+04 1.1% 1.02E+04 0.3% Solar Transformity with services, (R+N+SN+F+SF)/energy of output 1.03E+04 1.05E+04 1.1% 1.04E+04 0.5% EYR Emergy Yield Ratio, EYR = (R+N+SN+F+SF)/(F+SF+SN) 11.6 10.4 -9.8% 11.0 -4.7% EIR Emergy Investment Ratio, EIR = F/(R+N) 0.08 0.1 14.8% 0.1 4.5% ELR Environmental Loading Ratio, ELR = (N+SN+F+SF)/R 0.1 0.1 12.1% 0.1 5.4% EIS Emergy Index of Sustainability, EIS = EYR/ELR 121.9 98.1 -19.6% 110.2 -9.6% %R Percent renewable, (R/YS) 91.3% 90.4% -1.0 % 90.9% -0.5%

PAGE 105

105 Table 5-3. Sensitivity analysis for the LCA of the coal-fired plant based on Scherer. Base Case Scenario 1 % Change Scenario 2 % Change Materials Extraction 8.1 8.1 8.1 Fuels Extraction & Processing 105.0 105.0 105.0 Power Unit Transport 0.1 0.1 0.1 47.3% Fuels Transport 31.6 31.6 31.6 Construction 3.1E-04 6.1E-04 100% 3.1E-04 Operation 1307.7 1307.7 1307.7 Decommissioning Total (kg CO2-eq/MWh) 1452.4 1452.4 0.00002% 1452.5 0.002% Table 5-4. Sensitivity analysis for the emergy s ynthesis of coal-fired plant based on Scherer. Summary of data Base Case Scenar io 1 % Change Scenario 2 % Change R Renewable input 9.99E+19 9.99E+19 0.0% 9.994E+19 0.0% N Nonrenewable input, without services 1.23E+21 1.23E+21 0.0% 1.231E+21 0.0% SN Services and investments for fuel supply 3.07E+17 3.07E+17 0.0% 3.068E+17 0.0% F Purchased plant inputs other than fuel, without services 7.66E+19 7.67E+19 0.2% 7.661E+19 0.1% SF Labor in plant and services for plant manufacture 4.50E+17 9.00E+17 100.0% 4.499E+17 0.0% Y Yield (R+N+F), without services 1.41E+21 1.41E+21 0.0% 1.407E+21 0.0% YS Yield (R+N+SN+F+SF), with services 1.41E+21 1.41E+21 0.0% 1.408E+21 0.0% Indices Solar Transformity without services, (R+N+F)/energy of output 2.25E+05 2.25E+05 0.0% 2.25E+05 0.0% Solar Transformity with services, (R+N+SN+F+SF)/energy of output 2.25E+05 2.25E+05 0.0% 2.25E+05 0.0% EYR Emergy Yield Ratio, EYR = (R+N+SN+F+SF)/(F+SF+SN) 18.2 18.1 -0.7% 18.2 -0.05% EIR Emergy Investment Ratio, EIR = F/(R+N) 0.06 0.1 0.2% 0.1 0.1% ELR Environmental Loading Ratio, ELR = (N+SN+F+SF)/R 13.1 13.1 0.04% 13.1 0.002% EIS Emergy Index of Sustainability, EIS = EYR/ELR 1.4 1.4 -0.7% 1.4 -0.1% %R Percent renewable, (R/YS) 7.1% 7.1% 0.0% 7.1% 0.0%

PAGE 106

106 Table 5-5. Sensitivity analysis for the LCA of the natural gas combined-cycle plant. Base Case Scenario 1 % Change Scenario 2 % Change Materials Extraction 7.7 7.7 7.7 Fuels Extraction & Processing 113.6 113.6 113.6 Power Unit Transport 0.2 0.2 0.3 47.2% Fuels Transport 28.2 28.2 28.2 Construction 6.0E-04 1.2E-03 100% 6.0E-04 Operation 527.3 527.3 527.3 Decommissioning Total (kg CO2-eq/MWh) 677.0 677.0 0.0001% 677.1 0.014% Table 5-6. Sensitivity analysis for emergy synthesis of the natural gas combined-cycle plant. Summary of data Base Case Scenar io 1 % Change Scenario 2 % Change R Renewable input 7.76E+19 7.76E+19 0.0% 7.764E+19 0.0% N Nonrenewable input, without services 1.59E+21 1.59E+21 0.0% 1.593E+21 0.0% SN Services and investments for fuel supply 0.00E+00 0.00E+00 0.0% 0 0.0% F Purchased plant inputs other than fuel, without services 1.46E+20 1.46E+20 0.2% 1.456E+20 0.1% SF Labor in plant and services for plant manufacture 1.46E+18 2.91E+18 100.0% 1.457E+18 0.0% Y Yield (R+N+F), without services 1.82E+21 1.82E+21 0.0% 1.816E+21 0.0% YS Yield (R+N+SN+F+SF), with services 1.82E+21 1.82E+21 0.1% 1.818E+21 0.0% Indices Solar Transformity without services, (R+N+F)/energy of output 3.20E+05 3.20E+05 0.0% 3.20E+05 0.0% Solar Transformity with services, (R+N+SN+F+SF)/energy of output 3.21E+05 3.21E+05 0.1% 3.21E+05 0.0% EYR Emergy Yield Ratio, EYR = (R+N+SN+F+SF)/(F+SF+SN) 12.4 12.2 -1.0% 12.4 -0.1% EIR Emergy Investment Ratio, EIR = F/(R+N) 0.09 0.1 0.2% 0.1 0.1% ELR Environmental Loading Ratio, ELR = (N+SN+F+SF)/R 22.4 22.4 0.1% 22.4 0.002% EIS Emergy Index of Sustainability, EIS = EYR/ELR 0.6 0.5 -1.1% 0.6 -0.1% %R Percent renewable, (R/YS) 4.3% 4.3% -0.1% 4.3% 0.0%

PAGE 107

107 CHAPTER 6 CONCLUSIONS This research examined the differences in environmental impacts of an offshore wind farm, a coal-fired steam turbine, and a natural gas combined-cycle unit for the city of Jacksonville, Florida. Life cycle assessment and emergy s ynthesis were the methodologies implemented for this analysis. The coal-fired steam turbine unit was analyzed as ope rating in two different scenarios, one running purely on coal and one fueled by a mix of coal, petroleum coke, and distillate fuel oil. Both the life cycle assessment and emergy synthesis determined the wind farm to be the favorable power system with respect to the en vironmental impacts examined and degree of environmental loading. Further, the emergy synthe sis determined the wind farm to have a higher measure of sustainability, due to its lo w level of required non-renewable inputs. Because of the potential savings in global wa rming and acid rain impacts from employing the theoretical 180 MW wind farm compared to a ny of the three fossil fu el-fired power systems modeled, it is recommended that further studies be conducted on the feasibility of an offshore wind farm for Jacksonville, Florida. These futu re studies might include a more detailed life cycle assessment that considers additional imp acts, such as smog formation, land consumption, ecotoxicity, and visual and auditory impacts. A dditional studies that would be necessary for the wind farm include a cost analysis, and more in -depth potential power production and feasibility studies. The operational stages of the analyses were modeled to represent three different power plants currently in operation by Jacksonville Electric Authority: Plant Scherer, St. Johns River Power Park, and Brandy Branch. Of these, Plant Scherer is the unit with the highest combination of global warming and acid rain impacts. It is therefore recommended that if JEA were to

PAGE 108

108 replace any of the three units m odeled in this analysis with such a wind farm, Scherer would be the best candidate, with regards to these environmental impacts. St. Johns River Power Park has the second largest global warming impact; however, Brandy Branch has the second largest acid rain impact. Therefore, if one of these sy stems were to be identified as having better environmental performance than the other, a valu ation system of the two environmental impacts would have to be implemented. The wind farm was shown to have an emergy yi eld ratio comparable to those of the other power systems. However, its low environmenta l loading ratio, along with its high emergy index of sustainability and percent renewable identify the wind farm as the optimal choice, of the four systems modeled, for a power system that will pr oduce the lowest level of environmental stress. This research demonstrates the benefits of both the life cycle assessment and emergy synthesis approaches to evaluati ng power production systems. For example, the acid rain impact for the natural gas-fired system was mainly dete rmined by the natural gas extraction stage of the life cycle. If only the operational stage of the life cycle were considered, the SOX and NOX emissions would have been lower by more than one order of magnitude. Emergy synthesis provides measures of sustainability and envi ronmental loading, which other types of energy analyses do not. These performance indicators serve as a means for systematically quantifying the relationship between the power ge neration systems and the biosphere. The results of this study demonstrate that offshore wind power is a more environmentally sound power production system with regard to gl obal warming and acid rain when compared to a purely coal-fired, mix of coal, petroleum coke, and di stillate fuel oil-fired, or natural gas-fired conventional power plant. Offshore wind may be a way for the United States to help meet its electricity demands while reducing its carbon dioxid e, methane, nitrous oxide, sulfur oxides and

PAGE 109

109 nitrogen oxides emissions from the utility sector As offshore wind farm technology continues to advance in Europe with increasing installations every year, it is im portant for the state of Florida, and other states that have insufficient onshore wind speeds, not to disregard wind power as a viable option for future electricity production systems.

PAGE 110

110 APPENDIX A LIST OF ASSUMPTIONS CATEGOR IZED BY LIFE CYCLE STAGE Life Cycle Stage Assumptions Wind Farm Raw Materials Generator weight was scaled-up from Vestas 225 kW turbine data Extraction and Manufacture Only bulk construction materials considered Generator composition is 50% copper, 50% steel Coupling piece is made from Portland cement Wind Turbine Transport Shipped through Aarhus, Denmark and received through Jacksonville Port, FL One trip required by ocean freighter, based on weight Each locomotive can tow 100 flatbed cars Wind Farm Construction Barge can transport 4 turbines or 4 foundations/trip Pile driver's fuel efficiency is same as large crane's Wind Farm Operation Biannual service calls are carried out by 30-ton boat Wind Farm Decommissioning Monopile foundations are cut off at sea bed and portion under ocean floor is not removed Fossil Fuel-Based Power Plant Only bulk construction materials considered, as well as Raw Materials Extraction extraction of fuels required for operation stage JEA only uses bituminous coal Power Plant Transport Coal-fired unit shipped from Charlotte, NC NGCC unit shipped from Hamilton, Ontario, Canada Power Plant Construction Data from 800 MW coal and 500 MW NGCC were scaled to proper size based on capacity Power Plant Operation Emissions and fuel consumption based on JEA's current operating conditions of similar units (Sch erer, SJRPP, BB) Both units operate at 60% capacity factor Emergy flow of cooling water required was not considered Fuels Transport Coal arrives 75% by rail, 600 mi; 25% by ship, 2165 mi Fuel oil and pet-coke arrive by ship, 3150 mi Natural gas arrives by pipeline Multiple Stages Emergy flows of equipment required for construction, transportation, extrac tion, etc. were not considered Labor for all stages was estimated based on equipment required, distance traveled, typical 8 h work days, etc.

PAGE 111

111 APPENDIX B LIST OF NREL LCI DATABASE MODULES USED Fuels Extraction Coal Bituminous Coal Production Distillate Fuel Oil Crude Oil Extraction Petroleum Refining Residual Fuel Oil Crude Oil Extraction Petroleum Refining Petroleum Coke Crude Oil Extraction Petroleum Refining Natural Gas Natural Gas Extraction and Processing Fuels and Energy Precombustion Upstream Energy Inputs Coal Bituminous Combustion in Industrial Boilers Distillate Fuel Oil Distillate Oil Combustion in Industrial Boilers Gasoline Gasoline Combustion in Industrial Equipment Natural Gas Natural Gas Combustion in Industrial Equipment Residual Gas Residual Gas Combustion in Industrial Boilers LPG LPG Combustion in Industrial Boilers Transportation Rail Diesel Fueled Locomotive Transport Ocean Freighter Diesel Fueled Ocean Freighter Truck Diesel Fueled Combination Truck

PAGE 112

112 APPENDIX C UPSTREAM ELECTRICITY CALCULATIONS Values for these calculations are based on U. S. Department of Energy, Energy Information Administration 2004 data (EIA 2004). city MWhElectri kgCO MetricTon kg city MWhElectri CO MetricTons city MWhElectri kgCO 2 79 618 1 1000 000 555 970 3 2 000 2,456,934 2 city MWhElectri kgSO MetricTon kg city MWhElectri SO MetricTons city MWhElectri kgSO 2 596 2 1 1000 000 555 970 3 2 000 10,309 2 city MWhElectri kgNOx MetricTon kg city MWhElectri NOx MetricTons city MWhElectri kgNOx 022 1 1 1000 000 3,970,555 000 4,143 city MWhElectri O kgN MetricTon kg city MWhElectri O N MetricTons city MWhElectri O kgN 2 0076 0 1 1000 000 3,970,555, 2 000 30 2 city MWhElectri kgCH MetricTon kg city MWhElectri CH MetricTons city MWhElectri kgCH 4 0033 0 1 1000 000 3,970,555 4 000 13 4

PAGE 113

113 APPENDIX D SAMPLE CALCULATION OF EMISSIONS USING NREL LCI DATABASE The sample calculation below is to calculate CO2 emissions produced by the gasoline used in the extraction of the amount of coal necessary to produce 1M Wh of JEA electricity. This example utilizes the NREL LCI Databases Bituminous Coal Production and Gasoline Combustion in Industrial Equipm ent modules. The emission data given (in the latter module) had the unit of lbs CO2 emitted per 1,000 gallons of gasoline. This was then multiplied by the quantity of gasoline used per 1000 lb s of coal extracted (ratio from the former module). This was then multiplied by the kg of coal needed to produce 1 MWh of JEA electricity (ratio from JEA primary data). A unit conversion was then carried out to get kilograms of emission per MWh of JEA electricity produced by coal. This process is depi cted numerically as: mCoal tricityFro MWhJEAelec kgCO lbCO kgCO d kgCoalMine d lbCoalMine mCoal tricityFro MWhJEAElec d kgCoalMine d lbCoalMine e galGasolin e galGasolin lbCO / 226 0 205 2 1 2 2 1 9 129 000 1 1 0 000 1 400 172 2 2 2

PAGE 114

114 APPENDIX E SAMPLE ALLOCATION CALCULATIONS FOR PETROLEUM PRODUCTS FROM CRUDE OIL The following calculations demonstrate the allocation method app lied to the three petroleum co-products utilized at JEA: residual fuel oil, distillate fuel o il, and petroleum coke. The calculation allocates a portion of the inputs and outputs from the crude oil extraction process and petroleum refining process to residual fuel oil and converts it into the functi onal unit form. This specific allocation di rectly relates the amount of distillate fuel oil re quired to extract crude oil to produce one MWh of electricity at JEA from residual fuel oil. All data for the extraction and refining stages is from the NREL LCI Databases, Crude Oil Extraction, and Petroleum Refining modules. The following statements set up the calculations and are obtained from the above sources: 1) ther e are 0.155 gal of distillate fuel oil used in the extraction of 1,000 lbs of crude oil; 2) for every 1 ,030 lbs of crude oil sent to the refinery, 49 lbs of residual fuel oil are eventually produced; 3) ho wever, the mass conversion is 1 lb of crude oil for 1 lb of residual fuel oil, as the remaining ma ss of crude oil is converted into other petroleum products; 4) the average MWh produced on site at JEA per lb of residual fuel oil is 0.0057; 5) upstream emission factors for the distilla te oil is assumed to be as follows. Module: Distillate Oil Combustion in I ndustrial Boilers NREL LCI Database. Values are given in lb/1000 gal DFO CO2 CH4 NOx N2O SO2 2.28E+04 5.09E-02 2.40E+01 1.10E-01 5.00E+00 The calculation for kilograms of CO2 produced at JEA due to the ex traction process of crude oil per MWh created by residual fu el oil proceeds as follows: lb kg ateFuelOil lbsDistill lbCO E MWh Oil sidualFuel lb Oil sidualFuel lb lbCrudeOil lExtracted lbsCrudeOi ateFuelOil lbsDistill MWh kgCO 2 2 1000 4 28 2 0057 0 Re Re 1 1 1000 155 02 2 The calculation is repeated for the remaining four emissions.

PAGE 115

115 lb kg ateFuelOil lbsDistill lbCH E MWh Oil sidualFuel lb Oil sidualFuel lb lbCrudeOil lExtracted lbsCrudeOi ateFuelOil lbsDistill MWh kgCH 2 2 1000 2 09 5 0057 0 Re Re 1 1 1000 155 04 4 lb kg ateFuelOil lbsDistill lbNO MWh Oil sidualFuel lb Oil sidualFuel lb lbCrudeOil lExtracted lbsCrudeOi ateFuelOil lbsDistill MWh kgNOx x2 2 1000 24 0057 0 Re Re 1 1 1000 155 0 lb kg ateFuelOil lbsDistill O lbN MWh Oil sidualFuel lb Oil sidualFuel lb lbCrudeOil lExtracted lbsCrudeOi ateFuelOil lbsDistill MWh O kgN 2 2 1000 11 0 0057 0 Re Re 1 1000 1000 155 02 2 lb kg ateFuelOil lbsDistill lbSO MWh Oil sidualFuel lb Oil sidualFuel lb lbCrudeOil lExtracted lbsCrudeOi ateFuelOil lbsDistill MWh kgSO 2 2 1000 5 0057 0 Re Re 1 1 1000 155 02 2 The allocation process for the distillate fuel oil input is then co mpleted similarly for residual fuel oil and petroleum coke. All the other inputs and outputs are completed and the totals of each stressor summed for each co-produ ct. This will provide, for instance, the total amount of CO2 emitted during the extraction stage for the production of 1 MWh of JEAs electricity from residual fuel oil. This allocation process would then be complete d for the refining stage. These two stages, combined with the combustion stage, provide th e total stressors emitted for the production of 1 MWh from distillate fuel oil th rough its entire life cycle.

PAGE 116

116 APPENDIX F SAMPLE BACK-CALCULATION FOR SOX AND NOX BY FUEL TYPE, SCALED TO MATCH PRIMARY DATA In order to trace the SOX and NOX emissions data for each po wer generating unit obtained from JEA back to the fuel type, allocation wa s used. The EPA AP 42 Volume 1, Fifth Edition emission factors were found for SOX and NOX based on fuel type, sulfur content, and combustion unit type. The following assumptions had to be made regarding the combustion unit type: 1) For natural gas, lean pre-mix combus tion was assumed. Sulfur content was unknown, so the unknown sulfur content emission factor prov ided by the AP 42 document was used. 2) For distillate oil (No. 2), boiler ope rating at greater than 100 MMBtu/ hr was assumed. Sulfur content was assumed to be 0.036% as suggested by AP 42 document if sulfur cont ent is unknown. 3) For residual oil (No. 6), boiler operati ng at greater than 100 MMBtu/hr was assumed. Sulfur content was assumed to be 3.5%. 4) For coal, PC, dr y bottom, wall-fired, bituminous, NSPS boiler was assumed. Sulfur content was assumed to be 4% (Spath et al. 1999). 5) For pet-coke, anthracite coal emission factors were used (WEC 2006) Sulfur content was assumed to be 3.5%. Below is a sample calculation of back-calculating the SOX emission in kg/MWh for natural gas in Northside 1, a unit that burns gas, coal, and pet-coke, from the given emission for the unit (supplied by JEA). EF stands for emission factor. gasEF nofMWh gasfractio gasEF MWh kgSOx ctionofMWh petcokefra petcokeEF onofMWH coalfracti coalEF emission data primary Substituting values into the equation gives: MWhgas kg MWhgas kg x MWh kgSOx / 005 0 0.77 coke et 7.5kg/MWhp 0.23 coal 10.7kg/MWh 0.0031 / 005 0 SO kg 0.5668 0.0004 This procedure was then repeated for each fuel combusted in the unit.

PAGE 117

117 APPENDIX G WIND SPEED RAW DATA AND CALCULATIONS Average wind speed (knots) Raw data from NOAA's NDBC YEAR JAN FEB MAR APR MAY JUN JUL AUG SEP OCT NOV DEC ANN 1988 7.5 9.2 9 9.2 9.8 9 11 11.4 11 9.5 9.8 1989 9.8 10.6 10.1 10 9.4 9.3 8.8 8.6 10.7 11.3 7.1 11.9 9.9 1990 7.6 9.8 8.1 8.8 9.7 8.6 9.8 7.5 9.1 11.4 9.9 9.4 9.2 1991 10.8 9.7 11.2 8.3 9.2 9.9 9.6 8.7 10.8 10.9 10.7 10.5 10 1992 10.9 9.2 9 8.7 9.5 1997 11.9 11.3 10.4 11.1 10.9 12.2 11.9 12.8 11.6 1998 11.1 12.7 11.5 11.8 9.4 10.4 12.2 10.7 11.4 11.4 9.7 11 11.1 1999 9.2 9.9 11.3 11.4 10.8 11.7 9.6 11.8 13.3 12.6 11.3 11.9 11.2 2000 12.2 9.8 10.6 11.8 11.5 11.4 10.8 10.6 13.4 11.4 11.1 13.5 11.5 2001 11.5 8.9 13.2 9.7 10.2 10.7 11.5 10 11.5 13 11.2 10.6 11 AVG 10.4 10.1 10.3 10.0 10.1 10.3 10.3 9.8 11.3 11.7 10.4 11.2 10.5 Average wind speed converted to m/s and with years that have missing data deleted YEAR JAN FEB MAR APR MAY JUN JUL AUG SEP OCT NOV DEC ANN 1989 5.04 5.45 5.20 5.14 4.84 4.78 4.53 4.42 5.50 5.81 3.65 6.12 5.09 1990 3.91 5.04 4.17 4.53 4.99 4.42 5.04 3.86 4.68 5.86 5.09 4.84 4.73 1991 5.56 4.99 5.76 4.27 4.73 5.09 4.94 4.48 5.56 5.61 5.50 5.40 5.14 1998 5.71 6.53 5.92 6.07 4.84 5.35 6.28 5.50 5.86 5.86 4.99 5.66 5.71 1999 4.73 5.09 5.81 5.86 5.56 6.02 4.94 6.07 6.84 6.48 5.81 6.12 5.76 2000 6.28 5.04 5.45 6.07 5.92 5.86 5.56 5.45 6.89 5.86 5.71 6.94 5.92 2001 5.92 4.58 6.79 4.99 5.25 5.50 5.92 5.14 5.92 6.69 5.76 5.45 5.66 AVG 5.31 5.25 5.59 5.28 5.16 5.29 5.31 4.99 5.89 6.03 5.22 5.79 5.43 Average wind speed converted to 78 m hub height velocities in m/s using log law with anemometer height=5 m above sea level, z0 =0.35 mm (surface rou ghness for open sea) YEAR JAN FEB MAR APR MAY JUN JUL AUG SEP OCT NOV DEC ANN 1989 6.49 7.02 6.69 6.62 6.22 6.16 5.83 5.69 7.09 7.48 4.70 7.88 6.49 1990 5.03 6.49 5.36 5.83 6.42 5.69 6.49 4.97 6.03 7.55 6.56 6.22 6.05 1991 7.15 6.42 7.42 5.50 6.09 6.56 6.36 5.76 7.15 7.22 7.09 6.95 6.64 1998 7.35 8.41 7.61 7.81 6.22 6.89 8.08 7.09 7.55 7.55 6.42 7.28 7.36 1999 6.09 6.56 7.48 7.55 7.15 7.75 6.36 7.81 8.81 8.34 7.48 7.88 7.44 2000 8.08 6.49 7.02 7.81 7.61 7.55 7.15 7.02 8.87 7.55 7.35 8.94 7.62 2001 7.61 5.89 8.74 6.42 6.75 7.09 7.61 6.62 7.61 8.61 7.42 7.02 7.28 AVG 6.83 6.75 7.19 6.79 6.64 6.81 6.84 6.42 7.59 7.76 6.72 7.45 6.98

PAGE 118

118 LIST OF REFERENCES Alexanders Gas and Oil Connec tions Reports. First VLCC Sale for Scrap, More to Follow. November 02, 1997. Limbach, Germany. Last accessed November 2006. Allen, D.; Shonnard, D. Environmentally Conscious Design of Chemical Processes. Prentice Hall: New Jersey, 2002. American Wind Energy Association (AWEA) Global Wind Energy Market ReportWind Energy Expands Steadily in 2004. 2005. Wash ington, DC. Last accessed October 2006. American Wind Energy Association (AWEA) Global Wind Energy Market ReportWind Energy Industry Continued to Grow at Fast Pace in 2002Global Installations Increased by 28%. 2003. Washington, DC. Last accessed October 2006. Ardente, Fulvio, Marco Beccali, Maurizio Cellura and Valerio Lo Brano. Energy performances and life cycle assessment of an Italian wind farm. Renewable and Sustainable Energy Reviews (2006). Babbitt, Callie W., and Angela S. Lindner. A lif e cycle inventory of coal used for electricity production in Florida. Journal of Cleaner Production 13 (2005): 903-912. Brown, M.T., and S. Ulgiati. Emergy-based in dices and ratios to evaluate sustainability: monitoring economies and technology towa rd environmentally sound innovation. Ecological Engineering 9 (1997): 51-69. Brown, M.T., and S. Ulgiati. Emergy evaluatio ns and environmental loading of electricity production systems. Journal of Cleaner Production 10 (2002): 321-334. Brown, M.T., and R.A. Herendeen. Embodied energy analysis and EMERGY analysis: a comparative view. Ecological Economics 19 (1996): 219-235. Brown, M.T., and Ulgiati, S. Emergy Analysis and Environmental Accounting. Encyclopedia of Energy 2 (2004): 329-354. Brown, Mark T., and Sergio Ulgiati. Energy quality, emergy, and transformity: H.T. Odums contributions to quantifying and understandi ng systems. Ecological Modelling 178 (2004): 201-213. Bryant, Tracey. Researchers Find Substantial Wi nd Resource Off Mid-Atlantic Coast. Energy Daily. Feb. 6, 2007. Stanford, NY. Last accessed March 2007.

PAGE 119

119 Cape Wind Associates, LLC. Frequently Aske d Questions. Cape WindAmericas First Offshore Wind Farm on Nantucket Sound. 2006. Boston, MA. Last accessed October 2006. Carlin, John. Environmental Exte rnalities in Electric Power Ma rkets: Acid Rain, Urban Ozone, and Climate Change. Energy Information Ad ministration. United States Department of Energy. 2002. Washington, DC. Last accessed October 2006. Curran, M.A. The Status of Life-Cycle Assess ment as an Environmental Management Tool. Environmental Progress 2004, 23, 4, 277-283. Delaware Department of Natural Resources a nd Environmental Contro l (DNREC). Delaware Reef Guide 2005. 2005. Dover, DE. Last accessed October 2006. Elliott, D., and M. Schwartz. Wind Resour ce Mapping for United States Offshore Areas. NREL/CP-500-40045. National Renewable En ergy Laboratory. Golden, CO, 2006. Elsam Engineering A/S. Life Cycle Assessment of Turbines PSO 1999. Doc. no. 201673. 2004. Randers, Denmark. Last accessed March 2007. Energy Efficiency and Renewable Energy (E ERE). Wind Energy Resource Potential. 2005. Unites States Department of Energy. Wash ington, DC. Last accessed October 2006. Energy Information Administration (EIA). E lectric Power Annual. 2005. United States Department of Energy. Washington, DC. Last accessed October 2006. Energy Information Administration (EIA). International Energy Outlook 2006. 2006. United States Department of Energy. Washi ngton, DC. Last accessed October 2006. Energy Information Administration (EIA). Quart erly Coal Report U.S. Coal Imports. 2007. Washington, DC. Last accessed March 2007. European Commission. ExternE Externa lities of Energy. Volume 10 National Implementation.1997. Stuttgart, Germany. Last accessed October 2006. FreightCar America. Company Website. 2007. Chicago, IL. Last accessed November, 2006.

PAGE 120

120 Gagnon, Luc, Camille Belanger, and Yohji Uchiya ma. Life-cycle assessment of electricity generation options: The status of research in year 2001. Energy policy 30 (2002): 12671278. General Electric (GE) Power. Irelands Offshore Wind Power. 2004. Last accessed March 2007. General Electric (GE) Transportati on. 2007. Erie, PA. Last accessed March 2007. Global Wind Energy Council (GWEC). Global wi nd energy markets continue to boom 2006 another record year. Brussels, Be lgium. 2007. Last accessed April 2007. Google Maps. 2007. Mountain View, CA. Last accessed November 2006. Hondo, Hiroki. Life cycle GHG emission analysis of power generation systems: Japanese case. Energy 30 (2005): 2042-2056. Jacksonville Electric Authority (JEA). JEA 2005 Annual Report. 2005. Jacksonville, FL. Last accessed October 2006. Jacksonville Electric Authority (J EA). JEA Annual Disclosure Report for Fiscal Year Ended September 30, 2005. 2006a. Jacksonville, FL. Last accessed October 2006. Jacksonville Electric Authority (JEA). JEA Partne rs with Environmental Groups to Increase the Use of Green Energy. 2006b. Jacksonv ille, FL. Last accessed October 2006. Jacksonville Electric Authority (JEA). Lighting the WayTh e Electric Generating Process. 2002. Jacksonville, FL. Last accessed October 2006. Jacksonville Electric Authority (JEA). Wel come to St. Johns River Power Park 1997. Jacksonville, FL. Last accessed March 2007. Kannan, R., C.P. Tso, Ramli Osman, H.K. Ho. L CALCCA of oil fired steam turbine power plant in Singapore. Energy Convers ion and Management 45 (2004): 3093-3107.

PAGE 121

121 Landsea, Chris. Frequently Asked Questi ons. 2005. National Oceanic and Atmospheric Administration (NOAA)Atlantic Oceanographic and Meteorological La boratoryHurricane Research Division. Washington, DC Last accessed October 2006. Lenzen, Manfred, and Jesper Munksgaard. Energy and CO2 life-cycle analyses of wind turbines review and applications. Re newable Energy 26 (2002): 339-362. Maritime Business Strategies, LLC. Standard Brack ets of Ship Sizes. 2007. Delray Beach, FL. Last accessed March 2007. Musial, Walt. Offshore Wind Energy Potential for the United States. Wind Powering AmericaAnnual State Summit. National Renewabl e Energy Laboratory. Evergreen, CO, 2005. National Aeronautics and Space Administration. Earth Fact Sheet. 2004. National Space Science Data Center. Goddard Space Flight Center. Greenbelt, MD. Last accessed October 2006. National Data Buoy Center (NDBC). Station 41008 Grays Reef. National Oceanic and Atmospheric Administration. Washingt on, DC. Last accessed November 2006. National Oceanic and Atmospheric Administ ration (NOAA). Latitude/Longitude Distance Calculator. 2006. Washington, DC Last accessed November 2006. Odum, Howard T. Ecological and General Systems An Introduction to Systems Ecology Niwot, Colorado: University Press of Colorado, 1994. Odum, Howard T. Environmental AccountingEmergy and Environm ental Decision Making New York: John Wiley & Sons, Inc., 1996. Poulsen, Egon V. Service & Maintenance. Vestas Wind Systems A/S. 2004. Rinkobing, Denmark.. Last accessed April 2007. Pehnt, Martin. Dynamic life cycle assessment (LCA) of renewable energy technologies. Renewable Energy 31 (2006): 55-71. Pellerin, Cheryl. Wind Power World's Fastest-Gr owing New Electricity Source. International Information Programs. United States Departme nt of State. 2005. Washington, DC. Last accessed October 2006.

PAGE 122

122 San Martin, Robert L. Envir onmental Emissions from Energy Technology Systems: The Total Fuel Cycle. United States Department of Energy. 1989. Washington, DC. Last accessed November 2006. Schleisner, L. Life cycle assessment of a wi nd farm and related externalities. Renewable Energy 20 (2000): 279-288. Siemens. 2007a. Orlando, FL. Last accessed March 2007. Siemens. 2007b. Orlando, FL. Last accessed March 2007. Society of Environmental Toxicology and Ch emistry (SETAC). Who We Are Professional Interest Groups :: Life Cycle Assessment (LCA). 2004. Pensacola, FL. Last accessed March 2007. Spath, Pamela L., and Margaret K. Mann. Life Cycle Assessment of a Natural Gas CombinedCycle Power Generation System NREL/ TP-570-27715. National Renewable Energy Laboratory. Golden, CO, 2000. Spath, Pamela L., and Margaret K. Mann. L ife Cycle Assessment of Renewable Hydrogen Production via Wind/ElectrolysisMilest one Completion Report. NREL/MP-560-35404. National Renewable Energy Laboratory. Golden, CO, 2004. Spath, Pamela L., Margaret K. Mann, and Dawn R. Kerr. Life Cycle A ssessment of Coal-fired Power Production. NREL/TP-570-25119. National Renewable Energy Laboratory. Golden, CO, 1999. Tahara, Kiyotaka, Toshinori Kojima, and Atsushi Inaba. Evaluation of CO2 payback time of power plants by LCA. Energy Convers ion and Management 38 (1997): 615-620. Ulgiati, S., M.T. Brown, S. Bastianoni, and N. Marchettini. Emergy-based indices and ratios to evaluate the sustainable use of resources. Ecological Engineer ing 5 (1995): 519-531. Ulgiati, Sergio, and Mark T. Brown. Quantifyi ng the environmental support for dilution and abatement of process emissions The case of electricity produ ction. Journal of Cleaner Production 10 (2002): 335-348. United Nations, United Nations Framewor k Convention on Climate Change. FCCC/ INFORMAL/84, GE.05-62220 (E) 200705. 1992. United States Census Bureau. State & County Quick FactsFlorida. 2006a. Washington, DC. Last accessed October 2 006.

PAGE 123

123 United States Census Bureau. State and C ounty Quick FactsJacksonville, Florida. 2006b. Washington, DC. Last accessed October 2006. United States Census Bureau. U.S. Popula tion Density (By Counties). 2006c. Washington, DC. Last accessed October 2006. United States Central Intelligence Agency (USC IA). Rank OrderElectricityconsumption. The World Factbook. 2006. Washington, DC. Last accessed September 2006. United States Environmental Protection Agency (USEPA). Criteria Pollutants. Green Book. 2006a. Washington, DC. Last accessed October 2006. United States Environmental Protection Agency (USEPA). Environmental Benefits of Reducing Acid Rain. Region 7 Air Progr am. 2006b. Last accessed October 2006. United States Environmental Protection Agency (U SEPA). How does electri city use effect the environment? Clean Energy. 2006c. Washi ngton, DC. Last accessed September 2006. United States Environmental Protection Agency (USEPA). Inventory of U.S. Greenhouse Gas Emissions and Sinks: 1990-2004. 2006d. USEP A 430-R-06-002. Washington, DC. Last accessed November 2006. < http://www.epa.gov/climatechange/e missions/usinventoryreport.html> United States Environmental Protection Agency (USEPA). Life Cycle Assessment: Principles and Practice. National Risk Management Re search Laboratory. Cincinnati, Ohio. 2006e. EPA/600/R-06/060. Last accessed November 2006. United States Environmental Protection Agency (USEPA). Nitrogen Dioxide. Air Trends. 2006f. Washington, DC. Last accessed October 2006. United States Environmental Protection Agency (USEPA). Sulfur Dioxide. Air Trends. 2006g. Washington, DC. Last accessed October 2006. Vestas Wind Systems A/S. Randers, Denmark. 2007. Last accessed March 2007.

PAGE 124

124 Wang, Lingmei, Weidou Ni, and Zheng Li. Emer gy evaluation of combined heat and power plant eco-industrial park (CHP plant EIP). Resources, Conservation and Recycling 48 (2006): 56-70. Wood, John and Gary Long. Long Term World O il Supply (A Resource Base/Production Path Analysis). Energy Information Administrati on. 2000. United States Department of Energy. Washington, DC. Last accessed October 2006.

PAGE 125

125 BIOGRAPHICAL SKETCH Stacey Dolan was born and raised in central Massachusetts. Sh e is the daughter of John W. Dolan and Sharon R. Dolan, has an elder brother Jason, and younger sister Jessica. She received her Bachelor of Science in mechan ical engineering from Worcester Polytechnic Institute, Worcester, Massachusetts in 2003. Stacey began her graduate studies in the mechanical engineering departments therma l sciences and fluid dynamics group at the University of Florida in the fall of 2005, and upon graduation plans to ei ther pursue a PhD in mechanical engineering or a career in the renewable energy industry.


xml version 1.0 encoding UTF-8
REPORT xmlns http:www.fcla.edudlsmddaitss xmlns:xsi http:www.w3.org2001XMLSchema-instance xsi:schemaLocation http:www.fcla.edudlsmddaitssdaitssReport.xsd
INGEST IEID E20101114_AAAAFI INGEST_TIME 2010-11-14T16:00:51Z PACKAGE UFE0021032_00001
AGREEMENT_INFO ACCOUNT UF PROJECT UFDC
FILES
FILE SIZE 60659 DFID F20101114_AABXGU ORIGIN DEPOSITOR PATH dolan_s_Page_123.pro GLOBAL false PRESERVATION BIT MESSAGE_DIGEST ALGORITHM MD5
e23861cd2e22985ce2b13c4aac315496
SHA-1
8927c44b33a5c38e4d703145455f517f4cf4d736
1580 F20101114_AABXHI dolan_s_Page_013.txt
e47e00cea678fd5d7420e8cb6a92d53b
b780b7b2659fcdb3a37ce0a505516629ba4e711d
13075 F20101114_AABXGV dolan_s_Page_124.pro
18c88ac3ee1e32464aa77b82238e2ef3
e0ea329a6b846c79bc79be83bf72ced0449be9ba
2212 F20101114_AABXHJ dolan_s_Page_014.txt
a238560c890a300a9dd7a5a06113acc3
900cf1238efc4c280c3cb405ab9fb1a4a94a9298
16430 F20101114_AABXGW dolan_s_Page_125.pro
434716b562cc218aa5001ebd8af6b2af
df82efa7d7e668f1ffa8328f092a874931f7a814
2000 F20101114_AABXHK dolan_s_Page_015.txt
9b209e285680c3de21b0fd084f7b055d
731effe7ba3c76c6fcf5a56b1db2421abe21e241
2068 F20101114_AABXHL dolan_s_Page_016.txt
5135f26f979605daebdd969e29fee367
cf6097a13bd4748a641c4f8b895c53118c36fda0
471 F20101114_AABXGX dolan_s_Page_001.txt
5e738b2877708ed1962fa90a89fa26ac
035cbf3f007cfff80e9b7a571f60046e6526e342
2130 F20101114_AABXIA dolan_s_Page_032.txt
d51da834d674d75375f38ea7a669add4
f6eb16bcb0d81b3a05c97ff460762437d43536a8
2217 F20101114_AABXHM dolan_s_Page_017.txt
84c4db9b18e4acde4630eb8441561487
6c1cd6e62fb463eb7e0231e61a1c4be1a81985d8
76 F20101114_AABXGY dolan_s_Page_002.txt
f5f50611deb9a2029737edbf6f459ae4
c4761f3615fa4c15edc13d0432e5f76b31060048
2108 F20101114_AABXIB dolan_s_Page_033.txt
01a411ba6a02a77b21cfd3212109d435
87748d525a9564e7f81ead0fb719612988fcf7b3
2100 F20101114_AABXHN dolan_s_Page_018.txt
7dc8a409e43231b076cd8134a98fc0d8
e65fe9a9d3cc6d61857a35f30a110a8178327c00
127 F20101114_AABXGZ dolan_s_Page_003.txt
2667049de774a026fe2b229664456955
ff8f38daeb9db1e31859930c65faa75a820f2706
2140 F20101114_AABXIC dolan_s_Page_034.txt
62cb761fce530758a36d10d2ea1b34cc
56b0d5e0310e5e8fedfd1a167c8276335f2a4c9d
2190 F20101114_AABXHO dolan_s_Page_019.txt
37466be9d38d24d631ccb53b882388a1
601eb94dc5d80954941beab3eca04cab426a4842
2148 F20101114_AABXID dolan_s_Page_035.txt
4d2be6ccd3133da54c1d95167d7704c5
ad68403b18bea1da91d9a5ff1a4884f2b16b8c94
2093 F20101114_AABXHP dolan_s_Page_021.txt
5e72e374ffa7011f84ff8ebb74d64f3f
b46d891f954a605b3984f172249dc4ff5524095d
2152 F20101114_AABXIE dolan_s_Page_037.txt
4621c789d9841053255d65f0b9b8dc17
b1fa707310ed5d64aa94e79aab8e95e3239e2087
2211 F20101114_AABXHQ dolan_s_Page_022.txt
92bc935769c161caf36b6da40c61d084
a99e79eb841d38b3f21d05a9b0d8d59b9edbca04
1997 F20101114_AABXIF dolan_s_Page_038.txt
a802a623237060b409d1b85a307fe299
6655ba3f302326a64b49548c948514240434c3f4
2150 F20101114_AABXHR dolan_s_Page_023.txt
27ca2fe08d541bf397e091c143c68888
a3ccef12eaed626921c5ed3c626bc398052843ef
2187 F20101114_AABXIG dolan_s_Page_039.txt
6b5d6e26cb88338bbb6313fd3d96e0b6
6e29bde44c606756b26dc4ea0a43102a32691d76
2848 F20101114_AABXHS dolan_s_Page_024.txt
e83b2071507fccf1122cac9dfb861ce4
9a68376a0581025f089915e7e2f9049d56a0cb52
2101 F20101114_AABXIH dolan_s_Page_040.txt
9b799c256025ac7bc4f038a4fa1a4fbf
7e4d292349b16f3a0ec7ef13d3cd3ef070b45e3a
1387 F20101114_AABXHT dolan_s_Page_025.txt
542d71fcbade4e0602bf271c45821532
4cd40479e4fc727f9efc5641df00ce7b2aabccaf
2224 F20101114_AABXII dolan_s_Page_041.txt
dedbc2412e1ec3f98bfb38b9fa3f487e
d1267da03c25e477e037603577c8d032d0241af4
1195 F20101114_AABXHU dolan_s_Page_026.txt
6eb99bfa930509749e1bd9a6daad7011
e6059da73b8a0c0b0ada165b961fff068fe82e8d
2197 F20101114_AABXIJ dolan_s_Page_042.txt
b125bbfa482bcb5779c655a0fe9a0665
74922b2836172cf12db491d102c54dfc7e70eba5
739 F20101114_AABXHV dolan_s_Page_027.txt
a8331a6d2c3725f639ebd84d7ab6dfac
51ae9eeae26e82638a0a63ab79e5684bbaf58406
2235 F20101114_AABXIK dolan_s_Page_043.txt
538ca624383360998574c102233aaad6
37ab708dde2b94803b43653bab3255e2a2e76929
337 F20101114_AABXHW dolan_s_Page_028.txt
bc461927e118b91190073744463cd6ba
112f4e6ccfc33cc096a9ac2a856953aaf60be19e
2183 F20101114_AABXIL dolan_s_Page_044.txt
4797d0e9e36fca9b9b2477c3f69904fc
3f5ac504a52bd593ce111ae1cd164e57b1886ac3
331 F20101114_AABXHX dolan_s_Page_029.txt
4156ff721b957e2e80124807697e9122
4ceb96b366baaaf996b5eaa6df40cb930827baae
2135 F20101114_AABXJA dolan_s_Page_059.txt
39f4d04ecb34c550382319602fe14276
dea622592304a980d05cd92c161b23c166de98db
2153 F20101114_AABXIM dolan_s_Page_045.txt
8894b5a47230cb0f5cefc2248aa613e1
6da31b654bb2e3af467ea7bcc371cbd398c0a80c
2191 F20101114_AABXJB dolan_s_Page_060.txt
bd6e91b4c02a8f5983beed7c0bef5850
096cd942b58b5398b4f793633e50840eea710d3b
2185 F20101114_AABXIN dolan_s_Page_046.txt
35a745856eb298f19ccbc97a1c418003
d051a4c7ce9afc569a346dc0ef19aec5e92a7180
407 F20101114_AABXHY dolan_s_Page_030.txt
1f29543896d3da610ad87a768a970594
8cb77c764da7519a057623118b6801354e04bd05
2061 F20101114_AABXJC dolan_s_Page_061.txt
21c786d034c829ca0d54b72288e08fd9
06d392335d7a89d1ef4ca06011edc9a59420e4ac
1350 F20101114_AABXIO dolan_s_Page_047.txt
223a3c029f6d75ee25b2fddf813428f0
b2b7941a02b0495ad24fcb93d8b66b144bc4759d
1017 F20101114_AABXHZ dolan_s_Page_031.txt
ab4db594461756ef4431a7cb615b2754
0eae826f77f0b8b73fd6df3695073c3a7c1c7bb7
2080 F20101114_AABXJD dolan_s_Page_062.txt
10db6af8c1e271a4df401e361bbeadfd
c6a9cfcf02971e28112004a07fc4072a72ccc095
1903 F20101114_AABXIP dolan_s_Page_048.txt
e3f6a84aef4d8c98701b2be74428346d
3b4a347777f9869326338893e17e101040fe0239
2040 F20101114_AABXJE dolan_s_Page_063.txt
abd1cefd479d834ba885d6f5ca4c7da3
7d53dbeb4a03814fcd401c18981d24fd076ba5fc
1677 F20101114_AABXIQ dolan_s_Page_049.txt
af60c38b84558490e0e3ffa7ba1c7d67
d8177317b0d18af06d0c46552ca393d5c83a2bdb
2057 F20101114_AABXJF dolan_s_Page_064.txt
5a0f8efda0d1c6ae352164fa08821c5c
969338f48d7d163eb0ccebdb7c6715dba8e462e3
1029 F20101114_AABXIR dolan_s_Page_050.txt
c3312d495d3704411c39099c31f50cba
e82aa348f75c361cf6f589f3740b64bcebec89ca
2120 F20101114_AABXJG dolan_s_Page_065.txt
301961ddaf86510becb6f63acb9640ae
0f7866c6f03a0cd1b883b972b1a16b1136f47bf7
820 F20101114_AABXIS dolan_s_Page_051.txt
df757e6180dbd64e1aa2325aaa4e664e
cc6a9298b07a6416efa2b6853bd4fcb25c3054bb
1929 F20101114_AABXJH dolan_s_Page_066.txt
1a5ac9da5edaee66ebb0f8b85967d998
e858681de71140d6e3bec6677f78942fd759d598
2016 F20101114_AABXIT dolan_s_Page_052.txt
a7335ba1d384e070ad8bc18b43412328
b2c280c8897277f551a0a2d761c53ca6a7f67442
F20101114_AABXJI dolan_s_Page_067.txt
50272206d1abcf22042b915195d68b2f
3d4580f2d0e6ca5d40db293abdb7df57e70886e0
2164 F20101114_AABXIU dolan_s_Page_053.txt
86b25cc1d2e43d8e5e14c31c88fa9a08
82d2729f1e007ff5538bfedb88b5a6fda962592d
1713 F20101114_AABXJJ dolan_s_Page_068.txt
fc890780a35895e4d09664c7e86e09a4
670f8b097b0256e1dab9383077faf04077ea613a
2223 F20101114_AABXIV dolan_s_Page_054.txt
ce0efebd97048dd1fbdf4e4ad90bbb00
fb46fdff2361379d9764dee65e5f847e089f44d3
F20101114_AABXJK dolan_s_Page_070.txt
7d3b57b062a314bfe49505080660a0ca
1b9d78c3fc4121df139e04bc729be21fb4497f94
2160 F20101114_AABXIW dolan_s_Page_055.txt
d0694bb3d3b89380d261155cbbbe4e38
0e6dd50a6a1cf9c5369db22818d8a085db4711f5
2169 F20101114_AABXJL dolan_s_Page_071.txt
669ea7803f4e5c07cbf3d3bff02764da
d59be3489980f278c502bd0e4cb60c12333102ed
2239 F20101114_AABXIX dolan_s_Page_056.txt
23d90d374b6397e648b1b0fc507e9b1d
6ef2c7d3b2125f9bfaeb597304ab9f32da035960
2175 F20101114_AABXJM dolan_s_Page_072.txt
5b0f307dadca403627cf7f410f47ad9c
b628cfa9a33505c32d7dcec607965f9a1d612614
2011 F20101114_AABXIY dolan_s_Page_057.txt
c8b7dcb9582b5b036580e583faeba24f
27a2f8e5aafa1ca967ded4afc490c178f727dc44
2041 F20101114_AABXKA dolan_s_Page_087.txt
0d5b717b3eb9aa0c0553af9e9299b96b
26895f2edf853df5b1e675b39697b24a1537076e
2122 F20101114_AABXJN dolan_s_Page_073.txt
c88961d2dcead64331f5c1f5063dc259
7e9d6c78c13b7090a1fe25bf9aa53ed810bf3142
2134 F20101114_AABXKB dolan_s_Page_088.txt
2edfdb0950f054a4e9796ce128553ebb
c899b80a451fc99d2fdf1f08e490a62051d8a302
2131 F20101114_AABXJO dolan_s_Page_074.txt
073ccc458c7e7e26f62a06fa5401f3cf
2b321e0a0f51c78e5e52c171ed64945e5f3be21f
2053 F20101114_AABXIZ dolan_s_Page_058.txt
e4e87144e3df3bac9209b39895f02bf5
f9f9c484e9328fe3817fdb4640eba9726e4cc14b
2227 F20101114_AABXKC dolan_s_Page_089.txt
d10fb89e2c44520835238f1bd6efb1b3
0b8e5f37e11201b6007b95c7534ed7a2dd9c0a8e
2167 F20101114_AABXJP dolan_s_Page_075.txt
77997b81e499aea7e6c8021b8571b533
2fab11b47ed1faa611a4733facd2e3f3002a6e19
2144 F20101114_AABXKD dolan_s_Page_090.txt
cb97b4474bcaa4c1750c53c1801b3a15
ed04f1686556596fd8230d48751a358c141da8cd
F20101114_AABXJQ dolan_s_Page_076.txt
2fd2c2eeedd96e89308e60469747a8a2
644652e350bae3fd92252df4e679817ad8b7bec5
2078 F20101114_AABXKE dolan_s_Page_091.txt
811e9987fec7c8adc076615aa95f9438
523ec51d3d6cf9cf8854ae1141379d091964765e
1198 F20101114_AABXJR dolan_s_Page_077.txt
cefcf60343a99af07c28d27accc313a7
2dc298fd785b6f6974c8eee3fff2dbc2c65a7e4f
1886 F20101114_AABXKF dolan_s_Page_092.txt
00ca33ce876c0cf0b8de293525181cad
aec56d10177e704cd8b0a582a93523663c2f20ad
945 F20101114_AABXJS dolan_s_Page_078.txt
1252e83d4ddc518eda660a3b8f81fb28
516d4e5050dfac968a140a5878695728fb69885d
2149 F20101114_AABXKG dolan_s_Page_093.txt
f2e7db7f75d89c7094045448c948fca5
f4f93f9cbbc8994bf56678dc6d3a57f774478dda
1039 F20101114_AABXJT dolan_s_Page_079.txt
7e3aeb1c1d8cb13793d39da05d86db2b
5544e425941841e8437fc910b7a43fea272d895e
2262 F20101114_AABXKH dolan_s_Page_094.txt
3b59c8cb3cad9b35f3044408005ae5d7
3e4aa1939629cdc9e197e50e69de0c30f99662e8
855 F20101114_AABXJU dolan_s_Page_081.txt
edfdc85c6bc6020092eff609f7624864
fa60946ad27691b7ba139072c9704ab83619ab9b
2203 F20101114_AABXKI dolan_s_Page_095.txt
caa8f43b7c8ef3f530f7f37bce8476a2
6e5ef393214055a0302f91efb9b63eae42448869
790 F20101114_AABXJV dolan_s_Page_082.txt
355d6d672b8f7b69406a1d6d3ba7e105
e8c48340a9307c71dec6145f4243d690f1f0bd0c
1914 F20101114_AABXKJ dolan_s_Page_096.txt
7068f4551089be83736b14d2da036169
bb01f0b5b6796f19008343f9c7f96e60e62cd94d
977 F20101114_AABXJW dolan_s_Page_083.txt
e1eaef070c46272603f2c232c7947f22
1cfb2ae5b86f95aab69fd070d48093eee65a4d9f
1439 F20101114_AABXKK dolan_s_Page_098.txt
26ddbe23cbc4f694e581eaf85e5be433
66cf48130b9b92c2cfe07361b9ef23ddcc2b8961
657 F20101114_AABXJX dolan_s_Page_084.txt
be082ad1a0db54eeb3fba323f478e8e4
5d06413b9f044981c10e3be7839ffb3a9ba6a17b
936 F20101114_AABXKL dolan_s_Page_099.txt
3542364655c8144ce01b904fd0ad7d16
56da141050dfb115ae8713b84a5aad10b299a226
275 F20101114_AABXJY dolan_s_Page_085.txt
275f0ea0893fdf57fca1e192335168ce
35d1ed00f067d249772c090c598cfcdedaa0ac30
2095 F20101114_AABXLA dolan_s_Page_114.txt
45402006bd069e16644ad46ee51f826c
b5b73048c09f9265c47bd42828100a677923446a
358 F20101114_AABXKM dolan_s_Page_100.txt
64e6ae8ad961743bf83917ffa8b5ffe6
5690d56f28b979aa7affc50c970e0b7d409f446e
132 F20101114_AABXJZ dolan_s_Page_086.txt
cbe1744bdd0ae636363f7cf65b4418f9
776c90aa8f1d22b7774631d8671312b696e57886
1424 F20101114_AABXLB dolan_s_Page_115.txt
7c9262b9262c3c765efa3509a597229e
2a7dfee99e134cd50f3f90124e786277e7952893
2113 F20101114_AABXKN dolan_s_Page_101.txt
bf4e123a66a335ae6e642049fbc03a1b
ca227c0cfb0bcf624e059e480e289e48dc0d80f6
1987 F20101114_AABXLC dolan_s_Page_116.txt
544c35d57c3fdd975adafc206118b3fa
4fde2978d98cc9211eb430a0c766b143cd94df54
2027 F20101114_AABXKO dolan_s_Page_102.txt
501f1b178e23e93fd24d00d58241e2a7
b16266b6d4efbd9bfa771a97efb9b7bcf85f1a1d
2515 F20101114_AABXLD dolan_s_Page_117.txt
6dad82a4e7e3d27e9219ea00f0777cdd
a1283342d2d37a352ce68e644ebc73ef6727aa7c
F20101114_AABXKP dolan_s_Page_103.txt
b578dbb12441c3d0ec6b82fbc15f1b12
3734c9160784e22b99fbdbb361cde91dbb82c294
2462 F20101114_AABXLE dolan_s_Page_118.txt
72a86ab627a27737d0b096fbfbefbeac
601f95d731243f2214f2afe1047303057199e205
2270 F20101114_AABXKQ dolan_s_Page_104.txt
badffb3103b9991bac3f153bb136909a
e3eb42f9c2545a25d15479b78bc64f93a71f0906
2614 F20101114_AABXLF dolan_s_Page_119.txt
c86ffd3d3cfb76106d95343ec08bc295
036a856eb2b2650f98f66d6e684c03bc0ceff3cc
2273 F20101114_AABXKR dolan_s_Page_105.txt
fc7ed50b80c4573df28d5a1b5dba9172
1318a47d0d91f804314fd537638a407458d95b62
2324 F20101114_AABXLG dolan_s_Page_120.txt
e5512e70450c18a7ff5e874e95b72a54
e1e3dc70122311aea1c6bdec50fd9e8122fdf1d7
F20101114_AABXKS dolan_s_Page_106.txt
6a14cb34b405b75a6660186eb025edef
efef3cda957b581326ebd8a0aa0697ca966972d0
2490 F20101114_AABXLH dolan_s_Page_122.txt
01c80d6686916a3a5dd4bfa9caa19b55
1f4116cda043fd75c04b36430da151711f25dce5
2074 F20101114_AABXKT dolan_s_Page_107.txt
d8985470dc0f0759f9a9647b5ac51836
c1458749a7c9db3d30e6b5daa81e9701602625dc
2426 F20101114_AABXLI dolan_s_Page_123.txt
f54935e60537dfbd9e3841480844c856
3c2129adbdfec6130f2f9f16ee675aeefc93d62d
2159 F20101114_AABXKU dolan_s_Page_108.txt
eadebf15e5bd35eabf40dfc0dd4206f5
91cf25a53cd3eb3266f703b430f636211befab89
534 F20101114_AABXLJ dolan_s_Page_124.txt
058769a6e2ec749b90fe71b6109ada60
b7c6a451d7b9bed5931514bd544381cafbae4590
375 F20101114_AABXKV dolan_s_Page_109.txt
84b1a5e864578c9e2eab11a44d3a07f4
11c20475b3f8960f776b2cf1e73c01a44db7c0e9
F20101114_AABXLK dolan_s_Page_001thm.jpg
e0d1765bf73d13e7651ec6fd6da364d0
7d43c4647a06fdedb9b9667a1e53e42d3950acbf
F20101114_AABXKW dolan_s_Page_110.txt
a93e82e827cfe78f3865bf1c817f7c97
3846fc232ebf92d283c4a5d251e55acb0ee8fa48
1698274 F20101114_AABXLL dolan_s.pdf
e2c5caf0deb36606e8256e7f77e6adf7
de73108c12e8856ba5cf8824156b85466ee70556
983 F20101114_AABXKX dolan_s_Page_111.txt
7dfe2aab1c54507bd57f19e84560db77
be94222c2a00e7226c34aa4397e5993c914ece4b
7459 F20101114_AABXLM dolan_s_Page_001.QC.jpg
9b7e2fa1144bf303dd35e0da3c8dab4b
02e6575f09e1b27a310247c5b2fc587cc3d1ff00
993 F20101114_AABXKY dolan_s_Page_112.txt
dbc5b157e9eb2d0b040c79182e80df7d
9f6ea8a0f9403310f3d6911266e45beb3970440c
7814 F20101114_AABXMA dolan_s_Page_009.QC.jpg
d97b6ae0734c2e89ab93ab52ea98d346
e79ae1a166044cdd3812370635323d8953bd9a0b
3144 F20101114_AABXLN dolan_s_Page_002.QC.jpg
c316628f4023e5daddff01ae79af4895
0d30cd721d026a89885c72aa76bf14e9b78c4d04
1192 F20101114_AABXKZ dolan_s_Page_113.txt
7dd62eeb5c6fc647437ca472c5bbe49f
478e0e4c72b35b93c7b33ea70bc12a941a4a7e16
2519 F20101114_AABXMB dolan_s_Page_009thm.jpg
690360170ec0bcf26cf5e2e684a69338
183501b499129b86ee7f64a2998681782c535789
1383 F20101114_AABXLO dolan_s_Page_002thm.jpg
4b3f32ec5b92c2896cc7d00f4e8ea2f5
204f6523e611f39bc96dc8dc58617f75bd6b7a9b
24646 F20101114_AABXMC dolan_s_Page_010.QC.jpg
87503785ed6b8eaafcdc841e532fe25d
a0ba31f648705e4bd569b4deca44f22be4b57f61
3421 F20101114_AABXLP dolan_s_Page_003.QC.jpg
cc3979131c10a6b0fa70e0245777a1b5
6c4af6eff94db2182b4d9d4e2f36581a37199d05
8715 F20101114_AABXMD dolan_s_Page_011.QC.jpg
b35fcffacf7966853e743a3c45410943
a21f96bd08d9cf56c79847eeb973cb4cc7cfe3f0
1443 F20101114_AABXLQ dolan_s_Page_003thm.jpg
78fcc5208e2d96d788f5d46ffebb9868
483f763a5256080d0b48d4162cdb1f5c0523b708
2714 F20101114_AABXME dolan_s_Page_011thm.jpg
d93e0bd81430cc08a1ac7621b34a0c32
e56690cac79c26088fc932b425514b358d917e6e
8678 F20101114_AABXLR dolan_s_Page_004.QC.jpg
ac7844b93e0bb023c85e0b129ca3ddb9
5bb8f866b6de387b3a30d4144c1606c874b2cc57
22391 F20101114_AABXMF dolan_s_Page_012.QC.jpg
0c380d6287429213bcc13c4214286584
779682aa6f57bf29848243b432a3e71473a37979
2791 F20101114_AABXLS dolan_s_Page_004thm.jpg
fad862be9a05c3f0e46f8599321b4703
78ad880f0e79d55e04bed782680315f02fdec4cc
19696 F20101114_AABXMG dolan_s_Page_013.QC.jpg
aeee9b2c0f82a97f8628b71f6a144fed
5b27c569f8e8c7a975320b2272ad050674e87252
5606 F20101114_AABXLT dolan_s_Page_005thm.jpg
ba754df72523b8daaa78c1d8ebe34e0c
dd2d6680b43cc10cc91355111cf3c409e2067275
5451 F20101114_AABXMH dolan_s_Page_013thm.jpg
3068b8e11bc5cbf7927bd62f0e5dd8bb
0ca789b31958aaf8b5d51f62046c5380f68dcdf9
24578 F20101114_AABXLU dolan_s_Page_006.QC.jpg
b681c086a9c16291e549e1add1591780
04a42fd0bbd06940088a91b2c3d113bed8fcb357
25048 F20101114_AABXMI dolan_s_Page_014.QC.jpg
3f1f6e5688a31c21c78fd9841677ba18
9fe3d24c1f9dee3aa79ae6faaed2532137d13ba9
5912 F20101114_AABXLV dolan_s_Page_006thm.jpg
e262e42b7a4dc1222a490d852d443bd6
d20097300f0d66be838dbf38b9ed70dc7bdbda68
6816 F20101114_AABXMJ dolan_s_Page_014thm.jpg
cecb8600acd473da09602dacaf044423
f4dba508a3552fbb1b153f59b081994498a01372
11598 F20101114_AABXLW dolan_s_Page_007.QC.jpg
81b46081bb6c42e982d18a528756abbb
4e2d4d38528791b272cbb715c8848241adea7804
23810 F20101114_AABXMK dolan_s_Page_015.QC.jpg
fedfa00c78c53986dc647dcbd8bcb2dd
4b1e59e8038f1b5ac2abf895339f9e5aaa2ff853
3274 F20101114_AABXLX dolan_s_Page_007thm.jpg
a4f6d91ec25e0c15270bb153f8c5cb53
812b4f93c3e422b59e8c3e87bf9be1b7b6caf4a1
6564 F20101114_AABXML dolan_s_Page_015thm.jpg
c177753d82e34c19e0c598aa7add8c58
3c66401050fbf7525dbc4417401bceca61fdd415
25123 F20101114_AABXLY dolan_s_Page_008.QC.jpg
1137b00c15f506359bb25da17960b10e
ba6e885fa1ea871242b3d720989915d97e11401b
7053 F20101114_AABXNA dolan_s_Page_023thm.jpg
9f805c29e8265765f862970504b73bf4
4154569102b6a24cc97d6549ab26e5d6c53c3bae
6825 F20101114_AABXMM dolan_s_Page_016thm.jpg
b5fa0332b3ad3623a8a16907a99d8791
fe51eb54498179ed2218c48f25d7e33c8a17c090
6659 F20101114_AABXLZ dolan_s_Page_008thm.jpg
f4b5f01ef338fbb84a477595042a5eaa
5d911dc872c1b857d125d1fd4d95fd1cab59a2fb
23224 F20101114_AABXNB dolan_s_Page_024.QC.jpg
5a4ea8b0f4afcb27f31f982ac45fb3ab
2feab2f36c3a479dcfeb598ec9337a8cae5706a5
25172 F20101114_AABXMN dolan_s_Page_017.QC.jpg
0a4f64c5fa68ccb3f3c9fbf83ba0f347
a08a47182875403b713ef7e069a1eaa32c689e05
6513 F20101114_AABXNC dolan_s_Page_024thm.jpg
3a06f3893a4b8af58117d581df93fa56
cf5621f2cdb9e49f19e1dfb9681a65ff0244de28
7147 F20101114_AABXMO dolan_s_Page_017thm.jpg
9917f92aa8c5f6d89ba877383e7be90e
8f434b23d1dfc54e10eee74b7dbda50c22dfeac3
13261 F20101114_AABXND dolan_s_Page_025.QC.jpg
51b6e2b4ea86fe3ba12300bc01cce438
1ee0917e3e7eeff0aa9f85208af9d397518f0c88
25567 F20101114_AABXMP dolan_s_Page_018.QC.jpg
771a3b05f37bce5066e180617a4ce5cf
74d4d00563c8d59d96d6561d7cf84e98f95263f3
3965 F20101114_AABXNE dolan_s_Page_025thm.jpg
e4fd28fd0e0a24bda566d74d3f8f443e
5fcf9b5c4e87778e9725a75ddb0e5b50a17663aa
6876 F20101114_AABXMQ dolan_s_Page_018thm.jpg
ec77d10e7897f753be41278dab74141a
3968d6bfa25b2c1c951b682b39a8dd745a65837a
17754 F20101114_AABXNF dolan_s_Page_026.QC.jpg
5a37d92164161b3cbc92948437f2823d
640e3a9dc186e79a1560aeae91514b04a70c5f9e
26054 F20101114_AABXMR dolan_s_Page_019.QC.jpg
2cea0319e50393ed65ec7dc684201a0d
b18495de85877947d44caa6c0304b16f04c1f8dc
5046 F20101114_AABXNG dolan_s_Page_026thm.jpg
6cd7cfb6b275574853b032c91d61fcb6
a3d17ecdd69818488aca02250228f2ae29f26aeb
6968 F20101114_AABXMS dolan_s_Page_019thm.jpg
84dd91e163417a4d067f0a6b33b85fbe
19a78cc409ffe8e6e286aefb98815b62698a912b
10559 F20101114_AABXNH dolan_s_Page_027.QC.jpg
640cdc9965677c1906f3a2ec7cfdbf17
33c27ebbcafff96a0af5de9822fcb2eab2ee1b9b
26384 F20101114_AABXMT dolan_s_Page_020.QC.jpg
4da8ba40eff56194eab761f696731874
3a50186e205cbbe142835876320039310c7bfb86
3487 F20101114_AABXNI dolan_s_Page_027thm.jpg
9859c45eaad5fc9169bd9a6164f397d5
948becd21d918d0117058c630aa5b59cd9eca015
7198 F20101114_AABXMU dolan_s_Page_020thm.jpg
66f46909403da91eb3b14bd804947f82
0e98641e692303b8e773473b93b713c463e2e8e8
12426 F20101114_AABXNJ dolan_s_Page_028.QC.jpg
38106743483c9a64e00f0d9822f9b4e8
beda4676423b8318c344ad2f1597c581d856b9ba
24792 F20101114_AABXMV dolan_s_Page_021.QC.jpg
aedc0493477839fa487d0a9931b945c0
26c599d99e20fea3e606083e831235adbb1e3579
3790 F20101114_AABXNK dolan_s_Page_028thm.jpg
3b2200e014a0eaf38f1e9e77c7766405
fb70f4f5948673834a4ae656541b2924b880ce14
6809 F20101114_AABXMW dolan_s_Page_021thm.jpg
b6c75fd982ffdd9ce22de4dd5898d469
92df22a4bc32894aaed49bce48193bda7f757815
3834 F20101114_AABXNL dolan_s_Page_029thm.jpg
1f966d0fda75138f1e6a0f311fc39094
1b8b9e39beb33e3768004a18e4aa99397abe73ab
26499 F20101114_AABXMX dolan_s_Page_022.QC.jpg
2f3a84cbf73d67e865e5a5c48b9d8309
496e2ebb5fb5b296b8bda62b897607cf7959cb91
7015 F20101114_AABXOA dolan_s_Page_037thm.jpg
d7403ac8db65ecceb27b5744ea119e23
8864491acd901cdf3b2c15424d07cd6d333a8f1c
15854 F20101114_AABXNM dolan_s_Page_030.QC.jpg
cbe0a02186ddd69bfc81440f872bf8d3
ca6716376e0c35ac9d64a2f8675171708549af75
7177 F20101114_AABXMY dolan_s_Page_022thm.jpg
6108dd7d13ec38d4adfe01c1481f24d5
3283c25d01172bef16fc13880d1a3207a4b070ee
25015 F20101114_AABXOB dolan_s_Page_038.QC.jpg
abe88233c330efb8012e72b3da230a53
34a66bae8ac6b350cc6bac104108f522331730c4
13922 F20101114_AABXNN dolan_s_Page_031.QC.jpg
e2af9cbce781bd38f3aa16ba3b2c2210
84528a678ca43fce40725916ea88319a389c6603
26096 F20101114_AABXMZ dolan_s_Page_023.QC.jpg
f5ec24181106ef7c2a125de5e6556f51
32a126346df90e335d853c8e031622f00746661c
6780 F20101114_AABXOC dolan_s_Page_038thm.jpg
11bbf72ff6796eee4d77ad32c67d8d38
18308c0f5aa3ca26fff486eb222ddfcd9958f028
4213 F20101114_AABXNO dolan_s_Page_031thm.jpg
b033d84c74ef9cd3f219223ad802abc0
a97b5e7c4fde1a92dc04f5d2fa610f9d3d9a49b0
26613 F20101114_AABXOD dolan_s_Page_039.QC.jpg
704014fdc8a5e2c3f0a4ee011ccc0fa2
5260474a927438ecc8b3eeefc48508117def5b25
23917 F20101114_AABXNP dolan_s_Page_032.QC.jpg
ba4d7fa0ce97a9afbb8ae8c17c753a1e
7fcf91572cd42dce77a8ab001d627f0926e4ba9f
7069 F20101114_AABXOE dolan_s_Page_039thm.jpg
194c4493333ab46fb3d7caf60d6a6569
ddd1048f892cd8d94cdbf18aceeedd913ce46169
6759 F20101114_AABXNQ dolan_s_Page_032thm.jpg
3651334fa520d30cb3d5bd0a3bde22df
7e9e33c08d43321db3a8a1e0f8eedbcb1f344c35
25008 F20101114_AABXOF dolan_s_Page_040.QC.jpg
a08c1f8f21a21bb8aba28f1c9f0e1650
79336d49a4e192357e6114070d83a40dbe8829be
25100 F20101114_AABXNR dolan_s_Page_033.QC.jpg
96f8a8bf0953c8b746ccfdbfb23374c1
0271e294927a761b838abd635205f891fa699949
6848 F20101114_AABXOG dolan_s_Page_040thm.jpg
94e989a7b4be8299865d83691d301642
7abbebf4abc5ec01019f1ce21c5903cb892cb291
6839 F20101114_AABXNS dolan_s_Page_033thm.jpg
03b5d41348041d117e008adee552e52a
3d29928aa361b342d01ceefed03cb9c8f26bc6ef
7027 F20101114_AABXOH dolan_s_Page_041thm.jpg
cbab6107ab9f3b76406fb04e1b06fbff
4fd3f85ae2ec13a1dd7d17c7537482eeba644fab
25268 F20101114_AABXNT dolan_s_Page_034.QC.jpg
c3ab34fcf6e7cf0de7b58ec9bf8ccf12
2c263ffede5e699e9f2f3da658185c66a3e8244b
25834 F20101114_AABXOI dolan_s_Page_042.QC.jpg
26f9970d0d36cbbc62dad65f163632ca
a76b7c7ea9861332bcce90e7695f7075876f8143
6719 F20101114_AABXNU dolan_s_Page_034thm.jpg
657f124e34fdc08d3c15d402e5bc73f0
3a643bf51d063fecd03dec10b89e72a6641d7f8a
6892 F20101114_AABXOJ dolan_s_Page_042thm.jpg
9136772c12f47893b946b0c1ce8906d9
a7c8ad8ce225dc6091c09e95c3c988451db60ad9
25938 F20101114_AABXNV dolan_s_Page_035.QC.jpg
a43ea467498ca0f2be04a20e700acdf2
534206fd3e9a8e3a8a35d1ed218128d39a0cd563
26688 F20101114_AABXOK dolan_s_Page_043.QC.jpg
f93dab0985357d848013b8f3efe9f4b0
39db41329a9f1849aea186190894a07cb387392f
6909 F20101114_AABXNW dolan_s_Page_035thm.jpg
191628e872d81c301bf0c75418ec6c78
735a9684fe6aa2d394663e0a97be2ede2537bbdd
7187 F20101114_AABXOL dolan_s_Page_043thm.jpg
8eb932c7eb341ad03085073cbfba3ed5
824983c33aff58a91530859d888775f8cd22744f
24595 F20101114_AABXNX dolan_s_Page_036.QC.jpg
1114b4c0fd3dd90587e72026aa3f3540
e1b9b4e78c06df0263cd3073c20e7d317671945d
25953 F20101114_AABXOM dolan_s_Page_044.QC.jpg
d21a653a8c5aea6ece37781c79f9a9bb
e58124e4176781c106ec715263ab17857ffdb8c3
6867 F20101114_AABXNY dolan_s_Page_036thm.jpg
4a921b7869dd404c7f557b858b70a5e5
8212957bd6926249a1a55c102b383ce0ef4f629b
18838 F20101114_AABXPA dolan_s_Page_051.QC.jpg
9c29dc6c7a107441a769a194ab32c328
40335b15573c70024134ab1f7865a449bb2ac090
7110 F20101114_AABXON dolan_s_Page_044thm.jpg
c38cfd98c0dd73c5623914cd54cc4e6b
55bdf014b918c440705982b4a8fd99b6faa075ba
26114 F20101114_AABXNZ dolan_s_Page_037.QC.jpg
6675de350b3f7a981a6860e69ccacaab
b39f740bc1c304fc16e8d3b9814ca3530bf8af4e
5643 F20101114_AABXPB dolan_s_Page_051thm.jpg
e805f1a20599d4a481ad4f3527352fb0
6daf4ed62993d5fa294c2d85a574dfe6d4fc5092
25324 F20101114_AABXOO dolan_s_Page_045.QC.jpg
51df0cddcd25a77cea632c34d932b322
e33f15687b0c8b41f49548ba7bd97390b1a9827d
23288 F20101114_AABXPC dolan_s_Page_052.QC.jpg
90d1f5a0d8a6b64c357da027c5ec54e4
0f213856b97bd550393a84b60798d0e6f0764bb9
6913 F20101114_AABXOP dolan_s_Page_045thm.jpg
e14bdbb782e8e72d3d6631865c1044ee
691db599188e25d32907bee66670f503ddfc3d07
6438 F20101114_AABXPD dolan_s_Page_052thm.jpg
fa8018c701a630d0d14dba51cca5b62e
ff69157bbba0f369028fc69bd1487829be7b1721
25430 F20101114_AABXOQ dolan_s_Page_046.QC.jpg
305e9dbd03537e9bb03c25703918e574
e82f94505b894f25af7a2d59f38c421900868b63
F20101114_AABXPE dolan_s_Page_053.QC.jpg
6f27e2377ab62babaa6de51b46b99c64
038aa2e1cf881b666749c8d8e7dbe7da7d6cc8c2
6951 F20101114_AABXOR dolan_s_Page_046thm.jpg
9af2b822fdb8e2dde34d241a0d810c84
c8e9f2aadb2d5ec06f280302340d32186e71b72c
7025 F20101114_AABXPF dolan_s_Page_053thm.jpg
a61b44ab866108bc3bfbc45da385e581
cee6f3f58c274d82a0eb0441bb9c9f98e1d90d55
16819 F20101114_AABXOS dolan_s_Page_047.QC.jpg
7b11e4abb9b7894f80c9f2f9e05514df
92a9c9f5b281f2822c7db8e305b28eb163bb527b
26182 F20101114_AABXPG dolan_s_Page_054.QC.jpg
d7e7b38d0f12e8c3f5c81a029551cbfd
0859c022e0c779438cb153e3e2e56872822e6913
4908 F20101114_AABXOT dolan_s_Page_047thm.jpg
2ce73ae3654497e8b730c2d1a6751b5b
f9833cb6ad6a3bdf3ea268e962fffdeadc700304
7065 F20101114_AABXPH dolan_s_Page_054thm.jpg
cab5122a62853a36d9f6be177efb1c53
279ccee212ddc3ded2e32b95b8b4087dc85c66be
14107 F20101114_AABXOU dolan_s_Page_048.QC.jpg
188267a2c77e6765325d421cf9ab5e96
8d14ebda6e36c51d6045b53c3a1250dd67a4317c
25707 F20101114_AABXPI dolan_s_Page_055.QC.jpg
6c50463983db32b33eb7a3708917daab
da2cc6966f36ac77027410c24b662b001f5ce662
4012 F20101114_AABXOV dolan_s_Page_048thm.jpg
2fe80c945183db60a99ab41b5e2e88ee
11d1766f6aa5cc203c1963afa1766375d0da77eb
6962 F20101114_AABXPJ dolan_s_Page_055thm.jpg
5694bcbc09e01d93d18f5ee1dc067dca
9da65727b2c2b422986e9675667b38a0a92d7752
17216 F20101114_AABXOW dolan_s_Page_049.QC.jpg
ac9e38ee2dc615d81e4f9f2bf69e3656
c82271c255949275dd6041c9fcdc65cb6e64ac2d
26511 F20101114_AABXPK dolan_s_Page_056.QC.jpg
a8580f003571f3d2238b81908cdc4321
886026962d20d6ae5a3432fea9c9c76e8ebefb39
5100 F20101114_AABXOX dolan_s_Page_049thm.jpg
0011a61025fec56888f2772000ea5e52
6ff174ffe18ed851b096e3d5bde325b020bffe3b
25355 F20101114_AABXQA dolan_s_Page_065.QC.jpg
55ae8bbed7743c3acb4fdd36ed5dfa35
41de63eb43b070ff14cd540b9d253fd907599b47
7100 F20101114_AABXPL dolan_s_Page_056thm.jpg
ad70ce0c1229f91e28ab2c5ff4183d10
f055a59664e65c3f7df9b5b3e19008cb45a9d905
23990 F20101114_AABXPM dolan_s_Page_057.QC.jpg
5d60f0511b5651a1313b6659416a6c53
b2263a2dde820f1ed3f93ad0bd57e38d49fd98bd
13479 F20101114_AABXOY dolan_s_Page_050.QC.jpg
7835df712e81d0078f7a6aac1866407b
c80abacbfd99c288f31e347929c7d21ab02000ec
6980 F20101114_AABXQB dolan_s_Page_065thm.jpg
a610f5c23eba8e06b168be596abdab10
aeba25fc9c40e1d09c1a2b344c4a557baef6be10
1233 F20101114_AABWML dolan_s_Page_080.txt
b8a12ef21c69bae335ba38a17d1b5e20
7d5c44fb49f89062a5a678137be8aa58da6cb636
24612 F20101114_AABXPN dolan_s_Page_058.QC.jpg
a5ee0dbf9f16e31e3ed398db906c7acd
29e0f7b4343bb240faf624fb47f1c840dab32562
4563 F20101114_AABXOZ dolan_s_Page_050thm.jpg
c7dd179bacdda4305b426212bb680c9c
f9a8284c9b49b315045836c40d317ebaaf8ca233
3354 F20101114_AABWNA dolan_s_Page_005.txt
87f4913f53e82d85ec053fd0809bf649
48303cc4ed172e0bcc26a967a2633bc41b45d2c9
24013 F20101114_AABXQC dolan_s_Page_066.QC.jpg
94fc89881a3f377a99634c8657c0a1bd
8ef6c1f414f3c25be449ce5003bc064e8e053502
56563 F20101114_AABWMM dolan_s_Page_043.pro
0fe1d0cdfae80cf5945cc706aa3bf635
27bac56a80bcb475dc70111f25bb6a78d7692034
6644 F20101114_AABXPO dolan_s_Page_058thm.jpg
be83ca98c5fe555b144e1d297c912428
37ff6b93fbddff392c318f59a28896b529a5a9a9
11250 F20101114_AABWNB dolan_s_Page_078.QC.jpg
264fa4c1af42344efe8a20b5fe59f947
9a906c1d41ad996824b0626c6d5650a92682ee37
6598 F20101114_AABXQD dolan_s_Page_066thm.jpg
86997ffa515067a510e6abe2ed20a2a3
adc78ef3150281590335e98d8396c2c4d3ee0cf4
1053954 F20101114_AABWMN dolan_s_Page_115.tif
40ab76f9358070fe0240ba67174f2b79
d0596419968d5e9b7ce9489aa94ab5b7f98c91ae
F20101114_AABXPP dolan_s_Page_059.QC.jpg
01641933b0681385600eeae3424c018a
8427d88b11fd96aed67f6fc48506eff416e800a3
6571 F20101114_AABWNC dolan_s_Page_057thm.jpg
2683829e29ae5946ccb89345c4d4fb18
128d464b2015fb1440bc80f312cf937a189cd238
23948 F20101114_AABXQE dolan_s_Page_067.QC.jpg
7e059d4bfcc591e860aa213ab2609a97
1aed2ed83bdedc0204b49a1d5add7b8c9e257c22
122498 F20101114_AABWMO dolan_s_Page_041.jp2
72a3dd4e8ed83f3b0793d7676a14f341
dd2723b5973065d966512543231fba5ffed08f95
6855 F20101114_AABXPQ dolan_s_Page_059thm.jpg
2a882f47afcb12f6ea3d3d6a6e3fb083
e2ebaf3b667c57aacc2d61a315e4994a602f717c
27188 F20101114_AABWND dolan_s_Page_122.QC.jpg
352fe13d0bbd5e0ee7c29fa2050c0b12
9b2ac81d687816ac7ee4e0551167cbf3a2965c56
F20101114_AABXQF dolan_s_Page_067thm.jpg
7e92daa60d1f3f3a5bbbed5996569025
97c2baea245bfe4072b23e8a4b872590eb9d058e
F20101114_AABWMP dolan_s_Page_013.tif
468c6ab0a75707fc47f05554db5fd6f8
73509ef99b76c84b5344beba8ddea359dc14de69
7094 F20101114_AABXPR dolan_s_Page_060thm.jpg
df7b7d6fad53e785bcd822485d163a92
0f2a2fc8efa81cfe7acd71938ba3c251ec7d3243
5501 F20101114_AABWNE dolan_s_Page_097thm.jpg
515f9d86cd23baa19f890d4f9b61033b
c3c3fbb0425dd3fb2fbfdbc7e2139df5437d3ee5
21533 F20101114_AABXQG dolan_s_Page_068.QC.jpg
39ce148f42c0c45c6ba182ad17749455
f02bf9ae49d0476d9c7048bb90278384e77e94a6
82076 F20101114_AABWMQ dolan_s_Page_093.jp2
ab2d4d62a1e6db074629353b5592a67d
48410abdd948f825db3759a49e6d5eac4de4c25d
F20101114_AABXPS dolan_s_Page_061.QC.jpg
8239625466097143994c154c52818988
051d703079e99086e40aba22646507e37239ef06
62093 F20101114_AABWNF dolan_s_Page_118.pro
9d65f71b1901df4c05e0f83344af8484
ba1ed2de28b654cf4be04394b52ad606cc413ee9
6052 F20101114_AABXQH dolan_s_Page_068thm.jpg
df7745efc08067da8e8df4d74e3898bb
bd14bf3620766494c7c2985261fece82642c4425
4589 F20101114_AABWMR dolan_s_Page_030thm.jpg
0ce6f6d12b09e9b7d99bc2d9f7f94b6f
bff454fdd70ac0ed916c4aed6b4d26234baa454e
7059 F20101114_AABXPT dolan_s_Page_061thm.jpg
05c4c11168e3288cd9c1a17ee0a2cef9
e6c0fbe72aa9c071d96c6c98dad915fdf8915d14
2430 F20101114_AABWNG dolan_s_Page_121.txt
af244975629446184e38c6abf6ca8683
0e1515e362103159bf86417ed1f635a2ab3ccb98
23037 F20101114_AABXQI dolan_s_Page_069.QC.jpg
1cd5be31fcc74640bd1ffed36a3e835f
584ca3c9ce6eb988ad051894431f9e05c4a54650
3119 F20101114_AABWMS dolan_s_Page_111thm.jpg
78e956e9c382fde28c8f4aa428fcb911
21853b9909e4a973eb9408f1a87f382109ac113c
25301 F20101114_AABXPU dolan_s_Page_062.QC.jpg
c46cc91095aae75c275268b50988189f
50c3ebbad31127cd4b37f6fcf05425d074a49088
6391 F20101114_AABWNH dolan_s_Page_012thm.jpg
f3c2b7393d2274d3d84cc1cdef9d8682
c3c379b69285b740b18179fa1d721a35792bd143
6494 F20101114_AABXQJ dolan_s_Page_069thm.jpg
2f6dd9f730628d982213a84cc7d3081c
d0e143b73a4a87226e124a32b4e61ed366379ab3
88439 F20101114_AABWMT dolan_s_Page_120.jpg
23d9b5172fe693e94d5e77a582cc348c
bc0dee1429cc7554a4bdcbca19e8d8d4fe857265
6687 F20101114_AABXPV dolan_s_Page_062thm.jpg
371e8045f0954cd04b30e66acd918902
402aa6e84a8c4153eab993076d0bdd8c53126524
6651 F20101114_AABWNI dolan_s_Page_010thm.jpg
80f5d3472255a6583522f6a4c647be68
07da565589f329726af3c341f58f5a6a5220c970
25919 F20101114_AABXQK dolan_s_Page_070.QC.jpg
9ea698cbdd04aa367e5121df06b09e04
c8b3487d3809f1611cd7a01e20890eb687fc58de
3034 F20101114_AABWMU dolan_s_Page_125thm.jpg
072c5b8bb94f7bb1dcf3fb4a075d66bf
23d2a073ddb4cda7ceb29f09ca041669d08b32a3
24183 F20101114_AABXPW dolan_s_Page_063.QC.jpg
267957bbb24b9b2a50f32ec0cfc13ad2
19595ce0cb6d7bec3d0fe30a7905067e45bbe704
12504 F20101114_AABXRA dolan_s_Page_079.QC.jpg
60864b52a40b0dfa2e4885e7b08798ac
7be0ff5aa1a148056632a0e74fd64518799225de
25057 F20101114_AABWNJ dolan_s_Page_016.QC.jpg
602cd457f2dfe0c503ff64de00ac0d43
213c8dd359a9adf1a15c75ccde6f8be7f6f41e30
6989 F20101114_AABXQL dolan_s_Page_070thm.jpg
fcdad4f39eb5ee4adc9ad2ed6c524cb5
ba64d6687ba7564855dceed59ae0747217410376
104825 F20101114_AABWMV dolan_s_Page_116.jp2
b60c5089d0f7f1577d37737f6edbb445
de29d8f14fb2094b3c1706b58905bb26b0c2c58e
6850 F20101114_AABXPX dolan_s_Page_063thm.jpg
d5bd79426a68f1cbf1dc94ce2c1430bc
882e74c4d4c16bcda894262efc0ed9af4bb2bb88
3936 F20101114_AABXRB dolan_s_Page_079thm.jpg
7c703b64c7a980befae9bebe60c1d0a0
be9e51d03205fbb240189f03939d0c8966e7edf3
16438 F20101114_AABWNK dolan_s_Page_092.QC.jpg
a7d5d7527b943555461b1b5b11657967
370460acbe6bd726fde86d3a0821cf303d6ed511
25757 F20101114_AABXQM dolan_s_Page_071.QC.jpg
2bc027ab4b68de766fff711ebaa64949
005e51203a81541d6a37b174e8ed900e3a47caec
21744 F20101114_AABWMW dolan_s_Page_005.QC.jpg
6b02b8ff12aeb45cfda93a049cd2f385
5843f22b1084606778cf44fc3946f417a6bf19f4
24835 F20101114_AABXPY dolan_s_Page_064.QC.jpg
346f62d29494cf309e4ca56d11459ddd
7ba81d58c053c7855eeeeac4b25a52c87be44437
26285 F20101114_AABWNL dolan_s_Page_118.QC.jpg
f8b8760c1a8b613cbb49aee82e15f008
afa67893e87b2ffd0825c8c3377d2785905b9dfd
7158 F20101114_AABXQN dolan_s_Page_071thm.jpg
9f517153504c9bf89f575d6178be37fc
0796578e24d310cc65019a10d1fabc044166be9b
6515 F20101114_AABWMX dolan_s_Page_084thm.jpg
2bf10ae5a57e945e0a621c216429f186
f280bb52cde6ea4ca118f9f3b55030ea9dd06b08
6959 F20101114_AABXPZ dolan_s_Page_064thm.jpg
e6d23a6de478118a17affa3fddf785a4
0ebd99f3e5e0341c806ae267313661cc9f2acc1e
11918 F20101114_AABXRC dolan_s_Page_080.QC.jpg
4d461996f840dcee77b711ecf8b73f56
a95ef58a22e711efc87595bbfd4d6ceaeaf95aac
2184 F20101114_AABWNM dolan_s_Page_020.txt
62c02d679ea28f182313f4a7f402bd1b
8af2bd5040fc30adc8353146a02fc53b008cda1f
25540 F20101114_AABXQO dolan_s_Page_072.QC.jpg
d02bd98b96170d53a73b6b89d4ee89a6
c7d278dcc696ef6079c94e4e93d9511af833664e
78504 F20101114_AABWMY dolan_s_Page_019.jpg
c472f6114ade2e731886d05c1098ba80
39853c585f4fef091c1189eac39d2b7a94dfe338
25928 F20101114_AABWOA dolan_s_Page_060.QC.jpg
2c4e140ffb76ce8aeebd2e3b4ab0748d
d3cc6ddfb954bdbc80f226a23696922f803820aa
3335 F20101114_AABXRD dolan_s_Page_080thm.jpg
85573f15e35f3326b6954be7c90cfb87
b5f90941d92ab3677c3131be93cc72f0f242cc20
F20101114_AABWNN dolan_s_Page_090.tif
c13fa369199a71b0094f0fb43cc55a5c
cf159a210797f49c7da0f7e2354667ca0f00cb76
7078 F20101114_AABXQP dolan_s_Page_072thm.jpg
4cdc39417c8bf65608940cc626908ccf
01b7bf90b4d5710f11c1eb3bc5e4a80f8ae67b12
74474 F20101114_AABWMZ dolan_s_Page_067.jpg
cae971247dd99ea2479a0582467398ab
b38a0e4a0c52ab564dc958d7feb293539ef4e5ad
96221 F20101114_AABWOB dolan_s_Page_104.jp2
bfe2082a9d27eff630454faa739b0b57
8907bad621dcfe313dcd83c42160829e3f41b507
14235 F20101114_AABXRE dolan_s_Page_081.QC.jpg
35898e8517da691cb81cad36a271c0ac
731f11b7d14537d9de4be1ce91a257a6a1e14354
692 F20101114_AABWNO dolan_s_Page_125.txt
89edff37d75b452f4e87143d51a39340
d233382717cc73ad15443a7c930e9bcabecc9e30
25121 F20101114_AABXQQ dolan_s_Page_073.QC.jpg
fc5b3436dd43abcd515a26ca1816119b
d07ac4105e2911c217238308f8db1de05d442b10
77759 F20101114_AABWOC dolan_s_Page_046.jpg
b313867013d89bc84e53ac59c4a881c1
7ace60bd106ff922b49b5a5c694414bf5239482f
4288 F20101114_AABXRF dolan_s_Page_081thm.jpg
a75cf67b96c6f66df31e3feff3304dff
cf68458b1233263867285aad0c6e5ba46e25e0fd
7033 F20101114_AABXQR dolan_s_Page_073thm.jpg
619fe54db0479e842baf0511180d226c
4c40b1157404168e71080389f897fad7ff2cb2db
F20101114_AABWNP dolan_s_Page_063.tif
41e11bd635da29c55cb16034c193d342
97420ffb8e0063c081639be78fdba562a01ae690
2044 F20101114_AABWOD dolan_s_Page_036.txt
b4d387e69a5f0ac5afdb9cafc83ae5dd
e7264b1862cf843c7c3fa79fd08ae2bbdb27e72b
14216 F20101114_AABXRG dolan_s_Page_082.QC.jpg
10b913025148a55d47516912b0ec8837
de78dde78a0fe8e74e1945bc121fbc28756086b5
25884 F20101114_AABXQS dolan_s_Page_074.QC.jpg
c210616e82af6f4ae142e859bf4cbae1
e1ed2c7f8cfb9d0588b8771f6674237d5d4b7a28
F20101114_AABWNQ dolan_s_Page_108.tif
3be02166347e9b452529f8878f491c8b
69bfd0581ddc10b1be024ff2bec0c893a2f052cd
12222 F20101114_AABWOE dolan_s_Page_029.QC.jpg
f886d4a6e024108efeed43f571f29a4c
bc77a3985ff5d15771212f99cc01fcaad1c2cec4
4337 F20101114_AABXRH dolan_s_Page_082thm.jpg
58a06cdd80d07b086c1adbd083629dd5
c33922039d712306bc676ca444aec8b4a14d915d
6957 F20101114_AABXQT dolan_s_Page_074thm.jpg
d99c51c08aaf2083e5c7065f194203e6
ff9af495825f0db1c5b35d40c99c3c1e15890428
F20101114_AABWNR dolan_s_Page_080.tif
602effe0cede57d5046961dd49136997
d3825ec5ab6d5598067840ddeca13ca9e49bae46
116761 F20101114_AABWOF dolan_s_Page_075.jp2
94e515bb9c3d90096a95dbbf8384f7c8
2bdcfbaa586e08e61b078d941f50b62167dbea4c
15662 F20101114_AABXRI dolan_s_Page_083.QC.jpg
66db95423cfc01171f30f912abb81c0c
9de324b10274661ee9d7212bd556dedd3a6e707c
25742 F20101114_AABXQU dolan_s_Page_075.QC.jpg
38f36ad58736d6de5a53935de8381d2a
d08fb6f9d1b0ac90dc5cd4198901b667aae1380e
26240 F20101114_AABWNS dolan_s_Page_041.QC.jpg
2506aec93e9c2eb467ed968166fdcf3c
dd1f68d35ed10a7e46a21106c05bde21584127bc
38752 F20101114_AABWOG dolan_s_Page_029.jpg
f37371c523a2a6d72197ea5d01f63821
ccafa69f4105f63d318b5678b56728522dfdfa61
4815 F20101114_AABXRJ dolan_s_Page_083thm.jpg
962f790dc561a5859c3c7283154321b9
f70be1bec8e9aae8a6f2abb60293aff0309b2ccc
7031 F20101114_AABXQV dolan_s_Page_075thm.jpg
8d5f2b0d9af0b8e41e3157fd67715f87
5d35d692f06fb54a5e57d5f357f16cb4059be286
17542 F20101114_AABWNT dolan_s_Page_097.QC.jpg
e97e6400f23ad7f8c8ce374211b9952a
2eb4990d972291888cfc4bfa874c1c9610f33191
847 F20101114_AABWOH dolan_s_Page_097.txt
aea2d15b8eda50df9f51e9e4463b07a1
45d5bf69f50328bb5089386354c2d8c12d1d519a
22913 F20101114_AABXRK dolan_s_Page_084.QC.jpg
511bf215d0178f39e6965a64b6490150
bb613ec62a943d6e5135f466572c8ce0bbdc788a
7085 F20101114_AABXQW dolan_s_Page_076thm.jpg
74a50b511ac3725b7ec48708960e6f92
4597d13d158a395e8d2fd6663a6ecd9f5727070f
54568 F20101114_AABWNU dolan_s_Page_023.pro
25f3c80ba1897a28ebcbc3a4a2986d69
b57b2facbcc1fa6c2a4bb7e826efa11645032bba
25124 F20101114_AABWOI dolan_s_Page_088.QC.jpg
d433cec8e248896cbe41d088542abb73
1af731db72f1442395aef2072dbbbb1d6b79f153
4669 F20101114_AABXSA dolan_s_Page_093thm.jpg
e8c1f47840197dc09d1ebe1625e88e26
37cabbd247e8e22eb459bf2288cc9497aeee939b
10512 F20101114_AABXRL dolan_s_Page_085.QC.jpg
11e8d1d5f62af0b7066d180933de4419
b157e62b056ffc471961f8537a83eec32d716635
15690 F20101114_AABXQX dolan_s_Page_077.QC.jpg
da1ade226b6e95c8da297b6d027401ba
fdd2a62f063617768f4dbeb3e46119ebad177c6d
39740 F20101114_AABWNV dolan_s_Page_007.jpg
b8b0cd0fa12456a6709a1cb10c7bc79e
ed47369e8d9c580e0fc2cc67330ee4e33512dce7
17317 F20101114_AABWOJ dolan_s_Page_110.QC.jpg
025dd20c8d1725936624d391ede6df64
c18c669e7e88b6754d29f4075df64f2dcafab180
19070 F20101114_AABXSB dolan_s_Page_094.QC.jpg
1cceb1dc1b7db0c6fddb7545b860baf2
7a9ad0dc0244d576dde0ba5130046b69caf9976c
3411 F20101114_AABXRM dolan_s_Page_085thm.jpg
38126b12e1df8ee0c2f91492afd29af4
48707bf123f346662855fbe5408f27527371653e
4378 F20101114_AABXQY dolan_s_Page_077thm.jpg
44f8ed45da4288cfa83cd18f796b6a7a
bd6008f418b526da9160377d8487a82731caa7d4
F20101114_AABWNW dolan_s_Page_102.tif
9fd91ae52b0dc4330470f0bb89d28331
8e63bb743bfa52ea46592813e2dcf52da2114c6a
186693 F20101114_AABWOK UFE0021032_00001.xml FULL
714f872a824bb094dd7e3a67203a6e97
2e890d4da563766706cf272815eaabc8f318e903
5262 F20101114_AABXSC dolan_s_Page_094thm.jpg
793b520ca90d5967f9e6e8986c182bca
8fb795a599cd537c1ba8881fdddf24b3b6604b3c
12566 F20101114_AABXRN dolan_s_Page_086.QC.jpg
adf1dcc6d613ea6f599b5c3f305b1379
b55c47d4d6700f3825c6e4b1855a346223875cf4
3695 F20101114_AABXQZ dolan_s_Page_078thm.jpg
bf16f56272cb76f4c7e73ae7ecd9dfcc
d16a7414635461d2d28ee7d3b877c633dd1edb9d
25958 F20101114_AABWNX dolan_s_Page_076.QC.jpg
1daa99c1b6dba29b09119fd946d3fbee
0f51c12eebde2f99c81da4e2da9bfa9c93abc6d7
72525 F20101114_AABWPA dolan_s_Page_015.jpg
09385095bfd446b2be2b30171ab0022b
44b382d9dadbe8940723060376c1cf51549f2962
3923 F20101114_AABXRO dolan_s_Page_086thm.jpg
7fcae50f493979a62eb101ed4afa94c8
f3e1917cccdd248145a52bee3fff74638957a382
1962 F20101114_AABWNY dolan_s_Page_069.txt
2146d63a476915bba4dcd20e1eb23c36
622a546eb309a0c2b4de771529e5aa3a4e1013b8
18390 F20101114_AABXSD dolan_s_Page_095.QC.jpg
cc9a58f9b36b43ae27d527a3fbaf9067
22e34e30a4b7e0c4b7966dad1be8484c53506b81
23328 F20101114_AABXRP dolan_s_Page_087.QC.jpg
795b2725d0bf7318cdd2fd4b76e8070d
98256147d050bce4c38886c61f08767004f56d40
90595 F20101114_AABWNZ dolan_s_Page_094.jp2
937b471727da9fd65b349d43f21d79aa
96c93b7d4034369eca64b5fd587221ff89f3c76c
75314 F20101114_AABWPB dolan_s_Page_016.jpg
799a62a62d352185b86235123b2676ce
875a7b6a3afbfa6615fc32a90f012ef0e710a0d1
24965 F20101114_AABWON dolan_s_Page_001.jpg
8feb638dfd43b81b23f2106b43b177e7
9381f52720dcf888ce9861f964ab1c6ae4c33358
5119 F20101114_AABXSE dolan_s_Page_095thm.jpg
8ed1cecd336cdcb8fafa0273446ec26e
fc0949221e606d9f9b4947c9efb1b5c2285e12ef
6407 F20101114_AABXRQ dolan_s_Page_087thm.jpg
1c6d797bd2685b4c15f40f4014dffec3
027b69d40101735e34407d40e4ee88b7b204ed3a
77714 F20101114_AABWPC dolan_s_Page_017.jpg
e0f06c1fb115f6c3151dd80cabba2389
604e2b9d61bc372e1e4849e2658a6c31d34a6d26
9716 F20101114_AABWOO dolan_s_Page_002.jpg
1aca07254898fe8552fc8f4bbd37a85c
49870609e30c369e8504e1662523b55d625547cc
16021 F20101114_AABXSF dolan_s_Page_096.QC.jpg
aef4fe8fbb249bdc6adb235c0977c433
149a120530cb178537de0526519eee0c485b43a6
6893 F20101114_AABXRR dolan_s_Page_088thm.jpg
60221f08d9a71c27b5edbfc754ac3609
901b46f6c11b07264a20eeaef295d419662963b5
75416 F20101114_AABWPD dolan_s_Page_018.jpg
12a3dab55b2f2462b59afa0d78330204
9af1baaca110e7bdce6f9dc1bd57e1f4a78531f6
11343 F20101114_AABWOP dolan_s_Page_003.jpg
faab4d836bd4841098321d9083eb008d
994e90f9a67b39e85361626ff0664512330b9b3e
4473 F20101114_AABXSG dolan_s_Page_096thm.jpg
9d025161c9cd40a41e62ed4cb5db8b20
b7483f9e746103df34d1547e4f1864343c22af0d
26483 F20101114_AABXRS dolan_s_Page_089.QC.jpg
19a552b4dd6232327398e8dfd79fa9c5
dff0c9c0d639fabfbd15b131a01beb07ae39b42c
78422 F20101114_AABWPE dolan_s_Page_020.jpg
05135966250e65ec51cdeae1f51739d4
22e6fda263aefc2e6f0696480f537c65473733e0
27482 F20101114_AABWOQ dolan_s_Page_004.jpg
d5f24cb26c8dbe399ba15696d40fa460
c39c74fa9f412966ba55dffedddd6aa19b5884c5
17262 F20101114_AABXSH dolan_s_Page_098.QC.jpg
d8c86e2b13187d77830ed0b73f95cf1b
1d6c0ef8c33327588cbf2c3dc4feca0c2214ea5d
7011 F20101114_AABXRT dolan_s_Page_089thm.jpg
9af0701ad312bdf37000e6d756de0016
adaeb2d076057afc3eee2a13ae90f93bd8c8b496
76219 F20101114_AABWPF dolan_s_Page_021.jpg
42207f575d00b21bcb2871ebc2e4b0c2
e81bb839e5a0155d16e54aed5599de754191a2f8
85814 F20101114_AABWOR dolan_s_Page_005.jpg
ff292cd4233b43c75104ce605353e24f
16d203f9738ca7950eb0da235f1fed720b7fc2fa
5649 F20101114_AABXSI dolan_s_Page_098thm.jpg
1b018676952ac8ab487398d2c0f210a3
6c55a734f32768d07ea8ed9dcf85b30d49bdc76a
25809 F20101114_AABXRU dolan_s_Page_090.QC.jpg
126aa160fad14fb2e70123840ab5dbc1
2cd1c30d1000da956335ca13f64c826fca3557a0
79270 F20101114_AABWPG dolan_s_Page_022.jpg
d39029fa3e727ad36196196099122908
53efd49cb4a17106f2bf49b43329f1ad5878408c
101158 F20101114_AABWOS dolan_s_Page_006.jpg
61839632f705eea01045994acaa1bb00
42ea7de7d839f30d5401312c329c5b08f9e0aaef
17363 F20101114_AABXSJ dolan_s_Page_099.QC.jpg
3fb449d50741ece57e441752de76ebdb
8d37d7f7d1ab9c41f2dce03d820865dd21c99a09
6991 F20101114_AABXRV dolan_s_Page_090thm.jpg
e79d327a83d7a3b6a94ffaee3bfc1448
4fd007a7b95bdf5906eef3765ddc6f11e143601d
78802 F20101114_AABWPH dolan_s_Page_023.jpg
11a681a1cdf5bedff8feda87cd498c31
9083c82fc016555cebbb801b79a73e4afb51e51c
86229 F20101114_AABWOT dolan_s_Page_008.jpg
da4e91de3a5fe0620fa4be302d77afbd
80b1ccb6e8b5a6478d07b012a606bae156e2a7e0
5617 F20101114_AABXSK dolan_s_Page_099thm.jpg
95add9982ac203861ce33ec7e43e0f63
79bd6af6b44845613218ecd1655d8dc138dc5d74
19269 F20101114_AABXRW dolan_s_Page_091.QC.jpg
a289ab9d997c837beb5d8e2bee80fd20
a42d808644b251ffe31d00a5ada572159937f015
76168 F20101114_AABWPI dolan_s_Page_024.jpg
86d407b2942bc843ef2261dcfc92d5a5
3cbb0847a5d8de8b9647224fb224eda0023bd04b
25680 F20101114_AABWOU dolan_s_Page_009.jpg
8e7c41a39f578d554726f647c45340cb
8de8e7e264ca8c1945e1c81edce3f39666328073
6834 F20101114_AABXTA dolan_s_Page_107thm.jpg
a563d4ae25c6a6514ea63d203810d937
b592e758434335608bfc10f513d65e2303a2d778
11700 F20101114_AABXSL dolan_s_Page_100.QC.jpg
25dc9e7ba525102043f3f3d47ecc525b
20565007e77a7093d7ba913c98b15b55ec751f9e
5656 F20101114_AABXRX dolan_s_Page_091thm.jpg
24e3ebc53777ff1520bfa0f17ee55ec2
b029094faad69823ee143f7387e0cfed2c8e0b28
43257 F20101114_AABWPJ dolan_s_Page_025.jpg
6ebf18ac1a33db5ff7749dfce5a132f2
dc982df576a15fd52636956a89d1fc5da2cf9ce3
83983 F20101114_AABWOV dolan_s_Page_010.jpg
cbdf7f71332b30710fa2553bcede9ff6
fa0dde261d72adadb31e7781504c0f2e36abd115
25551 F20101114_AABXTB dolan_s_Page_108.QC.jpg
ac96869e9caaadf202c31905566903bd
1ac1fabb49b88e6a4f1bbb0180bb3d545c2f0acd
4108 F20101114_AABXSM dolan_s_Page_100thm.jpg
803f96d53ccb5347179b365b339c179e
ce402608b6cbf55fb0dbc112c359ac08557eabeb
4530 F20101114_AABXRY dolan_s_Page_092thm.jpg
23d49a4162a5289bf1b6231f66b906e0
bd10a56d356cf7f9ab83aec85b45a41a73d504dd
57812 F20101114_AABWPK dolan_s_Page_026.jpg
bd919116693bebe346de84ba1bee5e51
acdb7c279fb6cfbaf1bb55f31bd1d85f94fa992d
29776 F20101114_AABWOW dolan_s_Page_011.jpg
88b39edc86eaa8ec526eef87c1f1b7bd
33f1fda9b3342e4e6e2bfe9d065b85d0c5c46d09
6898 F20101114_AABXTC dolan_s_Page_108thm.jpg
80d91ef06ca0c9bfcc99da5768b8644b
d4850aa47fa56d09a1a077a88faf2b8acef8ae00
24116 F20101114_AABXSN dolan_s_Page_101.QC.jpg
88cf21bfae8caedf00df816e63bb9fdc
22130b6a02520c93d1f7c00597b8cd92fdcad7ad
18106 F20101114_AABXRZ dolan_s_Page_093.QC.jpg
e00632833269ddee2dad3daae9131959
18878d4e0ac9fcd7735fa73bcf7d4199effc5ff0
79754 F20101114_AABWQA dolan_s_Page_043.jpg
d49a6727a219e44b433a311fe5b9b520
1042d577f3612c7b33c360af6ee08c1ca5928c20
34068 F20101114_AABWPL dolan_s_Page_027.jpg
c195e88256144a61b700d382287b7f58
9d393a984cb779432db00c7f8ce03d8f2880c3da
70384 F20101114_AABWOX dolan_s_Page_012.jpg
17c8ae899d29129fab3912f7e40123fa
750c1a8d919f08cfd9c79ba20b81c16a65293143
6662 F20101114_AABXTD dolan_s_Page_109.QC.jpg
8bbe3bf613f458104803a5371b22bcad
d18c1d767b2c76b940403d2a7fa2f2a8d9bb532e
6807 F20101114_AABXSO dolan_s_Page_101thm.jpg
38cf0be8db0c6e94a676949fc6dc6a5d
87040af7d88e5cbaaed1a50c623f5f2c09c99afb
78479 F20101114_AABWQB dolan_s_Page_044.jpg
69fe95db67308f24f80a9559284c4532
8cc32e15cf18e1c2be4967c4eec6ea4d44ca3805
40640 F20101114_AABWPM dolan_s_Page_028.jpg
7bc264e7497fcbc5f2525b5ae6fb848c
9a43ff62bdee2ddf54e6a86ce37c00f43e7c9d5a
58935 F20101114_AABWOY dolan_s_Page_013.jpg
05224e0cca896793d401858f106e18a6
cea1e68aaff93a8bfda5fdcf47605218a22bcdd5
F20101114_AABXSP dolan_s_Page_102.QC.jpg
2ec1d24a50359f159be7fd9cf378096d
4ee7518bf585167779b272b3123f2790c3293af9
53814 F20101114_AABWPN dolan_s_Page_030.jpg
95e9ca0d2cf2880d71d44a710ee281b1
125639744ea8a3eece32d4e822acbd757d75fc91
76502 F20101114_AABWOZ dolan_s_Page_014.jpg
8b6925dd600b4f8151d0897df9221b20
174f27ca5426d5d038f119f1f33f8c5690fc6a9e
2279 F20101114_AABXTE dolan_s_Page_109thm.jpg
602f597758a858ca65b5c09786667ca8
0dd031e68cc2e2744f15f5a3404fed6a78a34d41
6371 F20101114_AABXSQ dolan_s_Page_102thm.jpg
c576fcd1193bd0976d4a8c4a5cfd4595
cf6443f5c79bcb948ffd2cd09d6f13a0d0d7d16e
76919 F20101114_AABWQC dolan_s_Page_045.jpg
0559ae9b73c8da46fcea4bb97688182f
51c1a2b400fc57c95f282d2489ecc1d7461fb397
48589 F20101114_AABWPO dolan_s_Page_031.jpg
60dd16b195e5ec55598ffb28c7b818cc
8b7365610a02d2c794d201835d54a6a9c2ae0d49
4496 F20101114_AABXTF dolan_s_Page_110thm.jpg
1c3fbe82ee10890a52c0b06a5fd95947
d235e2963d42b6e64a93d86f7fc376f6c020c6b5
26092 F20101114_AABXSR dolan_s_Page_103.QC.jpg
e43cc2c16b0ce15ed68dbfdad0545918
e4f8286b85ca73314ac9b2e42abb8fcfc586eb37
52881 F20101114_AABWQD dolan_s_Page_047.jpg
223006d3e90e4107d231972765a251c6
83866aa8588ae77591df0632df20572c311d3227
73280 F20101114_AABWPP dolan_s_Page_032.jpg
7adb7e6b875ad5efa552d7dfdb3e3a49
30dfa81bbe0e852027c5fd865b8f51380e6c09f2
11289 F20101114_AABXTG dolan_s_Page_111.QC.jpg
149408de131314473e3514ad10da8877
515a32a873d0cb3660c8120f98125aaf44552076
7092 F20101114_AABXSS dolan_s_Page_103thm.jpg
67d202faff1b213d826a2c71ae1e688d
5b66b41c1ad6ae21a78a04224b67cd54f76d0681
47764 F20101114_AABWQE dolan_s_Page_048.jpg
75315e9cde41b87c7237d0239de76963
a0fc0a491347f4a2f17d8b105d5051bcfd4d178b
75113 F20101114_AABWPQ dolan_s_Page_033.jpg
ceb1628c8c123b53e76c73eff4d5a421
c427f7a8b8cf8cee8b9e084dc1448d7ea42d0883
13356 F20101114_AABXTH dolan_s_Page_112.QC.jpg
fc40e8bc5630963e77368e6304a3680e
a65ba624f05a4e2bb50bc0a9cbfa945a8fa42707
20487 F20101114_AABXST dolan_s_Page_104.QC.jpg
e199bae7ce4894c3bd95e7e0f3342339
a7146a4d9183ef8d21f5d8f4f38b43a67998836c
56246 F20101114_AABWQF dolan_s_Page_049.jpg
d0005c3192177a5ec87b20c66e5aed2c
854222f5ae4c533483a4818dd77ecbb3f7cb7d15
77188 F20101114_AABWPR dolan_s_Page_034.jpg
2db67215700e841cea9974587d24d805
cc81cf7901027af758a25fdaabacdbd17bc47c49
3993 F20101114_AABXTI dolan_s_Page_112thm.jpg
13330c41d174f6abbca25d06aa377e43
168e90e1bff19a2c66667c5a969fec98f0ece926
5798 F20101114_AABXSU dolan_s_Page_104thm.jpg
21edad261d4ef2dd28c388111c7dce66
2f52ece70319210e36cfff1358a46e1794d9475d
45303 F20101114_AABWQG dolan_s_Page_050.jpg
40d286655f940ec7911d04f2ae20dc72
8dc081751b31f62a722af26a4f1ab2c773550d17
79257 F20101114_AABWPS dolan_s_Page_035.jpg
1b5fa33b8ffb673fa7ddabaefeb6e1cc
b5096d2b881840b0f6640b94de7319c28087625e
15336 F20101114_AABXTJ dolan_s_Page_113.QC.jpg
b88e2409ffc58e87274813ab1137119f
107bfa983047ef71695390b3536bad138d7dae88
19651 F20101114_AABXSV dolan_s_Page_105.QC.jpg
3941f3d3c36ac668fc514757badc7695
97bb5a8b86c60ae1bf17ae3ab873631590ede80b
63440 F20101114_AABWQH dolan_s_Page_051.jpg
cb05f1f108623e6bce00f1d3bdef689e
12069854fbe0530c0141e73f18f89de1dcc0723e
75724 F20101114_AABWPT dolan_s_Page_036.jpg
43909b8089812e041608cf18d3ff0f89
dee708a31c46c7692aaad45c3c5b05467fc95074
4452 F20101114_AABXTK dolan_s_Page_113thm.jpg
26f4b16da3c9d2cf10cc157c855c39b0
23fc585d5d88fc3d78b8dec0b53780196dba462e
5653 F20101114_AABXSW dolan_s_Page_105thm.jpg
67667e82d624e49ee694854485be53fb
361046cd830af4451daea46a82b9477a669fbfb6
71117 F20101114_AABWQI dolan_s_Page_052.jpg
a9cf6b495d4ca82b761c7a93a14b1c6f
84f8286fcd18b53150352d54b940996105478927
78215 F20101114_AABWPU dolan_s_Page_037.jpg
fdb8bf710636169d37171919dc2332aa
d308f922ee37843d08365244e3ac4962e49bcab9
7064 F20101114_AABXUA dolan_s_Page_122thm.jpg
93da6c13ab29bf0d66938a157c49dd4e
bc9ddc40bac520687928c1020175722c70037a38
23911 F20101114_AABXTL dolan_s_Page_114.QC.jpg
b184553ccb53e7684c0d6977a6917e68
d794c3a0363d3dd1c2de7a9ca210059a3d569f9d
19548 F20101114_AABXSX dolan_s_Page_106.QC.jpg
e7e9c924b7c624444bbe9f597a26adb3
28255b03f61b15e5b111496a91363e0c1fa49319
78352 F20101114_AABWQJ dolan_s_Page_053.jpg
f685b281c6df6da775fe37bb68a7ea9f
78268a7081954a03fc544140aace7e26021130d9
74528 F20101114_AABWPV dolan_s_Page_038.jpg
deedc3ffa968cd9d864c5894415d191a
32c7a570404dfca02e02af78d533163111172a54
25349 F20101114_AABXUB dolan_s_Page_123.QC.jpg
ee5e6ca0abad54bcd9426ba8728f134d
db20850848c4b34d37523ab00186f40e7a15ca85
6588 F20101114_AABXTM dolan_s_Page_114thm.jpg
ee481161f5109cb1d7030016ca9bcdeb
bcb815d577caf543e8cf8a5dea3ca9abf2202445
5604 F20101114_AABXSY dolan_s_Page_106thm.jpg
31fae0f9042869db8f137ed065ab7875
93210482148e373b2ac17505bad11a7179a47791
79704 F20101114_AABWPW dolan_s_Page_039.jpg
a606316c15d3e20f260b162d4434e112
7716975fdef54a6d08da5943f49387374f3f0e70
79799 F20101114_AABWQK dolan_s_Page_054.jpg
caeebb98104885cdc59209dcdd5a95eb
85f95394cbddfbb63b7baad7e1a9c0300445e468
6818 F20101114_AABXUC dolan_s_Page_123thm.jpg
fd9dcd51a0030a2fe8e54924271c5bd9
45784f671265d223ff8adff462b96063c5f52ab6
15246 F20101114_AABXTN dolan_s_Page_115.QC.jpg
83ee5d907281fa955db3b1fbbf89ed28
e9a1ccfc0c8230509942d6f09cfd81419ed92919
F20101114_AABXSZ dolan_s_Page_107.QC.jpg
82d72bbf535e0ec39ea53e1e99d21b89
dd9a47c611650ae9e96e1c58931450bc1313a2d3
75857 F20101114_AABWPX dolan_s_Page_040.jpg
26a6c7699592ccd7881ae1eec65b4891
6efae8259e977f6c006fe1d1d48063c3085a9e59
78082 F20101114_AABWRA dolan_s_Page_071.jpg
fbaa0c0081616d0073e9aff136d99032
6e0903acb2219f7eb12ffaae53246486be32fb9b
78492 F20101114_AABWQL dolan_s_Page_055.jpg
87aa0edadb14a82d7549ab9a7cedd31e
e19f67186d377dd33187f0f21ea4c9a61d8f9db1
7789 F20101114_AABXUD dolan_s_Page_124.QC.jpg
cdefa2fcf7bff16c92b1910d26188e14
024f23f775b6fa731d55fe7eb70dd3823a623229
4345 F20101114_AABXTO dolan_s_Page_115thm.jpg
14e95bf8b56fa0744fcf3b00e48a796d
ce88ce66b0e4383ebb1064e0a3e17a4d56a1c1cf
79783 F20101114_AABWPY dolan_s_Page_041.jpg
ab9746324cfc10ac13b9c4ea5bcab40f
2982bc207f33b165445911eb64ee486f23dbb519
79355 F20101114_AABWRB dolan_s_Page_072.jpg
c9bae174f6a62539db9c57eee703050e
2d19b776327332283211aeb05610f2715f8b2872
80591 F20101114_AABWQM dolan_s_Page_056.jpg
dd77822e496cf5e3728fe7359110743d
bbac8f28a1997104475043fdec66a5ffe188d9fd
2388 F20101114_AABXUE dolan_s_Page_124thm.jpg
780dc0fdad70d4732a617e6a4ccc83e0
b4f4cb2f8525033c18d1ad9f32931f0895e8573b
22607 F20101114_AABXTP dolan_s_Page_116.QC.jpg
3463ffe337b4109893b8f0a9b79c3976
f6026200d0d9dba2c247ffca555193d23e435a75
78429 F20101114_AABWPZ dolan_s_Page_042.jpg
535d335676a692e697b506510ee14bd7
046339293850a8f5b71d751a559c4f9f133c758a
76102 F20101114_AABWRC dolan_s_Page_073.jpg
f104e786b7e1762115cdf7ebe4afdcd6
704c90b3ae5214755a80b0f62634eb1e5dd444b1
72488 F20101114_AABWQN dolan_s_Page_057.jpg
cc336ecc65acfedecf472dc6d1dcf633
71590b053385ce3299ed0460283167107f082afe
6291 F20101114_AABXTQ dolan_s_Page_116thm.jpg
511c4f9eeff7240b5efd8d5f85f0d3e2
f09c04ff8218b031b5bf188a9e32178341b74ede
75867 F20101114_AABWQO dolan_s_Page_058.jpg
83292b2ea0e13249a171a5b09b6213c7
808eb3d701d46ff120621f87ea4b7e90ae511a9e
9852 F20101114_AABXUF dolan_s_Page_125.QC.jpg
e6db72c816dc8e55bdbb7826b23dc693
94ad1d4beb2b9ac411cce3046d2e6c892c339d16
23605 F20101114_AABXTR dolan_s_Page_117.QC.jpg
c4e81037eb702845de3984bb20bc4c5e
beae7a40c123ad189b4be7e4e8a7e8280143b036
76952 F20101114_AABWRD dolan_s_Page_074.jpg
70aebbbe669c76c67a6c94be945a708a
c9888d592798d4d45b4b52465a87456a5ae53d08
77363 F20101114_AABWQP dolan_s_Page_059.jpg
9549cad546227d7a717c4da18752757c
0d00aa9c93bb94e7ae7666013837b66604fefced
144300 F20101114_AABXUG UFE0021032_00001.mets
a77c4e956e0be5d151325c47803b165b
4cd25b8bf8d9b65fd68a2798657cf1df518ea6c7
5569 F20101114_AABXTS dolan_s_Page_117thm.jpg
7cef5012dbaed65aa7e6e05e3ad52a74
ab7840ba43a1131009d630b07d1ff80dc19e08e0
77677 F20101114_AABWRE dolan_s_Page_075.jpg
1567c746ddf23241f394b9c12ed72bdd
1dda93752aa4cbd91c340f43210b9f0f96993afd
78658 F20101114_AABWQQ dolan_s_Page_060.jpg
76fc79ab6f43ec61185b521ad98f6a08
c0ef7c06776481cea1a2ba8c7f04bda08370d0f5
6992 F20101114_AABXTT dolan_s_Page_118thm.jpg
db6b67d6d6198c270bb36a56eee87f48
5f01b503de15055dcf0cb565bd4354114338ac9f
76967 F20101114_AABWRF dolan_s_Page_076.jpg
ec9e7ac3c5793c527a4cf136f1fe1da1
bb518cc93c377ef57643c454f92994ef06b22e11
74483 F20101114_AABWQR dolan_s_Page_061.jpg
e01a508bea07202fddacaa07ed50cf57
348259df22b52d2077596e5eb10132791bef44ef
27612 F20101114_AABXTU dolan_s_Page_119.QC.jpg
be7ca23c29aaba9a899437dd312813eb
b2420af0e52f983b739a4e39bbaeaffce293a4da
46376 F20101114_AABWRG dolan_s_Page_077.jpg
96edea62d2c61ba2b1d0d0a628a93452
626ac35cfeabef0bd80eef78139e6b874586658f
76664 F20101114_AABWQS dolan_s_Page_062.jpg
4c1b4123159bb820493c214eb2ac0c4b
edac6d58afd2568c90dbf137b244f547df2d7af1
7067 F20101114_AABXTV dolan_s_Page_119thm.jpg
61f06b407bb046478e2ae50034a5c3cd
071940e073e408185a1b9f92e13895dcef85beff
36244 F20101114_AABWRH dolan_s_Page_078.jpg
21b90e397279437bf2cd4e01086a40ed
2c8afe3b72ff363fb343de96697616d89dc35fb6
74269 F20101114_AABWQT dolan_s_Page_063.jpg
5ec3ef97705242f7f2104aa349d60e31
682f2b291823723851074530dfa62dd1fb3d2ae4
25630 F20101114_AABXTW dolan_s_Page_120.QC.jpg
e753910c21dd72c6355ead68dcf2c679
0ebddb20c21314eeac52dcf5d31526db2559e01b
41618 F20101114_AABWRI dolan_s_Page_079.jpg
3950abf99b1c0c10ca4712db9a27c7fd
8afedbffd2aaf802f245e565ac5140a4d9a3d149
75294 F20101114_AABWQU dolan_s_Page_064.jpg
219a82057484245c2d7f6c51e71fbe02
c69244684de452c8d36ed10dc432caa589158c31
7179 F20101114_AABXTX dolan_s_Page_120thm.jpg
3b29426ce6efd180f683d4250932f767
c12c650252027bb2164c19821d0cc85c7aca201a
38660 F20101114_AABWRJ dolan_s_Page_080.jpg
0d50ab3baa09b61e72c9d8e984cac7b9
d5341e1ecd3535725353bb830e8b6cfbba8d04ef
77175 F20101114_AABWQV dolan_s_Page_065.jpg
53848a7cf1f88d6b10ae7c6d1f8a5255
7f7c8378d0f0423062e4c1e76e3d5203d26cc98a
25645 F20101114_AABXTY dolan_s_Page_121.QC.jpg
357ed39c8b80d08acc6fa3062f65234d
e240f12984cae85942e68a7967344b51bcab3843
43042 F20101114_AABWRK dolan_s_Page_081.jpg
304772efbddce2fd6b4d3dbf6a813b9d
c047b9cf625fd6358203e19a7df9fc306768b285
71772 F20101114_AABWQW dolan_s_Page_066.jpg
58fa49d3242d0ef4725120370ca45ee3
ba6817b322bbdd07397048c2651184cd185f9416
7088 F20101114_AABXTZ dolan_s_Page_121thm.jpg
ab83c62fe5d6923a21530bcaef8053ff
906f1a666751b4240ec7814e6e0422ae537bd7f3
57486 F20101114_AABWSA dolan_s_Page_097.jpg
eb31e67e0c9df5b6cdb5d2a74b85aae7
e8e97eb6a6bb179266a6e1cf8ddf299b8ef321d7
44557 F20101114_AABWRL dolan_s_Page_082.jpg
74e0dc55885cab0d3c5a8a96baa85f29
5d6acf29ee52ea474fa35ab2d8b8b96327c41745
63648 F20101114_AABWQX dolan_s_Page_068.jpg
ea7b23028263d92d8804c4f6a8fbc36f
5e5a3bf65408054edb5990dba3f821d806689bfe
61032 F20101114_AABWSB dolan_s_Page_098.jpg
a575b936eddb3ed3789ab3f684b7991d
10c56f3b80b41c4aa54e54b5b57560eb4ed819c9
48022 F20101114_AABWRM dolan_s_Page_083.jpg
a15c47344634b551cdeeb2b2cc7f7560
24f8f50039eb7d55792b6d48778a408068d394c7
72016 F20101114_AABWQY dolan_s_Page_069.jpg
c19acf6664c878048786012246f7a292
097a8016a0e44fc7c73c22c8a815415d7ada7619
59465 F20101114_AABWSC dolan_s_Page_099.jpg
55d6e42495c964021711bf0f04b51fe9
86956ef90b1523161eec1e5ab87a1faf7ebcbe61
73399 F20101114_AABWRN dolan_s_Page_084.jpg
d9fbb7aca89aa01a222229ec6288de6e
9d2350dc23aa4e358814fd09503fd7ec87a0cba9
77468 F20101114_AABWQZ dolan_s_Page_070.jpg
86fe7ce1f21de739d224dfffe9142f27
0b3a3795c17735ada8be38607ce07df886ea7214
35341 F20101114_AABWSD dolan_s_Page_100.jpg
b48ce19e962670737253bddc025cd60a
05ab8ae02024087d98c1fe0f509ccc48c59d5bbd
33071 F20101114_AABWRO dolan_s_Page_085.jpg
c84f60dbf0e37c4b2d15f1eb7c91d7ee
d6b5546e5a5e7df27fe0cea10c614905192ae732
38690 F20101114_AABWRP dolan_s_Page_086.jpg
be25354ab5d3a233831678fe748743b4
1507629488a24d6f0a952f328a6e148e7a8962aa
72370 F20101114_AABWSE dolan_s_Page_101.jpg
aef5cd336ad449c13d2fd511288c7d5a
78df716aafbe8463b742d69489b82c924e9c10b3
70671 F20101114_AABWRQ dolan_s_Page_087.jpg
a52df79e22496a50c8f930339fc50d84
f108819c1af849a975c5d9e69bbdc4ff6b29261f
70570 F20101114_AABWSF dolan_s_Page_102.jpg
54a0d02ad04ce0e282c8183676fac648
19046742c033fbf026648c44fb5228f7e111a32a
76832 F20101114_AABWRR dolan_s_Page_088.jpg
1dd0a262cc629eb0fc76f4a4e47fa64c
18bce529750b20c15fb9485af363038a2323dd3e
79723 F20101114_AABWSG dolan_s_Page_103.jpg
855d8c4244c63cdd9f01db31e2bb4977
76f19fe3a6b932cbab6b5ee4c8a608fca717acf2
80284 F20101114_AABWRS dolan_s_Page_089.jpg
5078dad8d50391cdf77cee6466999f42
85b74f73e03b7dc754c8cd5a4fd7ebe23be31628
64994 F20101114_AABWSH dolan_s_Page_104.jpg
d42d26a7beb900399ce04cab7830c8ab
f98c4dd0c2d79210cdd3cd2d9d1379c5fc151754
76262 F20101114_AABWRT dolan_s_Page_090.jpg
7ea1c35cfa22d6dac149b8c30786f3db
63d712298bc4554bcbad49174c605c7233131656
61470 F20101114_AABWSI dolan_s_Page_105.jpg
4427262b238c27a74073a8e57e7ed8a8
10022ad3522e9b2f2d7054285a7f7e9e4480e5b7
63565 F20101114_AABWRU dolan_s_Page_091.jpg
232b048b04b2b5b18a0eafc6cdeea617
f8f4f902b86e53c3829b6e8de843cfc03424d7c9
61097 F20101114_AABWSJ dolan_s_Page_106.jpg
577ef8782df4bf700ba125bf3ff13943
ce69f18b23034203c2eeb2db7f702fa4376b12ea
53819 F20101114_AABWRV dolan_s_Page_092.jpg
55d1b2e56d5aa50d57f7135b21597adf
df3cb90f1faa600a7e4ff8f84237f7be5557d541
73255 F20101114_AABWSK dolan_s_Page_107.jpg
f64a90f397fe9e66285eb8052ff6cefa
c0401e6e31b35bf295bf4b7f597b174a39ba26c3
59274 F20101114_AABWRW dolan_s_Page_093.jpg
6a2a28450c50e9d867a497441b66e270
76ff8e54bbf78bc7e57fb4f9380a7a39a9f6f5ae
77662 F20101114_AABWSL dolan_s_Page_108.jpg
21c6ad4aa10b877f2c0e2fe77efb0003
3b364ffbdab25d0a36ffe59b4e13f3486a620652
65101 F20101114_AABWRX dolan_s_Page_094.jpg
88876fc4efa44a388fd7bfa4c41fb5c3
b27b7032cc7cc7163677a342fa5942ff11607d2f
26800 F20101114_AABWTA dolan_s_Page_124.jpg
367bc35443b5671d0eda5b701a3ef2b7
f4905f8e885c19c98888a8052564984d8297d611
19883 F20101114_AABWSM dolan_s_Page_109.jpg
0b73b9c54a987ba9b4e549150032a73f
3a2ee884482d8130a51e313b3e4c7a80f825e29b
60917 F20101114_AABWRY dolan_s_Page_095.jpg
0d526001d5d72eaf39e823f5d46b4254
73fa28bcae8d95dc0a5b0af59b66720baf80c047
31189 F20101114_AABWTB dolan_s_Page_125.jpg
e0e4823793c10e040d95452ba7a4fcbb
65793c3aae550b971500a5cacedc48778f45bbc5
62518 F20101114_AABWSN dolan_s_Page_110.jpg
b51b6a3b68c73cf819218a1359b70256
6c671de3b116d1abe85ca64b3a957ee01002a1d1
50523 F20101114_AABWRZ dolan_s_Page_096.jpg
b4a4db94c0380d99f4fb601cf2e24279
fe2b6dffe220b2895b8bffbdfd6dfb474611b2e2
25254 F20101114_AABWTC dolan_s_Page_001.jp2
a41e80b41a1ec80bd0d823e5827d483f
9f4121eb5f39ce1203e5a9482efbb184dd4644bf
36970 F20101114_AABWSO dolan_s_Page_111.jpg
6d04d1be4968ef5fceab06e8e2d9769c
0692000a921a146e73e1189f81f23bde0c65a4f0
4993 F20101114_AABWTD dolan_s_Page_002.jp2
c6cb45a6cc8cddff5cac077dcbc552e4
6b12645231f49becb617cd6d2e66c13a57a2773c
39737 F20101114_AABWSP dolan_s_Page_112.jpg
39ecaf87d100c95b8ba56bdac31eb8c0
e8039af13ccdd13000775519302a5bb0b3ac9610
7478 F20101114_AABWTE dolan_s_Page_003.jp2
1f60a13a1c1c576733e17f9f914b5002
f3f5b0966c930ca6e92a5e166ae945af27bfd910
48345 F20101114_AABWSQ dolan_s_Page_113.jpg
fb86a9bcf20417c34229dc40d7007506
0398162e2ecbc6e7da72de808291a9b42b7a3062
75696 F20101114_AABWSR dolan_s_Page_114.jpg
164d5158a9b605fb948e5a573cadeb76
9b4ca9b03186259b160a81b7650a834e00e12e90
33570 F20101114_AABWTF dolan_s_Page_004.jp2
e8d08f2734885e7c0d006fe88e1c16aa
08267f3e08117f5c43d00dd432c971ca941dfed3
50217 F20101114_AABWSS dolan_s_Page_115.jpg
045cec6bb7d20b53c1e4a6ec098b5878
7f02d431a152edd65d345b180684f679ca40ee9c
1051966 F20101114_AABWTG dolan_s_Page_005.jp2
8e371f51fb1d48479eed944189dd5df0
b189e9d7970c5ce6d61872796c9f418e9b8067aa
70302 F20101114_AABWST dolan_s_Page_116.jpg
ab5eae31cb174dfeef6eb101b6c1852d
bde904a621ec0db7e12867777376ce02efa0ed0c
1051936 F20101114_AABWTH dolan_s_Page_006.jp2
98f9215806b0cc77ea0bc304581eec39
27a65da7eb6031d3020f0e84eac53d3a9edd9494
76610 F20101114_AABWSU dolan_s_Page_117.jpg
67298c629fab08c5a00d8902022f4735
213077b3d3e328b8f93c47b46aa54e078934f21b
928015 F20101114_AABWTI dolan_s_Page_007.jp2
64664d11130a2bf312b5512f77f2f1d9
fef5e7630d32f3936582db1acb15731c48fdc2c5
89657 F20101114_AABWSV dolan_s_Page_118.jpg
c79e4fa9aa911fd21562446e0fe5298b
0de9b060c316c7218ecefcc92ec857431d7a0255
1051978 F20101114_AABWTJ dolan_s_Page_008.jp2
915bf325c2f7822f6d34adb206829eb0
b1ad4daf200b552522cbf58fb998bb167e8b956f
95811 F20101114_AABWSW dolan_s_Page_119.jpg
0d7849b626eb883933f9d49cb258e2ff
48185228a8c3620b449fe6adf9966b8b4d7fe8c8
608483 F20101114_AABWTK dolan_s_Page_009.jp2
3097d158a983942b5e3865711b3c78f2
cb46db5afb31088e84582cf87fc56c1c9440f6f3
87810 F20101114_AABWSX dolan_s_Page_121.jpg
0952cb340af73d4746563adb310b83f5
0e26df9f37671c5d419c8cc6b4ce108b943a0130
532720 F20101114_AABWUA dolan_s_Page_025.jp2
8f63c16ee0ccc09000540005bd868085
250fa58629045c298900e1c4300f7605db86c02a
1051985 F20101114_AABWTL dolan_s_Page_010.jp2
37267c6450f3546d36ba0f802a562433
6bcda2c68fc20d3a0c08b4b52fc7eb8a307fde52
92711 F20101114_AABWSY dolan_s_Page_122.jpg
7af72e936cf598702a476f38142d6f5d
7c7ab05d9cf1f654065c7a6e8040458243a0e48f
1000259 F20101114_AABWUB dolan_s_Page_026.jp2
41698e4aa98d13bbd033600323e7e92c
c3d3a198e3044989e00c6ed9be5b7c7fcc3b6074
754567 F20101114_AABWTM dolan_s_Page_011.jp2
ddd0c3cfcdabd746ce041906ee73e92e
d4105d8adb3fef487427fbc0fa8759139e092723
87436 F20101114_AABWSZ dolan_s_Page_123.jpg
8f64db7311ffc37f8ef27fb8105c4a82
6c5a9154ac7b543d4b4660ff744ea9352c01f3ad
512531 F20101114_AABWUC dolan_s_Page_027.jp2
bb53a45f770c14a460a0c1be15e32e6c
f71b267e121efa044e437cfa165fe2d17a74722f
104278 F20101114_AABWTN dolan_s_Page_012.jp2
360fec05003cc166e625a719fd913edc
5915b5632e08cbfc7f29b238b1ca490fd423b79e
971814 F20101114_AABWUD dolan_s_Page_028.jp2
409347e00e070bb71bc0bba1671db566
65caa3219dbe6c724fe6f69c4a78a962efe30aed
87978 F20101114_AABWTO dolan_s_Page_013.jp2
4816c0de78541bacd18c82d7db474e89
9feb2bb61ac7ad858843230e110ef1b799b3c5ac
806738 F20101114_AABWUE dolan_s_Page_029.jp2
da69e08d9316d30f9650bd46225a2211
82f39686687eff09a4b49c9dd789b64d053d6be6
115292 F20101114_AABWTP dolan_s_Page_014.jp2
82496d06401f3debfacf1edecd8a2945
b11abe4bba67e24afb5eccfc1b04aaf533060f2f
1051961 F20101114_AABWUF dolan_s_Page_030.jp2
985667d5c0e04e659ad3b43ad272896f
491dfedb4d0864689bd0930cd9de4dc48924ca7d
109553 F20101114_AABWTQ dolan_s_Page_015.jp2
e6752cbcdb9d280f9d245a0f388c6c54
69e0e6337cec872002893d25b2944936ccac984e
113630 F20101114_AABWTR dolan_s_Page_016.jp2
1a16c1e0b6a883e3f7eaf8e4f5cc7561
611adf28a089fc649bd1c4a95db79724f4824bf1
F20101114_AABXAA dolan_s_Page_064.tif
177c0936bf3b89dd6963c77bd0e6f2fb
e901a39afb23cb97c21f2825593eb347ab2f99e3
831744 F20101114_AABWUG dolan_s_Page_031.jp2
c4c8770c480c29cd69797140c965ca33
a5e96fa1af8269c996f556d3f878c86f2a01b1b7
118763 F20101114_AABWTS dolan_s_Page_017.jp2
2e5df17b187e6f915340777c1cefec7b
be934c5780ed9535e5f28350bef1cc8222f70ebb
F20101114_AABXAB dolan_s_Page_065.tif
bb66af9409cc2e9984ecf2e0214a9406
92655a97042ac02d564fbe82d3d2cd746116f8cd
110973 F20101114_AABWUH dolan_s_Page_032.jp2
e064f25c74b61f753637691f07ccd73b
8970e6bf900a704e45dab62cc2b03c4d0a879811
117582 F20101114_AABWTT dolan_s_Page_018.jp2
6ed1c53c0b2b8bb1241857bbfb05331e
20b5f6683820477b72a937a6127fddd42b4cc913
F20101114_AABXAC dolan_s_Page_066.tif
ce70d2e7e9272b83cc8ee03faa0abd9d
926d6519d84c24ad0184b5ab3c5dd293eab5414c
113719 F20101114_AABWUI dolan_s_Page_033.jp2
8a7e7b9d6096b62510c6fca4a3d39197
3aca3724115053858df63fb4754c02a00b08b539
119184 F20101114_AABWTU dolan_s_Page_019.jp2
db96f76cdaaae9be6b54d868f29006f7
2cf1c5955aba9eeee3265b7311503e434a29ecbe
F20101114_AABXAD dolan_s_Page_067.tif
56e1d48707658f77c7517cc968dba6e6
2cec17ea04900efcb90658489cad117c27634ea2
117545 F20101114_AABWUJ dolan_s_Page_034.jp2
293b2e3ce6e8ba1655cb0126a196df04
b0509a9071afaeebe8cfad2641d6c9040816acc3
119318 F20101114_AABWTV dolan_s_Page_020.jp2
f7520378e99801cb788d8c0a231294ce
75a6af063ed1ac9efff1dd32ec0194b4f37fa659
F20101114_AABXAE dolan_s_Page_068.tif
824f5d12efb6bee06ad43eba98bb8d92
13653b2d15457cac842a02057f224d5330c5283a
121087 F20101114_AABWUK dolan_s_Page_035.jp2
c3b4a76d0c3d08b93e0186abc8d1e290
69461751309026ad2c29324ac9403ef0818181a3
113915 F20101114_AABWTW dolan_s_Page_021.jp2
20ff77c2c10783dfa5252acc9e7389ad
65e38f00171487cfe315b0beae4147bc918843bc
F20101114_AABXAF dolan_s_Page_069.tif
6ea93f8bd0a32d53aeba9baedba68095
ce3fd3043879225b91b7cec4410acb852dd2c076
107134 F20101114_AABWVA dolan_s_Page_052.jp2
4981655c6662255a4349551df226fa12
feff3ec0af220844967bc1f64d5c72e413a08922
116038 F20101114_AABWUL dolan_s_Page_036.jp2
6c118fa4ce4378ccba1cde168a3a470e
b527a04783bfc24099b52042b90df5f4a7cb1210
120569 F20101114_AABWTX dolan_s_Page_022.jp2
39220553a0787d7219f868de76c1a2f1
3f654c55df8ba7f7590252b88d2f32abbd50f0ff
F20101114_AABXAG dolan_s_Page_070.tif
a72786df0f83857cf378fe4754bc5f81
62e27772a58c0b592e8f7cb452c34ecad5e13922
117228 F20101114_AABWVB dolan_s_Page_053.jp2
a68a63aa9f76963bc4413a568eb02817
8d0fe078ca042ae374072473f06018adfc49edf4
119604 F20101114_AABWUM dolan_s_Page_037.jp2
c82a6c8e615def91e5ca0047d23e89aa
4469dc9d8c90f9ce6c72990225493d990177d8df
118817 F20101114_AABWTY dolan_s_Page_023.jp2
0715f045b371bef2413c825fe8a66815
19cc54b0a567cd5e1a0a3dbeaf6e5b1a084e6819
F20101114_AABXAH dolan_s_Page_071.tif
93b29c9c750e9e17082414e2c64dedc3
42f514c09142285e54be4df18a03dc979788c6fa
121007 F20101114_AABWVC dolan_s_Page_054.jp2
4a2bc1feb76ae249a1ec5a580e32c58a
7ae32aba3b2a8493e1cd819ccc0537499b2816b1
113733 F20101114_AABWUN dolan_s_Page_038.jp2
58a61089a2373940d3edfb8b9c9030a5
2245af05014bc49d5aac75875964455f2bdb117d
120636 F20101114_AABWTZ dolan_s_Page_024.jp2
7e6cdea3f835ac04c4e8e238a3cfe5e2
6f2af0c90471ca3b985d73297c4dbe67fa7ebf8e
F20101114_AABXAI dolan_s_Page_072.tif
a812c9bbb71559faaa4e257db7ae4cc8
f29ca57480a3ee9a52f5a1cb3d713dc31a21971a
117847 F20101114_AABWVD dolan_s_Page_055.jp2
0691dcaae8e048042e3d12725c772986
5b4a72826a3b5631e7d2b91e9d11b20b6396b84d
120008 F20101114_AABWUO dolan_s_Page_039.jp2
f5f7dd6900fdac523eda3572f1e0a2eb
8c0ae4049fb472d15429814e070b05fa8cb88330
F20101114_AABXAJ dolan_s_Page_073.tif
56f931bd0313102001962773faedd0f8
c31a41f15f20e5941e4653163e7b30201f5f94aa
121532 F20101114_AABWVE dolan_s_Page_056.jp2
557be9a2817b2984536df59798ea4c80
47036f41d8736b332aa6439dbfef27e35efcc8ec
115716 F20101114_AABWUP dolan_s_Page_040.jp2
7b5b2addf4da995ef8ce48a6416f88ea
c36426684453f03d350674e8441bce2860f6ba59
F20101114_AABXAK dolan_s_Page_074.tif
c81de1da909f15c35ae85b6bb41c8733
e8cd94dc1c6654f0ac3b32d17782ef83f51ae86b
111015 F20101114_AABWVF dolan_s_Page_057.jp2
438874221bc8f8512936d33be362e2cb
f358f1ca217417bf5feb2b2d21dba61b14216a79
119879 F20101114_AABWUQ dolan_s_Page_042.jp2
9172994d9a719c4ffdb636aac7d9a08f
488a4a72b2fdbafe718326dfb33708dd6f6ba7f1
F20101114_AABXAL dolan_s_Page_075.tif
a7b535c2af23ab5bcecb694cdeff9524
007a1a4104bbce56fd35b641a0b95efb94274665
112749 F20101114_AABWVG dolan_s_Page_058.jp2
d69823b113467970f0a10c96da997e6f
d20a51e7c00b46c9c08a04742f76ef28e99fb48b
122385 F20101114_AABWUR dolan_s_Page_043.jp2
f178f520b16a38fc1fb54153b96a184a
6f051d63f35862c0e8a31dacad3b0df9a13c9a74
F20101114_AABXBA dolan_s_Page_092.tif
51a5712d59235664768ee72dbf23cf23
3aeb5521878de9e30c0552bb382f916c7c0823a4
F20101114_AABXAM dolan_s_Page_076.tif
82bd27fbccba023d10c58c95b16cccad
69a5d656852d5497b9f98aa5eecdcd5b6d84c86d
118290 F20101114_AABWUS dolan_s_Page_044.jp2
2ee7c71cd3fd7945334147d387a09eac
bf47c78414af03d0374236736777d3cc84f3153f
F20101114_AABXBB dolan_s_Page_093.tif
0741428e3d285d5cfa7c44a49972259f
42033212b335ae03781d797d6fa347ea925e6215
F20101114_AABXAN dolan_s_Page_077.tif
2b81c3d95116e72ed151f65515e2cba3
8a37e67e50707b2e79e14212f2748db338a728db
117954 F20101114_AABWUT dolan_s_Page_045.jp2
168a868f5c3450cf4abafb44c88566ff
b39afc42d5d2f4ffd4d5868ae3a68d72e5838fb9
F20101114_AABXBC dolan_s_Page_094.tif
197f5ef6c590618fe62bd828500bbe38
8edc4efcd66e18434f69ce74884ca8f6b66749bc
F20101114_AABXAO dolan_s_Page_078.tif
a7cc106f02d07700509fca7e531b0a74
ca360a404872b9d2e3c2962b84e7193906a8f8b5
115981 F20101114_AABWVH dolan_s_Page_059.jp2
05e4615b8742e97ffa816e05b08efa89
b52b73d34b627713bc2f585dab24eb5436b61aab
118981 F20101114_AABWUU dolan_s_Page_046.jp2
2733cbeced2870e7fec15a9e1fbf6d01
9900929e66a6264997490b08818036eb2d8bba72
F20101114_AABXBD dolan_s_Page_095.tif
149da747fdaef7f77ca281aa24a5037c
fad5744185aeb2fabca11c2d1dad9901c0c5f561
F20101114_AABXAP dolan_s_Page_079.tif
23fb07ace526cdca3467a814396ae503
ee297c298003522aa62347b5352d7c3b5ff7d7a8
120109 F20101114_AABWVI dolan_s_Page_060.jp2
5618ac4b96ca0281f1c33dbae3079df4
54fe417fef257e181ce6f6732335a1cadc442b7d
75683 F20101114_AABWUV dolan_s_Page_047.jp2
25c67ebe75354b08ad1f2658ae74654a
f279e721c1de9a0e1b05cf0350c5858bc3bacbf8
F20101114_AABXBE dolan_s_Page_096.tif
b251bbcf413b5b200731a49f7c77ec81
9d1e281d85236d7b47e16d557aa2d6b4e16e6fc7
25271604 F20101114_AABXAQ dolan_s_Page_081.tif
9699cc8acf63100dd42af5121ef11f09
693adcf257b62bf721c8f45f465a5aaf7ef14819
113017 F20101114_AABWVJ dolan_s_Page_061.jp2
523332873a5fc5aea6e275af7cd10abe
01fd0d4b94e4fbd609d2fa2640544dc53ec1b2db
72095 F20101114_AABWUW dolan_s_Page_048.jp2
bfe4cf67834ac13ba62ab169a856b452
4ad144e80318b2bc8b70267d68113d14d245be0a
F20101114_AABXBF dolan_s_Page_097.tif
a86c458d98eb8e8212424f7fc8b6ae67
f9e6f7538f87124bb479d5ebb1827f9c4ced62a6
115066 F20101114_AABWVK dolan_s_Page_062.jp2
5360d33795deb8c1714ad3ba42749863
63092434c704d7e9cab1557615055ad516fcf76f
75985 F20101114_AABWUX dolan_s_Page_049.jp2
1f5a93e0de26933fe793628b54ad6915
41058d43f1cd70ae05b5d3878bfe75cb0ccabe18
F20101114_AABXBG dolan_s_Page_098.tif
94c573854d85f2208bd91146a27a203b
e8a327282040635def12c758d7a9be23b91a7d67
52835 F20101114_AABWWA dolan_s_Page_079.jp2
3848c795f91d8bd0f3750ad17fbcb4f7
a28923dd8091edcea939b6a60106b3083d6710e6
F20101114_AABXAR dolan_s_Page_082.tif
00517160d9ef4f99656a3b630d863af5
6c9d464afa31798184490baab489c409c8c00365
112606 F20101114_AABWVL dolan_s_Page_063.jp2
5c3699cc3cdcdc7f58379de489abdfd4
cf5c16fd4b65ea13d8b92564032f92659f8cae5f
697108 F20101114_AABWUY dolan_s_Page_050.jp2
c50e88bb0d0e9c47aeebf69397c4230d
0cefde5bce3b4680fb68f235c9d5e7cbdcb778ea
F20101114_AABXBH dolan_s_Page_099.tif
b0ffa9f861b81fee98f99128ab213954
85123d42670b38d5179b82d5e59993117ee24b6f
53668 F20101114_AABWWB dolan_s_Page_080.jp2
08e51471495305e26b56e491a357ee94
3619d0df1b4db2ce4a0f2f5982c5e123c6791417
F20101114_AABXAS dolan_s_Page_083.tif
5905c7fa4373e3d9f0bfe287e375a208
4cfdab7f7b333cf382f13a32e72d71f4b1d2c3a8
113281 F20101114_AABWVM dolan_s_Page_064.jp2
e64908676b9761ff0238e2b5eb20f0b0
c9402f09f27c3a56b9a52de3086bad84f7e13002
812275 F20101114_AABWUZ dolan_s_Page_051.jp2
a50eafccf5f55a30b77f2b8798243e3c
7b0010a585e91bbb73771138161437e2dc0a9de2
F20101114_AABXBI dolan_s_Page_100.tif
11b2b3772341ef1d1a6e797a91592575
a267daae2e98bd059c7116ab82d59b93b9544f33
902208 F20101114_AABWWC dolan_s_Page_081.jp2
c613472bcb3c68e5dbd02576ecf23922
f0f617af33d23fc933497e5335e1bd6dd1cb2002
F20101114_AABXAT dolan_s_Page_084.tif
9b341aec3aab46a0ebc39bcf261c924d
bfd777dcc6d30e6bd48e30faf869f8443fffae51
118057 F20101114_AABWVN dolan_s_Page_065.jp2
ebdb699146fc7402e4cf972191985887
9e19736f85ee075e36aadf4ab99aac142ddcd899
F20101114_AABXBJ dolan_s_Page_101.tif
ca2fb9011cdbff5f5ebb8e6c7a35169b
1645f5b2eaba651cbaf85c717fe7be78c905b61c
568075 F20101114_AABWWD dolan_s_Page_082.jp2
d7c7d75fb8679c930b25dc5dcd8feed8
1f17cc34fc626a2e6ba516a0f04aed53a0c0f873
F20101114_AABXAU dolan_s_Page_085.tif
d5d3d5fb8eeaff61868e3930251839c0
487ced1bf89a456a90afb4d4a9a03c33166f3782
106795 F20101114_AABWVO dolan_s_Page_066.jp2
5b9ab18625de0e71953ddd64da9cce5e
9c8b34892ba0a8645ef1572a9d2e3af78792b0e7
F20101114_AABXBK dolan_s_Page_103.tif
bb298c30e2eb9fb068b7b818eb44e5a2
54a3280d84f6e0a01e6d2ad1e02ff8e55972d940
589835 F20101114_AABWWE dolan_s_Page_083.jp2
a514fedfa8332dd50c38d6ea2d5d2910
655615710ad6649bcf6aeda1ea5b345fbccc7f89
F20101114_AABXAV dolan_s_Page_086.tif
72eb4055e3224bd4bd3433e36405dd17
9d14696b0e40d9be28227f1dc519950af02edc9f
110475 F20101114_AABWVP dolan_s_Page_067.jp2
cf92c3f4f45219704cc3d91207aa6f04
6c837e529c9cb4f8a44c6e48c62abff4fe824263
F20101114_AABXBL dolan_s_Page_104.tif
72ca325ed2d88afc5e1769da8d27f744
741946c8ca8b71917ec84c6bce357a4e1458e362
1020116 F20101114_AABWWF dolan_s_Page_084.jp2
2db7856d5cfa396181e63964b613a3b8
3f8c468ea7385da6f776c24b9ab6e5184d090095
F20101114_AABXAW dolan_s_Page_087.tif
a17fe57d5c8a837931b0f381a9921951
f5aee08efa0f8a1b5bab39f96d66878cf82d5753
96259 F20101114_AABWVQ dolan_s_Page_068.jp2
82e71a659be52a173c51db21a3a4bb7d
7ea5556dc29bbd6a1e69bcebf13446840788677a
F20101114_AABXCA dolan_s_Page_121.tif
dfd081f8ee90266e60da2420440bb43f
26a6389d6368684d3f36efd7f6b684e18fca6c14
F20101114_AABXBM dolan_s_Page_105.tif
fdb1c56556d8c93aa51cd610ceb9ca07
83b571d7ba4e6d70ec468dbd2180a92f42a9094e
566950 F20101114_AABWWG dolan_s_Page_085.jp2
40805edc4bb98a10a4ba48d2cfa45173
b6fc99b5580b6249cefb5e7d55333db2c173a473
F20101114_AABXAX dolan_s_Page_088.tif
b62b90ce69edbad10f3b20e9ca1c3a3c
6f5e157177d31d53c16fb3e2ecbe2712be0b8ef1
106140 F20101114_AABWVR dolan_s_Page_069.jp2
a134716f24bf3ad3862ff6676f8e5763
e2a15c47f1db368258752cbae944bdf7285df9a7
F20101114_AABXCB dolan_s_Page_122.tif
0ec2bc00adbad9decf0fe44b605c3901
ad7e29646fa550e62dff683f2151a71b8d983346
F20101114_AABXBN dolan_s_Page_106.tif
53f825afca38eb9ce9da411a8cdec4b0
bb2f6cd39d21717b831b68bfc25c646e9f16f5d5
534278 F20101114_AABWWH dolan_s_Page_086.jp2
737732448a8c48003d0675ce6914b6cc
af184ab942600bdece73957fe911307b3b6d7d7b
F20101114_AABXAY dolan_s_Page_089.tif
2bb0c13254794015751c07a3a5cbd4da
15b95f5575b77ef036bedc7b6f2660c70432946c
119287 F20101114_AABWVS dolan_s_Page_070.jp2
9f9f74379b0f5462f4f3b4aeb1af6fd3
5ccd2661face7f051ca17f61baa763efc84174a9
F20101114_AABXCC dolan_s_Page_123.tif
9f42454331b52c2a38b3e450a79945c7
1bb17a86802cf14b183a98b6530e58f6d1797e69
F20101114_AABXBO dolan_s_Page_107.tif
bf52d5f88b8da7e6c1f0d19f1ce40947
52ea1a22ee029bfeefcd9fe2163b7b37f6b67818
F20101114_AABXAZ dolan_s_Page_091.tif
428ca4cd9b3b0e0e19e0522cc6b263d8
6189d1c56ef8dd6449366d9822bc86ef4aa8cfa3
117911 F20101114_AABWVT dolan_s_Page_071.jp2
e5e46dfe57881fe3ae7f1c83dd285748
171383f38106ada904f70f42c08bcf32381230da
F20101114_AABXCD dolan_s_Page_124.tif
ad93aa572fecfad166fbdbbc9f5592de
bb36810e69f6d6b106aa8fe3a6bbdf43f00aa8d8
F20101114_AABXBP dolan_s_Page_109.tif
df15f6099f438ef6be9ef053d25e3e3c
dde4d2bf6e396087e3fde185e7bbd8d2efad3120
105591 F20101114_AABWWI dolan_s_Page_087.jp2
63c04a0aa99dc43cf7892bab8fad601d
911b7df7c98fb2c135bbdedff1933bd30a240324
118174 F20101114_AABWVU dolan_s_Page_072.jp2
4eadc3ebaf7152ae3165bb555a4c4074
cf2a6d19b6683bb9eadb5f5a8b04d0ef133320cd
F20101114_AABXCE dolan_s_Page_125.tif
077bbf718dd68d2240b168e874f719d6
367ca14ca313f94e590f33221162c69309393e51
F20101114_AABXBQ dolan_s_Page_110.tif
e9d5571d919da390413a24424cc8e536
95398459205deadf4acd5e250a41abea7f4616de
116594 F20101114_AABWWJ dolan_s_Page_088.jp2
53f0b5f6a5362e433abaf852087d2201
206f9615748ec76af41b1aee3e3c37395e10a848
115063 F20101114_AABWVV dolan_s_Page_073.jp2
e3133fea52ac5905803018d2c35a1bc6
16e416722eefce5741643d8a8a9193584591e665
F20101114_AABXBR dolan_s_Page_111.tif
ac62840794c77d9d8fd8693e48b386cd
691ded662b3505ed618d5d05a6c024886450cf0c
120787 F20101114_AABWWK dolan_s_Page_089.jp2
2fb2623f9c2c717dc265fbc7a7f25604
73042efefb16bec83b0498935ccc5be29c40ec51
116751 F20101114_AABWVW dolan_s_Page_074.jp2
b57782595e2d6a1ff3fe8decbc289e28
268878683b8f11e11cba420ff907b8a4bef21cea
8416 F20101114_AABXCF dolan_s_Page_001.pro
13bfec0bce678fcbc9b6801a5ecfd7b2
037f145041a43063b4b8352d55419fe397bb3941
118942 F20101114_AABWXA dolan_s_Page_108.jp2
5abedf95a09ef98b0b3d534f12581a22
854b6e7761f48bab917d9f90494672695ffa09bb
115705 F20101114_AABWWL dolan_s_Page_090.jp2
5e37248cb0069e37c4e9a5211c30609c
2ab4bc31bcdfbde82980ea13a30451d17f0a1fb2
117205 F20101114_AABWVX dolan_s_Page_076.jp2
86dc650a902485ecae20629bcf29dc2b
c97c88c3c7426650613df015d059ff56fc153ba5
829 F20101114_AABXCG dolan_s_Page_002.pro
01e4d6f6b288e9528f467f5647908367
9242c0f62f3d54410822e0c375a178c30466e575
23478 F20101114_AABWXB dolan_s_Page_109.jp2
4540e033a410a0a5862de5f120259ba3
75250059df6f65ff77bceaa89c82435d2b71e00d
F20101114_AABXBS dolan_s_Page_112.tif
521f276982f4adc2035c4f7ef3a5ed19
47ac86d99716227da0d03f4f561b9a12907ba2ef
89322 F20101114_AABWWM dolan_s_Page_091.jp2
deeaa7de5c52ee9a3a68dc21a11b5a56
0894e5624d73412b8e33182fa34a9d557e599048
67535 F20101114_AABWVY dolan_s_Page_077.jp2
3f435bc9812644d67d1a7b33e00f7936
c6dad8e5f615919541498019f09c6150d26d942f
1843 F20101114_AABXCH dolan_s_Page_003.pro
13c32b94853ffb45737181ec9eb49cad
54c8d9759819b393c498b5faff9535fa04e8c0b7
90383 F20101114_AABWXC dolan_s_Page_110.jp2
5948c61a97d1070c18476fa529b97939
b45199c7829f0078bcc4c4274ddff170117e7f82
F20101114_AABXBT dolan_s_Page_113.tif
72dd42cbe8c21082268244b8cdc39469
f90b59d6861f77ad10705f2b96c7178a4db4a887
76110 F20101114_AABWWN dolan_s_Page_092.jp2
412819eab2cd2ce40513594078fea943
f3413e5b56fda26ca260295e838e90930e2d9420
48921 F20101114_AABWVZ dolan_s_Page_078.jp2
8b76902661db3613d48625d751ae9469
53ff6b02f1fe98014d663ff0f8ecf3677a9b8238
14073 F20101114_AABXCI dolan_s_Page_004.pro
1d4a77d9f684b62828cfa2758d4e777d
725f3786ab1724c55a735908ec212ae391f7a0c4
45143 F20101114_AABWXD dolan_s_Page_111.jp2
2f02b8ba7288e913642e27ea92704a75
787c944b1ffa451f1bce2aa5f7a7e5f1d6b71017
F20101114_AABXBU dolan_s_Page_114.tif
f3cb97bc53e767dca8dc07351d2ac865
9a71a49b6dbbde38b71325d37ae935eee512cef4
86476 F20101114_AABWWO dolan_s_Page_095.jp2
1b258f559da7d8be2aa1e33934ac4f60
0da296386787419a8f91048aef4225f87f4d9b74
75643 F20101114_AABXCJ dolan_s_Page_005.pro
b2996557ef7e2f19cd7718b6185c830c
53b35489695048a15a9d407d9716cf2000774abd
60265 F20101114_AABWXE dolan_s_Page_112.jp2
0117e460c3a2c914d1b43427b40f69b1
06a3be9c711fec3b3763f1e0a144bc3644dbf6d7
F20101114_AABXBV dolan_s_Page_116.tif
ce665578352be3349822c7e8e0fb998f
97fe1f1cce659d4c7915b08f3def2a3b2ce74ef0
73988 F20101114_AABWWP dolan_s_Page_096.jp2
539af0827afd8b825e224c1b35ca257f
33ebfb772ba6e630186645f47710bcf4e4132b83
87255 F20101114_AABXCK dolan_s_Page_006.pro
305213bfd287f5994c796a7df98f5660
2c8ffdd4f871b7d2281d4f32f3857c16a1b8cdbc
67333 F20101114_AABWXF dolan_s_Page_113.jp2
4fdc7ee5dd3d21d7d5303220410ceca7
62e9d3e9576bc3c85543921c610874425f3228bd
F20101114_AABXBW dolan_s_Page_117.tif
700f5013036492ea1dcafd9e6f975b82
02d7c3d2db8a591d181f4b96fc538b146b1cb705
1051958 F20101114_AABWWQ dolan_s_Page_097.jp2
24cc333dfb007d7507881c2dab77ca5f
55382ac0ab0502622b2757523b0144bcd67f5509
20967 F20101114_AABXCL dolan_s_Page_007.pro
e73516802fd35483003b6aeec11e8a7f
ddfaaea46df8edf6b845856bc26a79f97fb87910
108329 F20101114_AABWXG dolan_s_Page_114.jp2
860fa1897be2d5118ca895941116ceab
219b2aece16c104c4cd3043fd99d0669353fb4e6
F20101114_AABXBX dolan_s_Page_118.tif
d23e453ecc994aa2ac2b9243c8a247b9
ce85d6833703ef40f6001069d7d529b7bfcea145
1051972 F20101114_AABWWR dolan_s_Page_098.jp2
a6caa22116bb239a2811a485d7cf5da8
dbafdcbbe574d2e325a3fc70d4af72fe7432970a
55550 F20101114_AABXDA dolan_s_Page_022.pro
fe27d4ce36b327a1679ce9f793726463
b187868314dcdc1b4aafa3adb9a2c2c1a843f8c6
62720 F20101114_AABXCM dolan_s_Page_008.pro
9bd67b00a5601b4dcc95b470a6dac790
2e13b2a0646b0c52f934cc8e5d5fe230a0ee854c
77165 F20101114_AABWXH dolan_s_Page_115.jp2
8d39205671ed8572885200964d8d0333
9a13ef501e72861a66d7e4f10b30c7d98ac1d476
F20101114_AABXBY dolan_s_Page_119.tif
c37f8dcdf24d91b0ae46231f16017aa0
8cf904dc7cfcd24e8e2e7d1de81ed0914d15246b
1051946 F20101114_AABWWS dolan_s_Page_099.jp2
b66b36d1c5fdf3f974c7b91d97de6626
b0cfe4d13a6c256334aa0efc9207d57cdcb9a6ca
60289 F20101114_AABXDB dolan_s_Page_024.pro
18c3798276cfed2e5879cdbafdb5ecf0
b0064f01ed1a3fb0b5faeb9f23a193a4b105fbc3
13761 F20101114_AABXCN dolan_s_Page_009.pro
8aa5da585e1878ff719f8b614ce95371
6a30cbcb4021e56bde7366eb7d17e8a0602d3abd
108613 F20101114_AABWXI dolan_s_Page_117.jp2
376d622743736bbadb2ec92a8d50d728
b7bc44014adc931d2cb34fe3d81238a0a5fadc71
F20101114_AABXBZ dolan_s_Page_120.tif
807082b1d7d0b7eeb2f9fb2ccf74f7d8
c001551af2996694b6f6f93bfa2fcea8574ce98b
452472 F20101114_AABWWT dolan_s_Page_100.jp2
5a94e0060fd9561588d71fbd32f42dc0
ac34a502369c2e2f80b40fa168518a619a70ae3f
25217 F20101114_AABXDC dolan_s_Page_025.pro
420177214845d05f0403638fa359652a
472b274662095fcce221085e21043db6ca5981a2
65232 F20101114_AABXCO dolan_s_Page_010.pro
2d16e5c5abf343e5c2b61a730cb4b3e8
7d6e6ae2678b8bfa22b9ce16bbc862e05edb8c84
110445 F20101114_AABWWU dolan_s_Page_101.jp2
3657aa294b2641be5e066d842187292b
54e91439f7e65051f23468d18fbfbd896d66bb93
25623 F20101114_AABXDD dolan_s_Page_026.pro
db7feac01b0e205846a7d681601df500
acaed6947540d24693478322dc3b8c11d6195a59
17691 F20101114_AABXCP dolan_s_Page_011.pro
a5c791c7bc423299add13813a636f869
993a5ad87c08d9094178d597a23abb1434dacb69
134550 F20101114_AABWXJ dolan_s_Page_118.jp2
805e4345ee239ee85c1386f33bad9502
7ea82fb189582a5d28669508070511ed0c4601db
108216 F20101114_AABWWV dolan_s_Page_102.jp2
ef289eb9013a0d98058f17cce84e6456
4bbdf3195c21de751c581e616a3adb68d2ae9dbc
13774 F20101114_AABXDE dolan_s_Page_027.pro
4c15b3eb53aa19b4dbcde24417b1d451
4d7e72ea4d75a7e874d260ab23feb26113d8ed4a
47637 F20101114_AABXCQ dolan_s_Page_012.pro
55abf04dbca7586c4d27a9e3bd3226fa
206cb333ba6e49ce46a60c1d67a52bfccd25118a
145070 F20101114_AABWXK dolan_s_Page_119.jp2
fb5b6a48f5990f33fa74067e5e3cc0d6
2cd9b03e456aa2b60dc229e14b57a23d65b400a0
119696 F20101114_AABWWW dolan_s_Page_103.jp2
88d41ffeae1f9e699a78cbaad7a37e8e
ffac50f4e1acffecc642753fda46d3b1ad72f844
6961 F20101114_AABXDF dolan_s_Page_028.pro
4c7faf1862d3064f97ac8c5122d23438
2442427c463e6dae7931eb853ce34c53473cc8a4
39494 F20101114_AABXCR dolan_s_Page_013.pro
3dd120c21d4036393ef1cf20c937d276
a729cedf0669b245afcac6811ef5011404635ec6
130340 F20101114_AABWXL dolan_s_Page_120.jp2
cb4a93db964c5f7aed91ee9b8288d8ca
8a62ff1e8ba00bf89b3fdffb51030ac579f281f7
91109 F20101114_AABWWX dolan_s_Page_105.jp2
a4928525352ac8e8da32016591808b33
8eccc9992d5b212c7bf8573c887b9d6c6432dd5e
7826 F20101114_AABXDG dolan_s_Page_029.pro
3db2549320994c9fe299eb0d5d67d165
48c7ef8b11a0e9bc006196fcb1b201cbfa0a6a88
F20101114_AABWYA dolan_s_Page_010.tif
a4899ba3e78dcd73dfe4a2f636a2a5ad
6bf1ebe85745ba31d6e9c7a7de617b3d7405bb16
53583 F20101114_AABXCS dolan_s_Page_014.pro
68c15be6d00e79d27735362643ea653b
86fea3e58199f2c88c6fcaedd6512fa1f17b4b63
135727 F20101114_AABWXM dolan_s_Page_121.jp2
d5fa070ecd2887e6714488eecdc961e5
4dcedb0b56cec120627316dd00519583060c95c5
91528 F20101114_AABWWY dolan_s_Page_106.jp2
7fe9a9630b33d1695b9c8cc5962124d0
57d7bf4b79d7cd2203bb6a5dae905c41c1dc8bcd
9025 F20101114_AABXDH dolan_s_Page_030.pro
4b1b530ed293daa6fa55adbfd20fd9a0
a0d97534666d3e241f948e1dfe5a946256b71e7f
F20101114_AABWYB dolan_s_Page_011.tif
6ee35bc8daa1a3938fa0407dffb5b91a
cab8b8286949197c99719c88d5939c07a8859241
138405 F20101114_AABWXN dolan_s_Page_122.jp2
0926950c2781a262c5cf98b67cfa596a
f79891b9a4d896210417a8890a553af7ec72b6fc
108866 F20101114_AABWWZ dolan_s_Page_107.jp2
8dc6a08ace0d6158c405818a75a2f804
19ffba35c5122f894350dcfa34b00598aa4751a7
20103 F20101114_AABXDI dolan_s_Page_031.pro
967697e51685ece43caeb36d72ece009
1388a20ea29e8fbb937eba4d9631ce1316fb737e
F20101114_AABWYC dolan_s_Page_012.tif
6d6d5c42da4fa8c698f90dc0ca795f62
bab374b1c80e35a0d1be1a49c1bbcd9470fb91c8
50529 F20101114_AABXCT dolan_s_Page_015.pro
eb83c3a807dd543c6f9227c6516764c9
cc8f6071dd41036cb48aa33511753f65b026de0b
135187 F20101114_AABWXO dolan_s_Page_123.jp2
bddecd976f387bad70ba8561c98e21f5
88b8123aef47fcb043cfd7305a33f3d15ecd4015
51801 F20101114_AABXDJ dolan_s_Page_032.pro
141c0c6c697df3cff0fa8b54881ab319
bf1eb1a967bbe6ff5474f02478608735d853839d
F20101114_AABWYD dolan_s_Page_014.tif
42bd047fb90dcc3116efb28de5b4345c
82ab1a4b34dd3f50a14ba518d32494f507074869
52491 F20101114_AABXCU dolan_s_Page_016.pro
37ec093db5577f2b55a1c64d1695bf00
0e0d7bbbcd8b91470cec9d1b826a9983c9e53de8
32774 F20101114_AABWXP dolan_s_Page_124.jp2
14dae412ca6604437d30339d9f74b900
a948f18e8f677b1e1769484e08c8e345a45ec8fd
52993 F20101114_AABXDK dolan_s_Page_033.pro
7f8d62c57738ac1755279e8373d4d9af
f1d6b7a7baf0399f0899ada505b47b479515555e
F20101114_AABWYE dolan_s_Page_015.tif
f35fabdd6a87d472559ff315f35cf528
eedc7bb44899ec5bce0d1e0cbd79ca662c207250
55300 F20101114_AABXCV dolan_s_Page_017.pro
aa3dc79edfbf6fb7a0d31fafa531f025
1b9387a803b9f7949addcd70cc55edaf5feba7da
40195 F20101114_AABWXQ dolan_s_Page_125.jp2
df66b2d17f92f875115627997913361c
cf0a8f60545140e5595ba0387fec9a33161c9563
54566 F20101114_AABXDL dolan_s_Page_034.pro
31ba7e11fc9ff3d408bbf6a23ceb6598
500369b7f6853308a204ec5bcb1445745de0b849
F20101114_AABWYF dolan_s_Page_016.tif
e295a73426e9cfcafec4e50774780eae
97da15f1ecb8cc884d13bae972b52e33c4e11831
53349 F20101114_AABXCW dolan_s_Page_018.pro
7aeb22a2c520aa85790edf597698e73d
9f082209f0af24d0b22e420f95c7d4c4602caa81
F20101114_AABWXR dolan_s_Page_001.tif
35aa14534658c835d3e641b313a58ad3
f4aade0beb053ac914aefd4c5f6e2f82c4f82920
25532 F20101114_AABXEA dolan_s_Page_050.pro
c75b70525a4ca4a6dcd5b24315077398
b4c979abec9e98ebbc72c99e9e87862b4e4ee069
54900 F20101114_AABXDM dolan_s_Page_035.pro
759567127dc8f7374be4797e2b2c656e
f0cbaa290e7be6020688f846fbcd9a2167362f09
F20101114_AABWYG dolan_s_Page_017.tif
d07eac54204d5c556b654c6554829545
379f681f6b72a8baf5ec9c16008665ed9ffb9ab4
55374 F20101114_AABXCX dolan_s_Page_019.pro
17ab7e379c34c2bd06b768e1cf4900a2
2a36a379f0a187deca8712d4d58fbfb270aa51c1
F20101114_AABWXS dolan_s_Page_002.tif
d7b20b501f7fed25a928780ad09ffcf3
10d4c99c52917a7f76190cdd2c0dd9f64134d0b5
19575 F20101114_AABXEB dolan_s_Page_051.pro
9bf0304103018d96f09a0b18247a7d31
0dd92071cf5edcc1347bc45d71d4e51bd15e0084
52062 F20101114_AABXDN dolan_s_Page_036.pro
9d5b4829e056a2abff628c06d017d866
c18c706e0fb2bea1cd36928de47706bec8f35fac
F20101114_AABWYH dolan_s_Page_018.tif
d775ce7a9f959f0db55056a2d63561b2
5635e607baf41767c76113f73da224c8759775f3
55473 F20101114_AABXCY dolan_s_Page_020.pro
53cbfeeccaf40d74bd19031ef724bf27
a086f25067ab0d35fc2cbd7044092619ced9cdc7
F20101114_AABWXT dolan_s_Page_003.tif
45a8b3d2c45af8d45ea495de141d6229
ebbf8a90f45118e093fef09606ed7f4518a4ae6d
48809 F20101114_AABXEC dolan_s_Page_052.pro
685d9332650371491a90b042598bb387
d7a998fd9b9a825fea0b94b4eb171a6bdb6db6ce
54968 F20101114_AABXDO dolan_s_Page_037.pro
2437380fbe793b2449070efe656be84d
5f3a78e1b58a8e7e46fa37b1e97b15f7059ccb3f
F20101114_AABWYI dolan_s_Page_019.tif
8879519438adbd9b6ec29e6ee93ef4db
69fd77a0b0574aad91941bad102f596aeb346ee1
53102 F20101114_AABXCZ dolan_s_Page_021.pro
47639336a21598e7a8165807bfa49902
7aba85384aeebc9600fa1a81f334725a270a7c90
F20101114_AABWXU dolan_s_Page_004.tif
c1a8f2f0c8fe4c94f0e7c281683b665d
08965e41f8bac357bfa7efa8d9b4b99a5f030068
54364 F20101114_AABXED dolan_s_Page_053.pro
a03761af2d2d83b3465d549888e69136
e8f71e5102245b27e6f09824443bd51cd849da42
50567 F20101114_AABXDP dolan_s_Page_038.pro
cec90786c2af34655a10e2ed23d7b046
8b72dd3e226ff8fea5a6aecc5cb8064665c3f3a8
F20101114_AABWYJ dolan_s_Page_020.tif
795f7d00ae2c28e03539414e580ac838
95092258e61182c8d4442db86d77d233b43c9a29
F20101114_AABWXV dolan_s_Page_005.tif
8a0b686c41611147646c2e35d74df3ca
0da723d179167141a7de5744434c41bed557f995
56561 F20101114_AABXEE dolan_s_Page_054.pro
8e073c346a3f52d6be35ee5fb06bd6b7
49526890dbcd853e423446b770be843f69967cc5
54951 F20101114_AABXDQ dolan_s_Page_039.pro
ea86c901221884079afa2d50fee0eca9
ff3540c60505c1a92bdd5037fa4d435d233f3208
F20101114_AABWXW dolan_s_Page_006.tif
1bf5297b62019d02e7f6b98a0ceece7f
429e9b1c0f738e7a49696606d0f73916649b9696
54828 F20101114_AABXEF dolan_s_Page_055.pro
9cedd23ea67300b47c432e5137876dbe
4c5faba44e9d010ebd96aa06413bab3ff59a5a55
53547 F20101114_AABXDR dolan_s_Page_040.pro
68d2e7816cca8db53e4e5a0e077b2e13
f51f8d7afe89786d195e129f25727a168924830f
F20101114_AABWYK dolan_s_Page_021.tif
f488dc2c30f70209f0a0aea3b4e3507b
5ab994387b33324e2d13ecd6250f3e7def2749d8
F20101114_AABWXX dolan_s_Page_007.tif
cb0ea5c37d55be7574273df199199f95
bb3cf0db636db0ee44a3ef0942c365e1bf903042
57138 F20101114_AABXEG dolan_s_Page_056.pro
5776c8e6d69ebe2216b1adafd28a614d
d890a784961eb878c430f3b19480ff29baf3e933
F20101114_AABWZA dolan_s_Page_037.tif
e4443f233e3cc2d1de193b450118ec36
1dd6ab12d171fbd9d75e91a91e98311ae3943e72
56603 F20101114_AABXDS dolan_s_Page_041.pro
b2133e99a43ade74adccd2a812c06af4
c228bdc4d1f855ee03ac360f9ddd2e48d17b6703
F20101114_AABWYL dolan_s_Page_022.tif
9723eefc07eece92be86c349b2a70408
8a1ea54fc4c33733792a77f550c76663161d911d
F20101114_AABWXY dolan_s_Page_008.tif
58ec9230c7dad58f2e796d0ee14128e5
873aa7072e1b0c0002a9c8f801cac91e3a2e59d8
50918 F20101114_AABXEH dolan_s_Page_057.pro
305440d4d8ba77df7dca2c693106c053
30e777be6e8eef026765c2cca1d00e6797af297d
F20101114_AABWZB dolan_s_Page_038.tif
f74b7e9de062c90c8257f0aff698d7ca
b816ef64a0292d940045d45b572f94e08c6bc69b
55943 F20101114_AABXDT dolan_s_Page_042.pro
2e7a84fc3fe8c955334724bd682c20a2
419167690fa9f6633d326043b35a1d1df6f34054
F20101114_AABWYM dolan_s_Page_023.tif
c08bce8c605c552172f3d8cd792a78d7
7b898ac70c72e6638bd33b0781fbb5fb38cebbff
F20101114_AABWXZ dolan_s_Page_009.tif
62658dd98ced19e47ea7060c737d0d21
4718e3a646edfebb54198a30d066fbb40c5c9a30
52093 F20101114_AABXEI dolan_s_Page_058.pro
cd78c845ce1a4ca8c39ee0befb977e80
fdc6bf930835f0574d8b595d1b6f7d4e596fe264
F20101114_AABWZC dolan_s_Page_039.tif
59cc19080101b7771f5a040cd50f04bb
3982ccea9e280ada5a3d04389647454b5f588216
F20101114_AABWYN dolan_s_Page_024.tif
c81d71c9fd56dd1f6780dfabb5aec5ef
a43596784dca94d4047b240e5a558bb0adf7502c
54077 F20101114_AABXEJ dolan_s_Page_059.pro
2b1326d8d56b79677c07ae7f34215c72
e0892a88d463bf5c8ebe6c3350061c866c97a25d
F20101114_AABWZD dolan_s_Page_040.tif
a25cd91f22308ad449dbdb9df110224a
38971848eabaae30042267a75bfda27b818badf4
55569 F20101114_AABXDU dolan_s_Page_044.pro
e0122c382c5c4cc8fe0fe447b4d62302
05cb1482b5e2d7e1e48512480523251c09f11b5b
8423998 F20101114_AABWYO dolan_s_Page_025.tif
3ec71afc5201c519e919807eb0abaf2f
8a3928e57ce2fe533d912ee261e857f9d1482de8
55833 F20101114_AABXEK dolan_s_Page_060.pro
118a0453c929fe68b6fd1cf303975c8f
39e1e3957a96cb131fbd3b64219ee19e5f7e0bec
F20101114_AABWZE dolan_s_Page_041.tif
8a2fac212fa1d8326b65f0c073503761
45b815604222e4532dc842d84131eb7932d5a3c1
54843 F20101114_AABXDV dolan_s_Page_045.pro
452a6115cb127eb8fbc5ef3922f74d1b
bdabc123b7a3f8d2076d6c8fac8b8f629daf0e76
F20101114_AABWYP dolan_s_Page_026.tif
5dfdf3f93a34d9c5dbe355601037194b
d50613068d413159f1c5c2f9dc4aa663fd2f622b
52323 F20101114_AABXEL dolan_s_Page_061.pro
e63a85ca318b4bc865f2d3f84de03bc3
dbc48e2058b5f23b7d77c4a89326d086ef96729b
F20101114_AABWZF dolan_s_Page_042.tif
f82a77f41648ed28456d6faa1b043a8d
481a3d1e81505cfaf4a8d4c869a2fe771cabf24f
55135 F20101114_AABXDW dolan_s_Page_046.pro
a6f18883d9873bc9911b305d05bbcd18
8c203146e66e4d690897a1665091373e8d3d3005
F20101114_AABWYQ dolan_s_Page_027.tif
3604f86880caacd5b485d12e2b0286c5
93e5ba825408cb49772a5004c79479a87dbf2ed9
52793 F20101114_AABXEM dolan_s_Page_062.pro
4f8b0e194e658477f3daa0b5d7b1dee4
8bbec209142b9a732d760e53399c7dba750c004b
F20101114_AABWZG dolan_s_Page_043.tif
f81c6a5dabe72b9a56189840c3d961e9
53c954a1478e4b8e5a9153def740a51a082f2d36
33558 F20101114_AABXDX dolan_s_Page_047.pro
10836cbf93064addb025040ba32f82a9
e7b815a90a725a3700f0f0ce7fa8eb9c06c8b75f
F20101114_AABWYR dolan_s_Page_028.tif
2328664d186043ea99bac9123129c53f
328449c0f19b277630a37adaaf0a553c9785eae3
54274 F20101114_AABXFA dolan_s_Page_076.pro
144d385fbd0ab68f2cd0959d3266bd03
76036c13257adafcd8e5f764837a7d6c975da11a
51684 F20101114_AABXEN dolan_s_Page_063.pro
07c6bd1989f0406dd460df6926d348a8
667432179bddbebede855989e3d59600af71bc94
F20101114_AABWZH dolan_s_Page_044.tif
441be2e8647a6a0f6ef7fe06272e5b81
aaf08a9e0622380d9c28704400aee3a3ca3bb846
36205 F20101114_AABXDY dolan_s_Page_048.pro
04e0028dbd090c4c321881b231d2ba09
6f2248148d4aef223b05ae50d994bf9466344a9f
F20101114_AABWYS dolan_s_Page_029.tif
cdc05b2f28505689cc302970699023bc
fb5053a5d72d1aeac71040aca24665d0bc37ad2e
30179 F20101114_AABXFB dolan_s_Page_077.pro
c46f7fa5923a14c4186f860193d65c3c
2a3cd54b854fcf32c5b59623f01c5a7b007848be
52164 F20101114_AABXEO dolan_s_Page_064.pro
3f4804558d392caedada5bbb9c1f35a9
0a4f046c4d664e6e634f66c727aacdab289b5bf3
F20101114_AABWZI dolan_s_Page_045.tif
d7ef6a2c5c17b48742f7965d6ac87c80
a0d7eed4cdbf901b6a9d72e5dd327ad61f5a2ed5
33306 F20101114_AABXDZ dolan_s_Page_049.pro
9309656a83e8462d1de5d4f2c48e3ff5
c35e6f4710cd5080ab8c1352937236627526385c
F20101114_AABWYT dolan_s_Page_030.tif
c05849c6b5c60471c57295f32130081f
ca63bedc7028a0908e18c36dca023f8267a9473b
20784 F20101114_AABXFC dolan_s_Page_078.pro
d9edffe95029fbc978d75fb3df991e68
e60b83c9c66e462b33c1eb8780b6424aee956103
54001 F20101114_AABXEP dolan_s_Page_065.pro
35c1f073d9c97c6052a8637ee0726b91
0c8879c54e718e6419443e6b40dece15093eafb2
F20101114_AABWZJ dolan_s_Page_046.tif
e2a81d2b94e6a0e453cfec550f2fd37a
ce20b280fccaeda0093d7ae6ba8c2e0b269c6e8e
F20101114_AABWYU dolan_s_Page_031.tif
5dc9be78042fb9b97417eebcfa7e9654
bcd49911af6cf7e79ec5f52e4f2381cd73d84107
20406 F20101114_AABXFD dolan_s_Page_079.pro
b98ed066cde05d503960483468a57c3d
e2dfbf0bd61e49caa8d768fc06d84347fce137db
48534 F20101114_AABXEQ dolan_s_Page_066.pro
e81235fdac44e06f920ad30cf06d3f08
7cb3308462bb704501baf90592735c3ea855d40b
F20101114_AABWZK dolan_s_Page_047.tif
479fc4743d7291197e6e97871e5103da
c7f9d49f868a1a4337af1be8f93888f3e3b60006
F20101114_AABWYV dolan_s_Page_032.tif
ca0095ae642e8049f249b23a12f6bcfb
0e38a8723dec60c5201e8b4363380daeb8e420d8
27404 F20101114_AABXFE dolan_s_Page_080.pro
c281cf0369b917f519e53805286eae3e
3e4985679fd350f22abb5dbb6a1352d3da74892f
51516 F20101114_AABXER dolan_s_Page_067.pro
8c3f88e3dc07191827adcb9586012ce9
f5b1732f300ed1cc3e4051aeaa6abb843316f768
F20101114_AABWYW dolan_s_Page_033.tif
116e82e114bfc64e12b9245eb8c1aada
58fa816fad6edf05e77a9f3239acbbdfb92fac32
17177 F20101114_AABXFF dolan_s_Page_081.pro
1be4782d1c90ff25744705c6eb951f93
a3ebede1d74978c419b50a77dbf996017a1888a9
42721 F20101114_AABXES dolan_s_Page_068.pro
250aeaad41b42c30bb980a6c550d0606
3f1e1e1afd53ebe18b9970df54ee1ae0a0a02614
F20101114_AABWZL dolan_s_Page_048.tif
a4783be8a844670da80fdf137374fcd4
c4684bdf901bf2de0bf30cb8fa32450ce59e1a0d
F20101114_AABWYX dolan_s_Page_034.tif
d495543d842e1f890b0642903aa5bd79
fa970dde0c7489c99d3ae82c6bdd43865a505d40
15519 F20101114_AABXFG dolan_s_Page_082.pro
d1fb28ba1ec57af97083439f5cea5ca5
83d6fd4f43f205b5d927b1e0f472335388e1f2a3
48822 F20101114_AABXET dolan_s_Page_069.pro
b287d5eb127d7d5ebae5e1058425566e
1f8345f1917398911071c299f9400905fa2f75d9
F20101114_AABWZM dolan_s_Page_049.tif
a08ad9bdee3d845b3dd7d3ad83c1ffcd
94d7acd33b63276947c8f4e5f0e7e8628b66d289
F20101114_AABWYY dolan_s_Page_035.tif
7dc305484a5b97a38f5e39f3997de3a0
21b2840ab8f8231b3f6c7842910bfdcae449f148
19885 F20101114_AABXFH dolan_s_Page_083.pro
a2bfd88ef537de8e9c27f824abdffecd
60fa6e644b804b2c60447ef46dd91a76a9afda68
55787 F20101114_AABXEU dolan_s_Page_070.pro
f64fb2c5f3fe6851528938b679d88322
42bba4d125a8983daac7f28958d15b405f3b553b
F20101114_AABWZN dolan_s_Page_050.tif
6385b21621bc3c7e6cccdd7489c0d9ae
55b73b148b85af64c8188db513be40197e79af8f
F20101114_AABWYZ dolan_s_Page_036.tif
967a343cc08c8db2504112d08b192003
b5f5494c5ee090a4c14839c5b0a788337a1366b4
13385 F20101114_AABXFI dolan_s_Page_084.pro
a992d8a1c0b15cb8f48e635b38d8fdbd
d5e0130915a27d0755c958b1dbfd2ea6d50ecc40
F20101114_AABWZO dolan_s_Page_051.tif
2aa594fb48bdeba2c379464514380c78
1763546b12348e58b5dbcdbfbbe8333e0f8014ef
6821 F20101114_AABXFJ dolan_s_Page_085.pro
75b1e9b484544b013bedde144c649cc4
1d18b87451b8b428bbf8874c2dc98d4291f9df8b
55354 F20101114_AABXEV dolan_s_Page_071.pro
2512799a38fdd37d6c13e5ed88042053
8e7c5dbd57d59dd5cbc38b3676e5c2709aded1a8
F20101114_AABWZP dolan_s_Page_052.tif
b833553bd33b7d7192f6b816d1f2e385
009718f7fa188d83ac142e49c198a9558cd6a680
1607 F20101114_AABXFK dolan_s_Page_086.pro
adde2915b809daea960948388f2632c0
4f0d785a32170413677af8dde662785b270d39e5
55326 F20101114_AABXEW dolan_s_Page_072.pro
eedb1e4080c28c2def62aa499683ca92
e78a552d20ffe3f9a54d0d9ab42cdf6eb9c323e1
F20101114_AABWZQ dolan_s_Page_053.tif
a6aed1e78001938ca63e0dd7b75fadf4
e285316bcaf0d9c3e2b40e69694fe1de68da0925
48933 F20101114_AABXFL dolan_s_Page_087.pro
a561b4ff79c35507949ed455fed829e3
257173cf81241a8f27f0103321178554dfcda259
53792 F20101114_AABXEX dolan_s_Page_073.pro
0ab861b079b6d61bfab5153483df4f99
5c91a2bffc4d7bf83e7b480c57be58e90b787c83
F20101114_AABWZR dolan_s_Page_054.tif
6e277d861a7c0ef4349f5e056c35f680
6c861c930a90e99eb50b267632ac93c072000671
50343 F20101114_AABXGA dolan_s_Page_102.pro
251a64fbf78dad45b8b5bf05b523030d
86b0c50e6d3426bf47e8f56a4ead4b2a47183775
54375 F20101114_AABXFM dolan_s_Page_088.pro
97f93700d11d90ec9fc80546d7ebff8e
93fe03bfde07e4372280da8a68f8126af347dc77
54149 F20101114_AABXEY dolan_s_Page_074.pro
155b247770496766a7b74de85594d72b
b3c8e32d58b5b45ff522ab1c8e6cc28391497c8a
F20101114_AABWZS dolan_s_Page_055.tif
11df7b642fabcc37c3206ad5d61f4bde
5e3692ad2822e0189563e6f385236b5363dbb56c
55507 F20101114_AABXGB dolan_s_Page_103.pro
249eea541cc045d104fa5b0bbbaaa805
43877e445816a312e3ee42ef2f5e9e04fa205f5b
56928 F20101114_AABXFN dolan_s_Page_089.pro
d2d725b9e54dc025fc7db34e755e9ba6
6754f692eeecc511bb350c3188ce37126fa40b3e
55218 F20101114_AABXEZ dolan_s_Page_075.pro
a6cbab4c7df16632aa9d5688d29c5bab
ab785b5b5cf30385ae31fb931fc80cb488ff60c1
F20101114_AABWZT dolan_s_Page_056.tif
1b7e2dd3cc0409a1067ef71bb4ea88ff
7a776529af05a57a3544f9925dc1e88913dc5d90
49850 F20101114_AABXGC dolan_s_Page_104.pro
4b4366d83ec75faa2702f6d35d2c8252
f258774d1e9a0ea8f0315cf2e88f5979cd11411e
53578 F20101114_AABXFO dolan_s_Page_090.pro
719a8be39cbd38de89368c49185431a7
f930d7d3456a2bf89fd52095af3f4cd6eaba4e66
F20101114_AABWZU dolan_s_Page_057.tif
02f089183cdc79d05a34808f93ab2be7
ff9a2056c7d00d6bb71a89e00535ae2cbb76e574
48236 F20101114_AABXGD dolan_s_Page_105.pro
73b7e24947c75ad6c09e442cdad5330b
36a5aeb6f034de2dd6137800bd58ecbe2dec5064
44267 F20101114_AABXFP dolan_s_Page_091.pro
50c6756bbe75159df3347bc65b1a2464
7b914cc696147de24eb44a783861e444d7310633
F20101114_AABWZV dolan_s_Page_058.tif
f4a3d00a65ef9b78860859944773151b
63cf841a456272d95ab9138d0bc942e7be6d6182
47793 F20101114_AABXGE dolan_s_Page_106.pro
39fae85a5169eaeba5eecd628e3aadae
8e0fb824d59eda0e329d863a5ffeb1444853a3bd
42121 F20101114_AABXFQ dolan_s_Page_092.pro
63bc2b011053db43cad8f5777caabc51
ba886758b80d5a1312ccd23175d273a95032ab07
F20101114_AABWZW dolan_s_Page_059.tif
5c2f0396fee3ce04fc072300c9c15f4d
f9d90c3b1af3758e54f72a40561ab1e8966a0292
50478 F20101114_AABXGF dolan_s_Page_107.pro
3168186d8b0ef8b8445b354ac026b4ed
60658b6cc4c952e34eea9fa6d923e9eccf6511b1
46511 F20101114_AABXFR dolan_s_Page_093.pro
c8d22df90c759f07bfc20a209036efa8
1fb8e79fe36e22c531dd94599590b6b8451c4c18
F20101114_AABWZX dolan_s_Page_060.tif
80aff3477bf1a6837e1b5bf245a6baf9
e74c9882ab44e5fc636253175855cb79968d6943
54798 F20101114_AABXGG dolan_s_Page_108.pro
37732946a7e67cec0783f174fe270969
69d6f0faf27da7f5e13d250074d55a0b1ad52dc3
49189 F20101114_AABXFS dolan_s_Page_094.pro
9eaf806b388bc5b3fe0c167d4f0bcd50
203217e11b3930bdee61c27e8a358714dd2784b0
F20101114_AABWZY dolan_s_Page_061.tif
cd06f1e7fa8a33ba366876016e2468df
7891898d127346a9c87637d83821898a83436c93
9401 F20101114_AABXGH dolan_s_Page_109.pro
e6eb0e5ec403bfc20bb115c201d72b56
decd8c4e61ccaeb230207e60489b7693c6bf62f9
46640 F20101114_AABXFT dolan_s_Page_095.pro
bf78f3472e6b6b9e34751c7631678e82
e2f89e07e2a495ef68f29cfa02ab8a6253b4b0c9
F20101114_AABWZZ dolan_s_Page_062.tif
32f5a5eb108b0ccb54933aa74811e93f
6133bdedb5829fa75ed363b0c8356595dc9a7368
50018 F20101114_AABXGI dolan_s_Page_110.pro
8c28f1f2d2e7974880ec4a39e65477c7
e9356a2467b04dec4fb6427dd5e751f4bb55c421
40245 F20101114_AABXFU dolan_s_Page_096.pro
92e402ff3388f3159199e9a801abc8c7
ba3aa15a45a04f2df5619ecd9290f9f998887595
23047 F20101114_AABXGJ dolan_s_Page_111.pro
ca52131bf7881487ee75bd3fa5c241dc
dfa0de2f39ad0080d49eef44dad9362e2f94c90a
14646 F20101114_AABXFV dolan_s_Page_097.pro
6d8e75dde12b9aa069201aca59b84217
06f328bd5e3d73acf4a1ca0aaf818eba7e8c9036
21613 F20101114_AABXGK dolan_s_Page_112.pro
1798a0cf84d4853e3d5fcd40b2e17ce2
82aef8d997a146c46e2f9a0d772f1448c396663d
28615 F20101114_AABXGL dolan_s_Page_113.pro
3377c2209438fad3a40aeb1c4bc5fa68
96fbf71953569675a8dfe14cf23fd757a1050efa
26785 F20101114_AABXFW dolan_s_Page_098.pro
221bc16944849685519e1a85d6534d07
dc604b95307b1705ea65a4d65d070703da0de478
605 F20101114_AABXHA dolan_s_Page_004.txt
82e14177cf260e8d2c8344890c40abec
0448727643ba9e4f0357fa8873e9e3cc2ee663b4
49201 F20101114_AABXGM dolan_s_Page_114.pro
cf2edd778e515596c88ec1ec23736ab4
d9e1e2ebdb39689516da4ebb692942f96db30e10
15943 F20101114_AABXFX dolan_s_Page_099.pro
bb551688c2491c451b24d2565a40dcd2
c79f4755400271fd4945a92ff6bee8b0b0ce6b7e
3868 F20101114_AABXHB dolan_s_Page_006.txt
e7eca11e3593fd3306c9319cd2a2f445
9f5bd24240150c0581a4cec36f715792d370cced
34799 F20101114_AABXGN dolan_s_Page_115.pro
a290d17c75b9d12a5771eb233678561f
0841806c3f02cc2b87fd34036a44b51f86ee7a43
7492 F20101114_AABXFY dolan_s_Page_100.pro
c77d1d9755739ce257c333c75a5d6c10
d9b19bae8346a728fbd1756588bce8b30dd237f9
47062 F20101114_AABXGO dolan_s_Page_116.pro
afd05c4544912c3e878e38e3d2e2fa09
78cb11f32a43fa25c5a6bb862e34b4837bbcbdb4
50824 F20101114_AABXFZ dolan_s_Page_101.pro
ebe086c628e71c215455b97580f1131f
185b082f817e535de2c0c87b237272b05fdc731f
853 F20101114_AABXHC dolan_s_Page_007.txt
b75c7c2f2ae34b0161646689b83d0f2c
65569e2f93b0c4df8df98ecae4b58a3f10547f82
60607 F20101114_AABXGP dolan_s_Page_117.pro
dac2a68d910ee35c1b54186f9a82756e
0fdb66f7be63419688db677fd5f7b17d32864a7c
2512 F20101114_AABXHD dolan_s_Page_008.txt
8ccb34e59625f3791953536ebf3ebc1d
1a02295d267c0fe0b988d1658a2dc43a7c05808b
65756 F20101114_AABXGQ dolan_s_Page_119.pro
0b0bc319ee8b741c7a5c60d307f8623f
249cf92946b3311ba21a830737f078e51a8c804f
548 F20101114_AABXHE dolan_s_Page_009.txt
ff0893e1bf4c54eb503acd0fe26540b3
131b53ddb7a2189c4331be4a23a59fd48fadd584
58313 F20101114_AABXGR dolan_s_Page_120.pro
b36370dcacc4b278fcd878a16e02f0c2
cd27f8f8df9af0cfa4099c8a4c046c8c76c79002
2608 F20101114_AABXHF dolan_s_Page_010.txt
66a74bf80ceb1e76e64a09c39abf4b6e
01da7ba46c19ffac1c1b6259a6188023a5124366
61183 F20101114_AABXGS dolan_s_Page_121.pro
485de092bfe120aa42acf19833dc7736
2c801b09ccfbacdb2f5fa74eeffa612b8f4ba8c5
718 F20101114_AABXHG dolan_s_Page_011.txt
ebf516418e593515ebc365f44a1f78ba
212114a9611c515dff775a9bb7177326ed836be5
62625 F20101114_AABXGT dolan_s_Page_122.pro
1928174271bb9b7fa1e3460a4d13fcd4
440ef58ab53fa253615dd4a6389cf24192a274d3
2073 F20101114_AABXHH dolan_s_Page_012.txt
557bbb30ff1fa38a1e957520e9c9ee54
69190cd4c5d69de572415abc2b906e82d882ccb6


Permanent Link: http://ufdc.ufl.edu/UFE0021032/00001

Material Information

Title: Life Cycle Assessment and Emergy Synthesis of a Theoretical Offshore Wind Farm for Jacksonville, Florida
Physical Description: Mixed Material
Copyright Date: 2008

Record Information

Source Institution: University of Florida
Holding Location: University of Florida
Rights Management: All rights reserved by the source institution and holding location.
System ID: UFE0021032:00001

Permanent Link: http://ufdc.ufl.edu/UFE0021032/00001

Material Information

Title: Life Cycle Assessment and Emergy Synthesis of a Theoretical Offshore Wind Farm for Jacksonville, Florida
Physical Description: Mixed Material
Copyright Date: 2008

Record Information

Source Institution: University of Florida
Holding Location: University of Florida
Rights Management: All rights reserved by the source institution and holding location.
System ID: UFE0021032:00001


This item has the following downloads:


Full Text





LIFE CYCLE ASSESSMENT AND EMERGY SYNTHESIS OF A THEORETICAL
OFFSHORE WINTD FARM FOR JACKSONVILLE, FLORIDA




















By

STACEY L DOLAN


A THESIS PRESENTED TO THE GRADUATE SCHOOL
OF THE UNIVERSITY OF FLORIDA IN PARTIAL FULFILLMENT
OF THE REQUIREMENTS FOR THE DEGREE OF
MASTER OF SCIENCE

UNIVERSITY OF FLORIDA


2007




























O 2007 Stacey L Dolan


































To my grandparents, Catherine Alice and James Harold Bailey.












ACKNOWLEDGMENTS

I am extremely grateful to have had the opportunity to work with Dr. H. A. Ingley, III. He

has been a great advisor, mentor, and friend; and his guidance has been invaluable. I would also

like to thank Dr. Mark T. Brown for introducing me to the concept of emergy, for being an

incredible teacher, and for providing his expertise. In addition to my supervisory committee

members, I would like to thank Dr. Angela S. Lindner for offering her proficiency in life cycle

assessments, which was vital to my research.












TABLE OF CONTENTS


page

ACKNOWLEDGMENT S .............. ...............4.....


LI ST OF T ABLE S ................. ...............8..._. .....


LIST OF FIGURES .............. ...............10....


AB S TRAC T ............._. .......... ..............._ 12...


CHAPTER


1 INTRODUCTION ................. ...............14.......... ......


1.1 Electricity and Fossil Fuels............... ... .. ...............1
1.1.1 Environmental Impacts of Fossil Fuel Combustion ................ ............ .........15
1.1.2 Environmental Regulations of Air Emissions ................. .......... ................1 6
1.2 W ind Power .............. .... ... ......... .. ........ ... .... .........1
1.2. 1 Offshore Wind: Advantages and Disadvantages ................. .........................18
1.2.2 Current State of Offshore Wind Technology .............. .....................19
1.2.3 Florida' s Wind Power Potential ................. ............... ......... ........ ...20
1.3 The Jacksonville Case............... ...............22..


2 LITERATURE REVIEW ................. ...............32................


2. 1 Introduction to Life Cycle Assessments ................. ............ ......... ..........3
2.2 Life Cycle Assessments of Electricity Production Systems ................. ............. .......3 3
2.2. 1 Fossil Fuel-Based Systems ................ ...............33........... ...
2.2.2 Coal............... ...............34..
2. 2.3 Natural Gas ................. ...............3.. 5......... ..
2.2.4 Fuel Oil ................. ...............36...............
2.2.5 Wind Farm Systems .............. ...............36....
2.3 Introduction to Emergy Synthesis .............. ....... ...............39.
2.4 Emergy Analyses of Electricity Production Systems ................ ......... ................43
2.5 Life Cycle Assessment and Emergy Synthesis............... ...............4

3 METHODOLOGY .............. ...............52....


3.1 Power Generating Systems Models ................ ...............52........... ..
3.1.1 Turbine M odel .............. ...............52....
3.1.2 Power Plant Models ................. ...............53..............
3.2 Life Cycle Assessment .............. ..... ......... ..........5
3.2. 1 Scope, Boundaries, and Functional Unit ................ ...............53..............
3.2.2 Data Acquisition............... .. ................5
3.2.2.1 Wind farm raw materials extraction............... ...............5
3.2.2.2 Wind farm transport .............. ...............57....











3.2.2.3 Wind farm construction................ .............5
3.2.2.4 Wind farm operation and maintenance .............. ...............59....
3.2.2.5 Wind farm decommissioning .............. ...... .................6
3.2.2.6 Fossil fuel-based power plant raw materials extraction .............. ..............60
3.2.2.7 Fossil fuel-based power plant transportation .............. ....................6
3.2.2.8 Fossil fuel-based power plant construction ................. ................ ...._.61
3.2.2.9 Fossil fuel-based power plant operation............... ...............6
3.2.2. 10 Fuels extraction, processing, and refining ................. ......_._ ...........64
3.2.2. 11 Coal transport ........._._. ............. ...............64..
3.2.2. 12 Petroleum coke transport. ................ ...._.._ ......_.._.........6
3.2.2.13 Fuel oil transport .............. ...............66....
3.2.2. 14 Natural gas transport ........._.._... ...............66......... ..
3.2.3 Lifetime Power Output ........._.._... .......... ...............66...
3.2.4 Environmental Impact Assessment .............. ...............67....
3.2.4. 1 Global warming potential ......... ......._.._.._ ......... ...........6
3.2.4.2 Acid rain potential ................. ...............69......... ...
3.3 Emergy Synthesis .............. ...............69....
3.3.1 Scope and Boundaries .............. ...............69....
3.3.2 Data Acquisition................ .. ...............7
3.3.2. 1 Wind energy inputs to wind farm ................. ...............71......_._.
3.3.2.2 Labor for wind farm transport ........._.. ............ ...............71
3.3.2.3 Labor for wind farm construction and decommissioning ............................72
3.3.2.4 Labor for wind farm maintenance ................. ...............73...........
3.3.2.5 Labor for coal-fired power unit transportation ................. ............. .......73
3.3.2.6 Labor for natural gas combined-cycle unit transportation ...........................73
3.3.2.7 Labor for coal-fired unit construction .............. .. .. ...............74.
3.3.2.8 Labor for natural gas combined-cycle unit construction. ...........................74
3.3.2.9 Labor for fuels transport............... ...............7
3.3.2.10 Oxygen demand for combustion .............. ...............76....
3.3.3 Emergy Accounting Table............... ...............76.

4 RE SULT S .............. ...............87....


4.1 Life Cycle Assessment .............. ...............87....
4.2 Emergy Synthesis .............. ...............90....

5 SENSITIVITY ANALYSIS .............. ...............101....


5.1 W ind Farm ................. ...............101...__.__....
5.2 Coal-Fired Unit ................. ......._ .......... ....... ........10
5.3 Natural Gas Combined-Cycle Unit ...._._ ................. ...............103 ...

6 CONCLUSIONS .............. ...............107....


APPENDIX

A LIST OF ASSUMPTIONS CATEGORIZED BY LIFE CYCLE STAGE ................... .......110











B LIST OF NREL LCI DATABASE MODULES USED ................. ......... ................11 1

C UPSTREAM ELECTRICITY CALCULATIONS ................. ...............................112

D SAMPLE CALCULATION OF EMISSIONS USINTG NREL LCI DATABASE .............113

E SAMPLE ALLOCATION CALCULATIONS FOR PETROLEUM PRODUCTS
FROM CRUDE OIL ................. ...............114................

F SAMPLE BACK-CALCULATION FOR SOx AND NOx BY FUEL TYPE, SCALED
TO MATCH PRIMARY DATA ................ ...............116...............

G WIND SPEED RAW DATA AND CALCULATIONS ................. .......... ...............117

LI ST OF REFERENCE S ................. ...............118................

BIOGRAPHICAL SKETCH ................. ...............125......... ......










LIST OF TABLES


Table page

1-1. Summary of offshore wind parks as of 2006. .........._.._. ......._.. .........._.__......24

2-1. Summary table of the coal life cycle inventory from Babbitt and Lindner LCA. .............47

2-2. Summary table of life cycle CO2 emiSsions of power generating systems from
various LCA studies............... ...............48

2-3. Unit Emergy Values of common items and services. .............. ...............49....

2-4. Comparison of emergy indicators for selected power plants for three different levels
of emissions dilution. .............. ...............49....

3-1. Vestas V80-1.8 MW turbine specifications. .............. ...............78....

3-2. V80-1.8 MW turbine components, materials, and masses............... ...............79.

3-3. Materials required for the 360 MW coal-fired power plant ................. ......................79

3-4. Materials required for the 505 MW natural gas combined-cycle power unit. ...................79

3-5. Power plant construction equipment details. ............. ...............80.....

4-1. Global warming impact potentials for each power system .................... ...............9

4-2. Acid rain impact potentials for each power system. ............. ...............91.....

4-3. Lifetime savings in global warming and acid rain impact potentials resulting from
implementation of the wind farm system ................. ...............91...............

4-4. Global warming and acid rain impact potentials for the fuel cycles............... .................91

4-5. Emergy accounting table for the wind farm system. ............. ...............92.....

4-6. Emergy accounting table for coal-fired steam turbine power unit based on the
operational conditions of Plant Scherer. .............. ...............93....

4-7. Emergy accounting table for coal-fired steam turbine power unit based on the
operational conditions of St. Johns River Power Park ................. .......... ...............94

4-8. Emergy accounting table for natural gas combined-cycle power generating unit.............95

4-9. Summary of data and performance indicators for the four power systems. ......................96

5-1. Sensitivity analysis for the LCA of the wind farm. ................ ............................104










5-2. Sensitivity analysis for the emergy synthesis of the wind farm. ................. ........_.._.....104

5-3. Sensitivity analysis for the LCA of the coal-fired plant based on Scherer. ................... ..105

5-4. Sensitivity analysis for the emergy synthesis of coal-fired plant based on Scherer........105

5-5. Sensitivity analysis for the LCA of the natural gas combined-cycle plant. ................... ..106

5-6. Sensitivity analysis for emergy synthesis of the natural gas combined-cycle plant........106











LIST OF FIGURES


Figure page

1-1. Annual crude oil production scenarios for the mean resource estimate and different
proj ected growth rates. ................. ...............26....... .....

1-2. U.S. CO2-Cl{UIValents emissions allocated to economic sectors ................... ...............27

1-3. United States population density by counties .............. ...............28....

1-4. Offshore wind turbine foundation development for deep water ................. ................ ..29

1-5. Wind power resources and wind power classes for the contiguous United States ............30

1-6. NDB C buoys off the coast of Florida ................ ...............31........... .

2-1. Common symbols in systems diagramming .............. ...............50....

2-2. Global processes of the geobiosphere ........._ ....... ...............51..

2-3. General systems diagram illustrating emergy performance indicators ................... ...........51

3-1. Cutaway diagram of Vestas V80-1.8 MW turbine ................ .............. ...............81

3-2. Power curve for Vestas V80-1.8 MW turbine ................. ...............82.............

3-3. Level 1.0 with embedded Level 2.0 diagram for wind farm system .............. .................82

3-4. Level 1.0 with embedded Level 2.0 diagram for power plant system ............... .... ...........83

3-5. Level 3.0 diagram for wind farm system ................. ...............83......_.__.

3-6. Level 3.0 diagram for power plant systems ................. ....___ ...............84.

3-7. Level 3.0 diagram for JEA' s current operation ................. ...............84......_.__.

3-8. The raising of nacelle and rotor by j ack-up barge fitted with a crane .........._... ..............85

3-9. System diagram for emergy synthesis .............. ...............86....

4-1. Global warming and acid rain impact potentials for the life cycle stages of the wind
farm ................ ...............97.................

4-2. Global warming and acid rain impact potentials for the life cycle stages of the coal-
fired steam turbine unit based on Plant Scherer ................. ...............97..............

4-3. Global warming and acid rain impact potentials for the life cycle stages of the coal-
fired steam turbine unit based on St. Johns River Power Park ................. ............... ....98










4-4. Global warming and acid rain impact potentials for the life cycle stages of the natural
gas combined-cycle unit based on Brandy Branch ................. ............... ......... ...98

4-5. Side-by-side comparison of global warming and acid rain impacts over the complete
life cycle for the four power generating systems ................ ...............99..............

4-6. Comparison of global warming potential impact of life cycle stages that are common
to all four power systems, neglecting the operation stage ................ ..................9

4-7. Global warming and acid rain impact potentials of the fuel cycles ............... ... ............ 100









Abstract of Thesis Presented to the Graduate School
of the University of Florida in Partial Fulfillment of the
Requirements for the Degree of Master of Science

LIFE CYCLE ASSESSMENT AND EMERGY SYNTHESIS OF THEORETICAL OFFSHORE
WINTD FARM FOR JACKSONVILLE, FLORIDA

By

Stacey L Dolan

May 2007

Chair: H. A. Ingley, III
Major: Mechanical Engineering

Wind energy is currently the fastest growing renewable energy resource in the United

States. There are, however, only limited locations that have strong enough wind speeds to be

suitable as wind farm sites. Throughout the state of Florida there are mostly only Class 1 winds

(less than 5.6 m/s), with some Class 2 (5.6 to 6.4 m/s) winds close to the coast. Current wind

technology requires a minimum of Class 3 (6.4 to 7.0 m/s) for wind farms to be feasible.

Transmission of the electricity produced is a significant contributing factor to the cost of wind

power, so minimizing distance is important for economic optimization. Offshore wind offers the

advantage of higher wind speeds that are strong enough to be feasible for wind farms, enabling

states for which onshore applications are not possible to harness wind power without having to

transmit it from neighboring states.

This research analyzed how the implementation of an offshore wind farm for Jacksonville,

Florida would compare to that of a natural gas combined-cycle unit and a coal-fired steam

turbine power unit with regard to sustainability, global warming impact, and acid rain impact.

An emergy analysis was conducted to compare the potential offshore wind farm to a purely coal-

fired steam turbine power unit, a steam turbine power unit fueled by a mix of coal and petroleum

coke, and a natural gas combined-cycle power generating unit. Parameters for comparison










included emergy yield ratio, environmental loading ratio, and emergy index of sustainability. A

life cycle assessment was also conducted to quantify the respective contributions to the

environmental impacts of global warming and acid rain of each power system. The

environmental stressors inventoried for quantifying the impacts were carbon dioxide, methane,

nitrous oxide, sulfur dioxide, and nitrogen oxides.

The emergy analysis determined that the wind farm had an emergy yield ratio of 11.6,

compared to 18.2 for the coal system based on Scherer, 18.8 for the coal system based on St.

Johns River Power Park, and 12.4 for the natural gas system. The wind farm's environmental

loading ratio was orders of magnitude lower, i.e. 0.1i, while the coal systems range from 13.1 to

15.1 and the natural gas system was found to be 22.4. Similarly, the emergy index of

sustainability for the wind farm was found to have an advantageously higher value 121.9, while

the coal systems ranged from 1.2 to 1.4, and the natural gas system was found to have a value of

0.6.

Results of the life cycle assessment included that the global warming and acid rain impacts

of the wind farm were far lower than those of the fossil fuel-fired systems. The wind farm was

found to have a global warming impact of 24 kg CO2 eqUIValents/MWh, and an acid rain impact

of 0.2 kg SO2 eqUIValents/MWh. The fossil fuel fired systems were found to range from 682 to

1452 kg CO2 equivalents/MWh, and 5.0 to 6.4 kg SO2 equivalents/MWh.









CHAPTER 1
INTTRODUCTION

1.1 Electricity and Fossil Fuels

Global energy consumption of fossil fuels has steadily increased starting at the turn of the

19th century with the Industrial Revolution, and experienced a drastic increase in the rate of

consumption beginning in the 1950s. Currently the global consumption of energy is roughly 420

quadrillion British Thermal Units annually, equivalent to just over 200 million barrels of oil per

day (EIA 2006). Coal, oil, and natural gas have various applications such as electricity

production, heat generation, and fuel for transportation. The electricity production utilities sector

is a significant consumer of fossil fuels, representing 39% of the total energy consumed in the

United States (USEPA 2006c). Further, the United States is the country with the largest

consumption of electricity, representing just over 25% of the world' s consumption (USCIA

2006). Electricity generated in the US in 2004 totaled 3,971 billion kilowatt-hours provided by a

mixture of sources, comprising 70.7% fossil fuel-fired power plants, 19.9% nuclear, 6.5%

hydroelectric, 2.3% other renewables (wind, solar, etc.), and 0.6% other. Of the fossil fuel

power plants, coal represented 49.8%, natural gas 17.9%, and petroleum 3% (EIA 2005).

Because fossil fuels are a non-renewable resource, the world's energy dependence on

their consumption is not a sustainable practice. The Energy Information Administration of the

U. S. Department of Energy has estimated the year in which peak oil recovery will occur using

the mean resource estimate of 3,003 billion barrels ultimately recovered and three different

projected annual growth rates of consumption. As can be seen in Figure 1-1, the projected peak

years are to occur in 2050, 2037, or 2030, for the respective growth rates of 1%, 2%, or 3%.

Historic growth rates have been approximately 2% (Wood and Long 2000). These projections

illustrate the pressing need for alternative power production derived from renewable resources to









be developed in order to maintain a supply for our energy demands by offsetting the decline in

available fossil fuels.

1.1.1 Environmental Impacts of Fossil Fuel Combustion

Further motivation for this transition to renewable energy sources are the environmental

impacts resulting from the combustion of fossil fuels. Anthropogenic greenhouse gas emissions

from power plants, such as carbon dioxide, methane, and nitrous oxide, contribute to global

climate change by accumulating in the atmosphere and blocking infrared radiation from escaping

to space. The global warming potential of a process can be measured by the amount carbon

dioxide equivalents released by that process and Figure 1-2 shows that, of the economic sectors,

electricity production is the largest contributor of carbon dioxide equivalents released in the

United States.

Another significant result of fossil fuel combustion is acid rain. Sulfur dioxide and

nitrogen oxides (NOx) emissions from fossil fuel-fired power plants react with water vapor in the

atmosphere to form sulfuric acid and nitric acid, resulting in acid rain, a term that encompasses

any precipitation (rain, fog, mist, or snow) with a pH of 5.5 or less. Acid rain has been

determined to cause damage to plant life, e.g. the high-elevation spruce trees of the

Appalachians; to fish and invertebrate aquatic species, e.g. trout populations in lakes and streams

in the Adirondack Mountains in New York; and to historic monuments and buildings by

corroding metals and deteriorating stone and paint (USEPA 2006b).

Urban ozone is another environmental impact to which fossil-fired power plants

contribute by releasing volatile organic compounds (VOCs) and NOx, which react in the

presence of sunlight to form ground-level ozone, the main component of urban smog. Ozone

poses various health risks, such as irritation and damage to the respiratory system, eyes, and









mucous membranes, as well as detrimental environmental effects, such as damaging sensitive

tree species and crops (Carlin 2002).

1.1.2 Environmental Regulations of Air Emissions

Legislation to control the levels of air pollutants in the United States has its basis in the

Clean Air Act (CAA) of 1970 and its amendments. The CAA requires the EPA to set National

Ambient Air Quality Standards (NAAQS) for pollutants that have been shown to be harmful to

human health. The EPA has set these standards for six "criteria pollutants," identifying

concentrations above which adverse health effects can occur. These criteria pollutants are ozone,

carbon monoxide, nitrogen dioxide, sulfur dioxide, particulate matter smaller than 10 microns,

and lead (USEPA 2006a). These criteria pollutants must be monitored, and if an area or

community fails to meet these standards it is classified as being in nonattainment. The EPA then

establishes a plan of action detailing air pollution reduction measures that the community must

implement and a set time frame within which to reduce the pollution levels to meet the NAAQS.

All six of the criteria pollutants (although lead only in trace amounts) are emissions of fossil-

fired power plants (Carlin 2002).

The main contributing emissions to global climate change, however, are not included in

the six criteria pollutants regulated by the NAAQS, such as carbon dioxide, methane, and nitrous

oxide. Nevertheless, a range of governmental action is being taken to motivate a reduction in

these emissions. Examples of this legislation span from the local level, such as the Florida

Renewable Energy Production Tax Credit, to the national level, for instance federal grants such

as the USDA Renewable Energy Systems and Energy Efficiency Improvements Program, to the

international level of the Kyoto Protocol of the United Nations Framework Convention on

Climate Change (UNFCCC). The UNFCCC states its objective is to achieve "stabilization of










greenhouse gas concentrations in the atmosphere at a level that would prevent dangerous

anthropogenic interference with the climate system" (1992).

The importance of a conversion to non-fossil fuel-based, sustainable energy production

systems is being recognized throughout the world, but this conversion is an immense task

requiring great changes in energy infrastructure, industry, legislation, technology, economy, etc.

Because of this, it will necessarily be a slow and gradual transition. Thus, the initiation of this

transition is a pressing issue in order to be far enough into implementation that as the fossil fuel

supply declines there will not be a global energy shortage and the intrinsic devastating impacts

such an event could have.

1.2 Wind Power

Wind power is currently the world's fastest growing renewable electricity production

system because it is the most economically competitive with fossil fuels (Pellerin 2005). Current

wind turbine technology was developed in Denmark in the late 1970s with the first wind farms

installed in the U.S. in California in the 1980s. At this time wind energy cost roughly 40 cents

per kilowatt-hour, but has decreased over the last several decades to 4 to 6 cents per kilowatt-

hour due to large growth in the industry (Pellerin 2005). Globally, wind energy has increased at

an average rate of 32% annually over the Hyve-year span from 1998 to 2002 (AWEA 2003).

In Europe, governments are subsidizing the cost of wind power installations as a response

to the Kyoto Protocol. The benefit of this subsidy is clearly demonstrated by Europe collectively

representing 72.8% of the global installed wind power capacity in 2004 (AWEA 2005). The top

Hyve countries in the world ranked by installed wind capacity are Germany, Spain, United States,

Denmark, and India. Germany is the country with the greatest amount of installed capacity

(16,629 MW), and Denmark leads with respect to the proportion that wind power contributes to

the country's total energy production, supplying just over 20%. The U.S. has a total installed









capacity of 1 1,603 MW as of December 2006, representing 15.6% of the world' s installed wind

power capacity (GWEC 2007). The United States offers a federal production tax credit for wind

energy, but its expiration in December 2003 and delay in renewal until October 2004 hindered

market growth for that time period. However, it is again beginning to experience a more

competitive annual increase consistent with market averages (AWEA 2005).

1.2.1 Offshore Wind: Advantages and Disadvantages

Offshore wind power generation offers both advantages and disadvantages compared to

onshore wind plants. Offshore winds are typically characterized as having stronger, more

consistent speeds, and are less turbulent than onshore winds because of the lack of landscape and

buildings to impede the flow, which results in increased power production. Cities and towns

tend to be more densely populated closer to the coast, as can be seen in Figure 1-3, and offshore

wind also allows for closer proximity to these densely populated coastal cities with high value

load centers, reducing electricity transmission costs for these locations. Onshore turbines are

limited in size by such physical constraints as roadway size for shipping the turbines to the

installation site and cranes for installing them. Offshore locations, where there are fewer

physical barriers, may allow for larger turbines to be installed, which may be economically

advantageous (Musial 2005).

Aesthetics are a common public concern regarding wind farms, and offshore sites are a

far enough distance from the coast that their visual and auditory impacts can be greatly reduced

compared to onshore. For instance, the large turbines for the proposed Cape Wind proj ect in

Massachusetts are 3.6 MW each and stand 417 feet in height from base to tip of the vertical-

positioned blade. They will be 5.6 miles offshore from Cotuit and will appear to a viewer on the

coast only one half inch in height above the horizon (Cape Wind Associates, LLC 2006).










There are, however, drawbacks to offshore wind power as well. Offshore wind farms are

more expensive due to larger construction and installation costs since they require a more

substantial foundation structure, installation of underwater transmission lines, and special

installation equipment. They also may have increased maintenance and repair costs due to the

damaging effects of a harsher operating environment, i.e. salt water, ocean currents, ice build-up,

and storms. In 2004, average costs for the 617 MW of installed offshore wind capacity

worldwide were 8-15 cents/kWh (Musial 2005), double or more than the cost of onshore.

Offshore and onshore wind utilities share some of the same human and environmental

impact concerns, such as interference with air traffic and risks to migratory birds. Offshore

wind, however, also brings rise to additional concerns, such as habitat loss to marine life. It is

speculated, though, that offshore wind also may actually create the opposite effect, providing

new habitat by means of the artificiall reef effect" of the submerged support structure. For

example, the state of Delaware has an Artifieial Reef Program administered by the Delaware

Department of Natural Resources and Environmental Control's Division of Fish and Wildlife.

This program has installed eleven artificial reefs since 1995 in the Delaware Bay and along the

Atlantic coast to enhance fisheries habitat and benefit structure-oriented fish (DNREC 2005).

Other concerns that are exclusive to offshore wind include the risks of marine traffic collisions,

social implications of altering cherished coastal scenery, vibrations hindering marine animals'

navigational sensory systems, and seabed disturbance that might decrease marine archaeological

value.

1.2.2 Current State of Offshore Wind Technology

There are currently no installed offshore wind power plants in the United States, but

several have been proposed, including one for Cape Cod, Massachusetts and one for Long

Island, New York. Several offshore wind farms are currently operating in Europe, such as the










Nysted and Horns Rev plants in Denmark and the Scroby Sands and North Hoyle plants in the

United Kingdom. Table 1-1 summarizes the offshore wind parks that have been installed as of

2006. The site conditions for these wind plants are different than those for the proposed U.S.

sites, however, because they are in shallow, sheltered waters, less than 20 meters deep.

Monopile foundations, which have been used in Europe, are suitable for these depths, up to 30

meters. Different supporting structure options for wind turbines in deeper waters are currently

being developed, such as tripod foundations that are bottom-fixed for depths of 20-80 meters and

floating structures for depths of 40-900 meters, but these have not previously been implemented

at these depths (Figure 1-4).

Another factor that is hindering the U.S. development of offshore wind plants is that

offshore wind resource data are scarce. The data that do exist are from data collecting buoys,

automated measurement stations, and estimates of 10 meter wind speeds and power production

potential by satellite instruments. These data are mostly for the ocean surface or only several

meters above, and the models used for power estimates have been onshore models, extending

their application to off the coast. Thus, they are not necessarily optimal for accurate offshore

wind resource assessment. The National Renewable Energy Laboratory has started a program to

produce validated wind resource maps and power data for priority offshore regions at a height of

50 meters above the surface. The program is planned to take several years and is beginning in

2006 with the Atlantic coast, spanning from Northern Florida to New England, the Great Lakes,

and the western Gulf of Mexico (Elliot and Swartz 2006).

1.2.3 Florida's Wind Power Potential

The state of Florida is the fourth most populated state in the country. Moreover, its

population is increasing at a faster than average rate, having increased 11.3% from April 1, 2000

to July 1, 2005, compared to the nation as a whole experiencing a 5.3% increase (U. S. Census









Bureau 2006a). This increasing population brings with it increased energy demands. Traditional

wind power options for Florida are highly limited, however, because there are only Class 1

winds (less than 12.5 mph) throughout the state with some Class 2 winds (12.5 to 14.3 mph)

close to the coast. Current wind technology requires a minimum of Class 3 (14.3 to 15.7 mph)

for wind farms to be economically feasible. A map of Florida' s wind resources and an

explanation of wind speed classes can be found in Figure 1-5. With regard to offshore wind,

however, Florida is a much more appropriate candidate due to its large ratio of coastal area to

total land area compared to most other states, as well as its concentrated coastal populations.

Jacksonville, Florida, is the focus of our research. Jacksonville is a densely populated

coastal city on Florida' s northern Atlantic coast. The impact of hurricanes and tropical storms

on an offshore wind plant is an important concern for such southern locations as Florida, and

must be considered. Jacksonville is a location where hurricanes hit less frequently than more

Southern cities, especially those on the Gulf Coast. The National Oceanic and Atmospheric

Administration's (NOAA) Atlantic Oceanographic and Meteorological Laboratory's Hurricane

Research Division reports that from 1851 to 2004 Florida has endured 110 hurricanes, 35 of

which were major (Category 3 or higher). Of the 110 hurricanes, only 22 were in the Northeast

quadrant of the state, compared to 36 in the Southwest, 41 in the Southeast, and 55 in the

Northwest. Of the 35 major hurricanes, only 1 hit the Northeast, compared to 12, 15, and 12 for

the other respective parts of the state (Landsea 2005).

Wind power offers many advantages to fossil fuel based electricity production, such as

being a less polluting, renewable source of energy that is not dependent on foreign imports and is

economically competitive with traditional power production systems. Onshore applications are









not well suited to all geographic locations, and offshore wind farms offer an alternative

electricity production option for coastal regions where land wind speeds are prohibitively low.

1.3 The Jacksonville Case

Jacksonville Electric Authority (JEA) is a municipally-owned utility company that

provides the electric utility services for the City of Jacksonville, estimated 2003 population of

773,781 (US Census Bureau 2006), and parts of three adjacent counties. In Fiscal Year 2005,

JEA served an average of 391,831 accounts, and sold approximately 16.2 billion kilowatt-hours

(kWh) of electricity (JEA 2006). As of 2005, JEA' s maximum electricity generating capacity is

3080 MW (JEA 2005); this capacity is achieved through a combination of sole and j oint-

ownership of 19 electricity generating units. A description of the individual power plant units

including their capacities, turbine types, and fuel types is given in Table 1-2. Jacksonville

Electric Authority implements a fuel diversification strategy to remain competitive in the energy

market; the fuel array providing electricity production in 2005 consisted of approximately 56%

coal, 27% petroleum coke, 6% oil (both distillate and residual), 6% natural gas, and 5% other

(JEA 2005).

Jacksonville Electric Authority 's expansion plans include working with three other Florida

utility companies to jointly plan and construct a $1.4 billion, 800 MW power plant for the

purpose of meeting future energy needs of North Florida and in order to "provide reliable power

at an affordable price in an environmentally responsible manner" (JEA 2006). Jacksonville

Electric Authority 's commitment to seeking cleaner sources of energy includes a "Clean and

Green Power Program," in which JEA signed a Memorandum of Understanding with Sierra Club

and the American Lung Association to meet the voluntary goal of supplying 4 percent of its

generating capacity from clean or green sources by the year 2007, and 7.5 percent by 2015.

"Clean or green" sources include solar, biomass, wind, landfill gas, sewer plant digester gas, and









certain natural gas technologies (JEA 2002). Future plans include purchases of biomass energy

(up to 75 MW from a plant in central Florida) and construction of a 13 MW biomass generation

plant (fueled by yard waste from the city of Jacksonville). Jacksonville Electric Authority has

also entered into a "Wind Generation Agreement" in which JEA has agreed to purchase 10 MW

of capacity over a 20-year period generated from a wind power plant in Ainsworth, Nebraska

from Nebraska Public Power District (JEA 2006). In its Annual Disclosure Report of 2005, JEA

states, "Wind generation is one of the most preferred and cost effective Green Power

alternatives. Prior to its agreement with NPPD, wind generation was not a feasible alternative for

JEA due to a lack of sustainable wind resources in the Jacksonville area" (JEA 2006).

Although Jacksonville does not have strong enough onshore winds, it is within close

proximity to a potentially feasible offshore wind farm location. The National Buoy Data Center

(NBDC), operated by the National Ocean and Atmosphere Administration (NOAA), maintains a

set of data-collecting buoys that record wind speed, direction, temperature, etc. and makes these

data available to the public on their website. Figure 1-6 shows the NDBC buoys for the state of

Florida. Buoy number 41008, off the northeast coast of Jacksonville, has gathered data for over

11 years and measured an average wind speed over this time period of approximately 7 m/s

(class 3 winds). This buoy is at a water depth of 18 m, shallow enough for current monopile

technology to be implemented for the wind turbines' foundations. Jacksonville Electric

Authority 's interests in expansion, fuel diversification, and clean energy (particularly wind

energy), and Jacksonville's propinquity to this offshore location make it an ideal candidate for an

offshore wind farm assessment.

The recent growing interest in offshore wind power applications for the United States

necessitates much research spanning all aspects of such systems, including wind resource











assessments, feasibility studies, economic assessments, environmental impact assessments, etc.


The focus of our research is on the latter, assessing air pollution impacts of installing and


operating an offshore wind farm compared to two different conventional, fossil fuel-fired power


plants for electricity production. The two conventional power systems examined were a natural


gas combined-cycle unit and a coal-fired steam turbine unit. The environmental impacts

examined throughout the power plants' life times were global warming and acid rain. An


emergy analysis was also performed to identify the emergy yield and a measure of sustainability

of the power generating systems.


Table 1-1. Summary of offshore wind parks as of 2006.


No. of
Turbines
1
11
4
10
28
5
2
7
20
5
80
4
4
10
2
2
1
1
72
7
1
30
30
30
1
30
2


Turbine
Model
W25-220 kW
B35-450 kW
NW40-500 kW
V39-500 kW
NTK43-600 kW
W37-550 kW
V66-2.0 MW
EW70-1.5 MW
B76-2.0 MW
NM72-2.0 MW
V80-2.0 MW
V80-2.0 MW
B82.4-2.3 MW
B82.4-2.3 MW
V47-660 kW
V90-3.0 MW
B82.4-2.3 MW
N90-2.3 MW
B82.4-2.3 MW
GE104-3.6 MW
E112-4.5 MW
V80-2.0 MW
V80-2.0 MW
NM92-2.75 MW
4.5 MW
V90-3.0 MW
5.0 MW
Total


Site
Total (MW)
0.22
4.95
2.00
5.00
16.80
2.75
4.00
10.50
40.00
10.00
160.00
8.00
9.20
23.00
1.32
6.00
2.30
2.30
158.40
25.20
4.50
60.00
60.00
82.50
4.50
90.00
10.00
803.44


Wind Farm Site
Norgersund
Vindeby
Lely
Tuno Knob
Dronten
Bockstigen
Blyth
Utgrunden
Middlegrunden
Yttre Stengrunden
Horns Rev
Ronland
Ronland
Samso
Setana
Frederikshavn
Frederikshavn
Frederikshavn
Nysted
Arklow Bank
Wilhelmshafen
North Hoyle
Scroby Sands
Kentish Flats
Dollart/Emden
Barrow
Beatrice


Country
Sweden
Denmark
Netherlands
Denmark
Netherlands
Sweden
UK
Sweden
Denmark
Sweden
Denmark
Denmark
Denmark
Denmark
Japan
Denmark
Denmark
Denmark
Denmark
Ireland
Germany
UK
UK
UK
Germany
UK
UK


Year
1990
1991
1994
1995
1996
1997
2000
2000
2001
2001
2002
2002
2002
2003
2003
2003
2003
2003
2003
2003
2003
2003
2004
2004
2006
2006
2006


Manufacturer
Wind World
Bonus
NedWind
Vestas
Nordtank
Wind World
Vestas
Enron Wind
Bonus
NEG Micon
Vestas
Vestas
Bonus
Bonus
Vestas
Vestas
Bonus
Nordex
Bonus
GE
Enercon
Vestas
Vestas
NEG Micon

Vestas











Table 1-2. Description of JEA' s current power generating stations and individual units.


Year
Installed
May-73
Aug-73
Jul-73
Jun-00

May-02
Feb-02
Jul-77
Feb-75
Jan-75
Dec-74
Dec-74

May-01
May-01
Oct-0 1
Jan-05


Apr-82
Apr-82

Feb-89
Jzd-9 7


Capacity
(MW)
54
54
54
193
247
298
298
518
52
52
52
52
1322
193
193
193
180
759
336
336
672
180
1
3180


Station
Kennedy


Type
CT
CT
CT
CT

ST
ST
ST
CT
CT
CT
CT

CT
CT
CT
ST


Fuel
LO
LO
LO
G/LO
Total
PC/C/G
PC/C/G
HO/G
LO
LO
LO
LO
Total
G/LO
G/LO
G/LO
WH/G
Total
C/PC/LO
C/PC/LO
Total
C/LO
LG
Combined Total


Northside Generating Station


Brandy Branch


Saint Johns River Power Park


Plant Scherer
Girvin


Notes
CT Combustion Turbine
ST Steam Turbine
IC Internal Combustion
LO Light Fuel Oil/Distillate/Diesel (No. 2)
HO Heavy Fuel Oil/Residual (No. 6)


G Natural Gas
PC Petroleum-coke
WH Waste Heat
LG Landfill Gas
Not included in this research








































Figure 1-1.


Annual crude oil production scenarios for the mean resource estimate and
different projected growth rates. Reprinted with permission from: Wood, John
and Gary Long. "Long Term World Oil Supply (A Resource Base/Production
Path Analysis)." Energy Information Administration. 2000. United States
Department of Energy. Last accessed October 2006.
pply/index.htm>.


- Historry

- Mean


USGS Estimates of Ultimate Recovery
210 30 @3'.. Growth
-- Ultimate Recovery
Probability BBls
---------------- -------2037 @ 2'. Grow th
--Low (95 %) 2,248
Mean (expected value) 3 P03
--H ig h (5 %) 3,896 1 r~ 1~ 2050 @~ 1% Growvth


I I I I I





I I I I I )


L


-


60


S50


40


20

10


Decline
R' P = 1 0


1900


0


1925 1950 1975 2000 2025 2050 2075 2100 2125


Note: U.S. v olurnes were addled to thR U SGS foreign volumes to obtain worrrld t~ot aI.











2,500 ~



2,000



"1,500


-~o


Electricity Generation


Transportation


Industry


Commercial
500-
Residential



0-,


Note: Does; BO nodlude U.S terr torie s


U.S. CO2-ClfU Valents emissions allocated to economic sectors. Reprinted with
permission from: United States Environmental Protection Agency (USEPA).
"Inventory of U.S. Greenhouse Gas Emissions and Sinks: 1990-2004. 2006d.
USEPA 430-R-06-002. Last accessed November 2006.
.


Figure 1-2.







































Figure 1-3.


United States population density by counties. Reprinted with permission from:
United States Census Bureau. "U.S. Population Density (By Counties)." 2006c.
Last accessed October 2006.
.


7


















i' i;


Figure 1-4.


Offshore wind turbine foundation development for deep water. Reprinted with
permission from: Musial, Walt. "Offshore Wind Energy Potential for the United
States." Wind Powering America- Annual State Summit. National Renewable
Energy Laboratory. Evergreen, CO, 2005.


































Figure 1-5.


Wind power resources and wind power classes for the contiguous United States.
Reprinted with permission from: Energy Efficiency and Renewable Energy
(EERE). "Wind Energy Resource Potential." 2005. Unites States Department of
Energy. Last accessed October 2006.











1008
1410081


~ I,,. FFII
....................130 NI


I *.*-il


1410101
1010


LCFII. -----g
1| |


1~1~:~111


? 1~1 11~1


~I EirF II
trr~


~r ~t
T~ 1

1~1~:~ I~I
...... .IYLRFil
IPLSFII~ I~ F211VCA F1 ONFI
ISMKF-11
MKF-1
ISANFII
ANF


SNDBC C-M.AN Stations
COhdPS Stations
SNC-COOS Stations
SCRIPPS Stations
~kNDBC DART Buoys


PGF

~4?1~


~L:




;e. ~~


Figure 1-6.


NDBC buoys off the coast of Florida. The location of buoy 41008 is the site
chosen for the theoretical offshore wind farm. Reprinted with permission from:
National Data Buoy Center (NDBC). "Station 41008 Gray's Reef National
Oceanic and Atmospheric Administration. Last accessed November 2006.
.









CHAPTER 2
LITERATURE REVIEW

2.1 Introduction to Life Cycle Assessments

Life cycle assessment (LCA) is an analysis tool for quantifying environmental impacts of a

product or process from the "cradle to grave," i.e. from raw material acquisition to eventual

product and waste disposal. LCAs have many uses, such as providing a means to systematically

compare inputs and outputs of two products or processes; to identify the stages of a process or a

product' s life cycle have the greatest environmental or public health impacts; to establish a

comprehensive baseline to which future research can be compared; to assist in guiding the

development of new products; to provide information to decision makers in industry,

government, and non-governmental organizations; and to verify a product' s environmental

claims or declarations (SETAC 2004). Life cycle assessment guidelines and examples have been

established by the International Organization for Standardization (ISO) 14040 family of

standards.

A life cycle assessment consists of three stages: inventory analysis, impact assessment, and

improvement analysis. The inventory analysis consists of scoping the system under

consideration, and data collection. The scoping process defines the LCA' s purpose, boundary

conditions, and assumptions. Streamlining may be used when defining the boundary conditions,

identifying which stages of the process or product' s life cycle will be considered and which will

be assumed to be outside the scope of analysis. There are also two rules used to further

streamline the scope, the five percent and one percent rules. The five percent rule allows for the

elimination of a material from the analysis if it is I 5% of the total product mass. The one

percent rule allows for the elimination of an input if it is I 1% of the total input mass. Materials

or inputs with inherent toxicity are exceptions to these rules and must be included in the analysis










regardless of their percent of total mass or inputs (USEPA 2006e). A functional unit (FU) of

analysis, defined as the amount of product, material, or service to which the LCA is applied, is

used to put the data on a common basis for direct comparison. For example, if the life cycle of

Styrofoam cups is being compared to that of ceramic mugs, one appropriate functional unit

would be 12 ounces of fluid, and all inputs and outputs would be put on the scale of their

contribution per 12 ounces.

When conducting a life cycle assessment, the environmental impacts of interest and the

stressors that result in these impacts must be identified (e.g. global warming and CO2,

respectively), and the production of these stressors is inventoried throughout all life cycle stages

within the system boundary. The impact analysis stage of an LCA takes these data and

systematically quantifies the resulting environmental impacts. Thus, the LCA methodology

yields numerical results that allow for direct, analytical comparison between the resulting

impacts of the systems under study.

Finally, the improvement analysis stage of the life cycle assessment is using the results of

the study to determine ways in which the process or product under investigation can be

improved. This can be done by identifying the most harmful or detrimental stages, analyzing the

material and energy inputs, outputs, and processes involved in those stages, and seeking

alternatives that would be less harmful. The methodology of an LCA, i.e. simultaneously

analyzing the various stages with respect to the same parameters of interest, is what allows for

easy pinpointing of the stages that require the most attention in the improvement analysis.

2.2 Life Cycle Assessments of Electricity Production Systems

2.2.1 Fossil Fuel-Based Systems

Over 70% of U. S. electricity is generated from fossil fuel-fired power plants, with coal

accounting for nearly 50%, natural gas roughly 18%, and petroleum 3% (EIA 2005). Although









emissions due to the combustion of fossil fuels at power plants are monitored and well

documented, taking a life cycle approach to inventorying emissions through several or all stages

of power generation and its associated fuel cycles and examining the environmental impacts of

such systems offers a more holistic and complete analysis. Numerous life cycle assessments

have been performed on various electricity production systems, including fossil fuel, solar,

hydroelectric, nuclear, and wind powered systems.

2.2.2 Coal

"A life cycle inventory of coal used for electricity production in Florida" (Babbitt and

Lindner 2005) compared four different coal-fired utilities in Florida, inventorying the energy and

material inputs and emissions for the raw material extraction, materials processing (coal

combustion), and material disposal stages of the life cycle using SimaPro software. This

research inventoried nearly forty emissions to land, air, and water, including carbon dioxide,

sulfur dioxide, mercury, and lead. This inventory established that 1330 kg of carbon dioxide are

released per 1000 kg of coal combusted, on average for the four utilities (Babbitt and Lindner

2005). Table 2-1 is a summary table of the general results of this research, giving, for example,

the water and land requirements and the total emissions to land, air, and water per 1000 kg of

coal combusted. This table also serves as an example of typical, general results that a life cycle

inventory can generate.

The Department of Energy's National Renewable Energy Laboratory performed a "Life

Cycle Assessment of Coal-Fired Power Production" (Spath et al. 1999), which examined three

different pulverized coal-fired systems. It assessed a plant with emissions and an operating

efficiency that represents the current U.S. average of coal-fired plants; a new coal-fired plant that

meets the New Source Performance Standards (NSPS); and an advanced plant utilizing a low

emission boiler system (LEBS). The life cycle stages included in the study were coal mining,









transportation, and electricity generation. Resource consumption, air emissions, water

emissions, solid waste generated, and energy requirements were inventoried with respect to the

functional unit of per kilowatt-hour of electricity produced. This research determined that 1022

g/kWh of carbon dioxide were emitted from the Average plant, compared to 941 g/kWh of

carbon dioxide from the NSPS plant, and 741 g/kWh from the LEB S plant (Spath et al. 1999).

For all three systems, greater than 93% of the carbon dioxide emissions were produced from the

electricity generation stage of the life cycle. The other most contributing stages were the

limestone production and limestone scrubbing reaction stages for the Average and NSPS plants,

and the transportation stage for the LEBS plant (Spath et al. 1999). The three stressors

inventoried that were used in assessing the global warming impact were CO2, CH4, and N20.

The global warming impact was found to be 1042. 1 g CO2 eqUIValent/kWh for the Average

system, 959.5 g CO2 eqUIValent/kWh for the NSBS system, and 756.9 g CO2 eqUIValent/kWh for

the LEBS system (Spath et al. 1999).

2.2.3 Natural Gas

The National Renewable Energy Laboratory also performed a "Life Cycle Assessment of a

Natural Gas Combined-Cycle Power Generation System" (Spath and Mann 2000). This study

examined the construction and decommissioning of the power plant, construction of the natural

gas pipeline, natural gas extraction, processing, and distribution, ammonia production and

distribution (used for NOx removal), and power generation stages. The power generation unit

that served as the model for this study was a 505 MW unit, consisting of two gas turbines, a

condensing reheat steam turbine, and a three pressure heat recovery steam generator. This

research found that over 99% of the air emissions from this system over the life cycle were

carbon dioxide. After CO2, the next most abundant emission was methane, 74% of which was

from the natural gas extraction, processing, and distribution stages, in the form of fugitive









emissions (Spath and Mann 2000). In decreasing order of quantity released, the remaining

emissions inventoried were non-methane hydrocarbons (NMHC), NOx, SOx, CO, particulates,

and benzene. The global warming impact for the natural gas combined-cycle unit was calculated

based on CO2, CH4, and N20 emissions, and was determined to be 499. 1 g CO2 eqUIValent/kWh

(Spath and Mann 2000).

2.2.4 Fuel Oil

"LCA-LCCA of oil fired steam turbine power plant in Singapore" (Kannan et al. 2004)

examined the life cycle and performed a life cycle cost analysis of a hypothetical 250 MW fuel

oil-fired steam turbine unit used for power production in Singapore, a country that generates the

maj ority of its electricity from oil and natural gas. This research included the materials

extraction and manufacture for the power plant, fuel oil extraction and processing, fuel oil

transportation, plant construction, operation, and decommissioning (including demolition and

recycling) stages. It assumed a power plant lifetime of 25 years, load factor of 70%, and

efficiency of 33%. The focus of this LCA was on specific energy use and global warming

impact. The specific energy use was determined to be 1 1.875 MJ/kWh, 98% of which was due

to upstream processes of fuel oil (Kannan et al. 2004). The greenhouse gases inventoried were

CO2, CH4, and N20, and the global warming impact was found to be 932 g CO2 eqUIValent/kWh,

89.64% of which was from the operation stage alone (Kannan et al. 2004).

2.2.5 Wind Farm Systems

There have also been several life cycle assessments performed on wind turbine power

generating systems. "Energy and CO2 life-CyClC analySes of wind turbines--review and

applications" (Lenzen and Munksgaard 2001) assessed 72 previously performed energy and CO2

analyses of wind turbines for both on-land and offshore systems in many different countries,

including the U.S., U.K., Germany, Denmark, Switzerland, Belgium, Argentina, Brazil, Japan,









and India. This research found that due to differences in assumptions (e.g. load factors, number

of years of wind farm operation) and in the chosen scope and boundaries of the studies (e.g.

including transportation, construction, decommissioning, etc.), country of manufacture, and

power ratings of the different turbines, the results of these 72 studies demonstrated considerable

variation. Energy intensity, defined as required energy invested in the system for manufacture,

transport, etc., per unit of electricity produced, normalized over the life cycle was found to vary

from 0.014 to 1 kWhin/kWh. Carbon dioxide intensity, that is, CO2 emitted per unit of electricity

produced, normalized over the life cycle, was found to vary from 7.9 to 123.7 g CO2/kWh

(Lenzen and Munksgaard 2001).

"Life cycle assessment of a wind farm and related externalities" (Schleisner 1999)

compared energy and emissions from the life cycle of an offshore wind farm to a land-based

wind farm. This research implemented a life cycle assessment model developed by the Riso

National Laboratory in Denmark that quantifies the energy use and related emissions for the

production, manufacture and transportation of 1 kg of material under Danish conditions. Both of

the systems upon which this research was based were real systems. The offshore wind farm

LCA was based on Tuno Knob wind farm, a 5 MW farm consisting of ten Vestas V39-500 kW

turbines located 6 km off the coast of Jutland, Denmark. The land-based wind farm was based

on Fjaldene, a 9 MW farm situated in Jutland, consisting of eighteen V39-500 kW turbines. The

stages included in this LCA were resource extraction, resource transportation, materials

processing, component manufacture, component transportation, turbine construction, turbine

operation, decommissioning, and turbine product disposal. Assuming an estimated operating

efficiency of 40%, a lifetime of 20 years, and a total power output of 250 GWh, it was found that

the energy payback time for the Fjaldene wind farm was 0.26 years, and 0.39 years for Tuno









Knob. Emissions normalized over the lifetime were found to be 9.7 g CO2/kWh, 0.02 g

SO2/kWh, and 0.03 g NOx/kWh for the land-based Fjaldene wind plant, compared to 16.5 g

CO2/kWh, 0.03 g SO2/kWh, and 0.05 g NOx/kWh for the Tuno Knob offshore plant (Schleisner

1999).

The European Commission has funded a research proj ect that has utilized life cycle

assessments in order to analyze the externalities of energy. This program, ExternE, was

implemented at the national level by over 50 research teams in over 20 countries in Europe since

1991. Under this program, each participating country performed fuel cycle analyses for

conventional fossil fuel-based energy systems and life cycle assessments for renewable energy

power generating options. The ExternE proj ect included an LCA for land-based wind farms in

Germany and Greece, and both an onshore and offshore wind farm LCA for Denmark (European

Commission 1997). Denmark' s ExternE proj ect for the two wind farms was conducted by

Schleisner (1999) on Tuno Knob and Fj aldene, as previously presented.

Greece's ExternE implementation examined a 1.575 MW wind power plant, consisting of

seven 225 kW Vestas turbines on the island of Andros. Stages included in the study were

resources extraction, materials processing, component manufacture, turbine construction, turbine

operation, plant decommissioning, component final disposal, and transportation between each

stage. Assuming a load factor of 3 5%, wind availability of 80%, and a lifetime of 20 years, it

was found that the wind farm produced 8.2 g CO2/kWh, 0.079 g SO2/kWh, and 0.032 g

NOx/kWh (European Commission 1997).

Germany's ExternE implementation was based on Nordfriesland Windpark in Schleswig-

Holstein, consisting of fifty-one 250 kW Husumer Schiffswerft HSW-250 turbines, for a total

capacity of 127.5 MW. Construction, transport, operation, and dismantling of the turbines were









included in the LCA. The research assumed a total power output of 486 GWh over a 20 year

lifetime, based on 2 years of wind data measured at the park. It was established that the wind

farm produced 6.46 kg CO2, 15 g SO2, 20 g NOx, 20 g CH4, 0.07 g N20, and 4.6 g particulates

per MWh of electricity produced (European Commission 1997). Germany's ExternE research

also examined the effects of wind turbines on birds. Seven locations with 69 wind turbines were

observed for one year and it was concluded that 32 birds could have been killed by collisions

with the turbines. It was concluded that neither solitary wind turbines nor wind parks pose a

serious threat to birds, especially when compared to other common threats such as traffic

(European Commission 1997).

Although there have been several LCAs performed for offshore wind farms, it is important

to note that the data and consequently the results of LCAs are site-specific, and to date, an LCA

for an offshore wind farm for the United States has not been published.

Table 2-2 summarizes the life cycle carbon dioxide emissions of the aforementioned fossil

fuel-based and wind powered electricity production systems, as well as additional references. It

can be seen from this table that fossil fired systems range from 499.1 to 1050 g CO2/kWh, with

natural gas representing the lower end of the range, followed by fuel oil systems spanning the

middle of the range, and coal-fired power systems having the largest carbon dioxide emissions

over the life cycle. Wind power systems have been found to range from 6.46 to 123.7 g

CO2/kWh, with offshore systems producing greater emissions than land-based wind farms.

2.3 Introduction to Emergy Synthesis

Emergy is a concept conceived by Howard T. Odum, resulting from several decades of

research on energy quality in ecosystems and human systems throughout the 1960s, '70s, and

'80s (Brown and Ulgiati 2004). The term emergy was coined by David Scienceman, a visiting

scholar from Australia working with H.T. Odum, and is a contraction of the phrase "embodied









energy." Emergy is defined as an expression of all the energy of one kind previously used in the

work processes and input flows that are required to generate a product or service. Those work

processes include both work done by society and by nature. Emergy can be thought of as

"energy memory" and is a way of including all inputs to a system on a common basis. This

common unit of measure for emergy is the solar emj oule, abbreviated sej (Brown and Ulgiati

2004).

Energy is constantly undergoing transformations from one quality to another, and these

different qualities demonstrate the existence of an energy hierarchy. For example, one joule of

fossil fuels has higher quality than one joule of sunlight, and one joule of electricity has higher

quality than one j oule of fossil fuels. The quality of an energy type is related to its flexibility and

ease of use (Odum 1994). The quality of energy increases as the energy becomes more

concentrated. Solar energy is the most abundant energy, but is also the most diffuse energy and

has the lowest quality. As energy is transformed to higher qualities it becomes more

concentrated and is therefore available in smaller quantities. During every energy transformation

some energy loses its ability to do work, as stated by the 2nd Law of Thermodynamics, and this

further contributes to higher quality energy being less abundant. Energy quality is measured by

the Unit Emergy Value (UEV), which can be calculated on either an energy or mass basis. The

solar transformity is the energy-based UEV, which measures emergy per unit available energy

and has units of sej/J. Specific emergy is the mass-based UEV, which measures emergy per unit

mass and has units of sej/g. UEVs can be thought of as a measure of efficiency, since they are a

ratio of output to required inputs (Brown and Ulgiati 2004). Energy quality can also be

calculated on a monetary basis with units of sej/$. Unit Emergy Values for some common items

are given in Table 2-3 (Brown and Ulgiati 2004).










Exergy is commonly used for energy analysis because it is a measure of the energy in a

product that is available to do work, and the ability to do work is the typical aspect of interest for

an energy analysis. In contrast to exergy, however, emergy includes all previous energy inputs

that were required in making the product, regardless of whether those inputs contribute to the

final product' s available energy. Because it includes inputs from the environment as well as

those from society, emergy accounting can be thought of as a way of measuring the true wealth

of a system on the larger, biosphere scale, in contrast to traditional energy analyses where certain

inputs and services are neglected because they do not have an associated energy measure in fuel

equivalents (Brown and Herendeen 1996). Examples of such inputs are environmental services

(e.g. oxygen supply for combustion or pollution abatement); environmental energy and material

inputs (e.g. solar energy that was converted to biomass and eventually converted to fossil fuels);

or human services inputs (e.g. labor). Power generation systems are systems where services

provided by the environment are largely unaccounted for, such as heat dissipation, absorption

and dilution of harmful emissions, and insolation and biomass required to create the fuels.

Therefore, emergy accounting may provide a means to include and quantify this work in the

analysis and reveal the systems' level of environmental loading and sustainability.

A fundamental first step in emergy synthesis is to construct a system diagram to clearly

illustrate and define the system boundaries, components, interactions, and flows. Figure 2-1

explains the more commonly used systems diagramming symbols. Examples of these symbols

include sun or tides as sources; a tank of water or a reserve of food or fuels as storage; building

a wooden table or cooking a meal as interactions; biomass as producers; and animals or people as

consumers. For further explanation of systems diagramming and symbols, refer to

"Environmental Accounting: Emergy and Environmental Decision Making" (Odum 1996).










Figure 2-2 is an example system diagram of global processes of the geobiosphere.

Important to note is that the system components, including the external sources, are arranged

from left to right in order of energy quality, i.e. in order of increasing transformity or specific

emergy. Notice that the three external energy inputs to the earth are solar energy, tidal energy,

and deep earth heat. It is these three energy flows upon which all emergy accounting

calculations are based. These three flows act as a single coupled system driving the

geobiosphere. Values for the inflows of these three energy sources to the geobiosphere have

been measured, and thus transformities for solar energy (1 sej/J, by definition), tidal energy

(7.39E+04 sej/J), and deep earth heat (1.20E+04 sej/J) were calculated. From this the total solar

emergy driving the earth was determined to be 15.83E+24 sej/year. For a more detailed

explanation of these calculations, refer to Brown and Ulgiati (2004).

Some of the parameters used to measure system performance in an emergy synthesis are

emergy yield ratio (EYR), emergy investment ratio (EIR), environmental loading ratio (ELR),

and emergy index of sustainability (EIS). Figure 2-3 is a systems diagram that illustrates and

defines these parameters. The emergy yield ratio is the ratio of the system yield, which is the

sum of all the emergy flows driving the process or system, to the purchased goods and services

from outside sources. This ratio is a way to measure how much imported emergy the process or

system requires in order to produce its yield. Another way to interpret the EYR is that it

measures the extent to which the system makes use of the local renewable and nonrenewable

resources in order to produce its yield. The emergy investment ratio is the ratio of the emergy

imported to the system for goods and services to the local renewable and nonrenewable resources

that also drive the system. The EIR is a way to measure to what extent the process or system

utilizes the local resources, both renewable and nonrenewable, compared to how dependent it is









on imported goods and services. The environmental loading ratio is the ratio of the sum of the

imported goods and services and the local nonrenewable sources to the renewable environmental

inputs. It is a way to measure the extent to which the system depends upon environmental

emergy inputs, and therefore can be thought of as a measure of level of stress the system puts on

the environment. Lastly, the emergy sustainability index is the ratio of the emergy yield ratio to

the environmental loading ratio. This parameter is a way to measure the system's contribution to

the economy per unit of environmental stress.

2.4 Emergy Analyses of Electricity Production Systems

Emergy synthesis serves as a useful tool for assessing the performance of electricity

production systems for several reasons. Similar to life cycle assessment, emergy accounting

includes in the analysis indirect as well as direct energy inputs, materials, and services. This

parallels the inclusion of all life cycle stages in an LCA, and not solely the operation or product

use stage. Another advantage of emergy synthesis for power generation systems is its ability to

account for environmental inputs and services in the analysis, such as oxygen supply, cooling

water supply, and environmental absorption of emissions.

"Emergy evaluations and environmental loading of electricity production systems" (Brown

and Ulgiati 2002) compared six different renewable and nonrenewable power generating systems

in Italy, namely, coal, natural gas, oil, geothermal, hydroelectric, and wind power systems, in

terms of energy and emergy. Parameters used to assess the systems' performances were

output/input energy ratio, emergy-based yield ratio, and environmental loading ratio. Carbon

dioxide generated by each system was also assessed. The 2.5 MW wind farm model used for the

analysis consisted of ten 225 kW turbines. The model coal plant was 1280 MW, the methane

plant was 171 MW, and the oil plant was 1280 MW. It was found that the wind power plant had

an energy ratio of 7.66 (energy output/energy input), while the coal plant had an energy ratio of










0.25, the methane plant 0.36, and the oil plant 0.30. The carbon dioxide released, normalized to

the amount of electricity produced for each system, was found to be 36. 15 g/kWh for the wind

farm, 1109.82 g/kWh for the coal system, 759.48 for the methane system, and 923.19 for the oil

system (Brown and Ulgiati 2002).

The emergy yield ratio was also determined for each system. It was found to be 7.47 for

the wind farm, 5.48 for the coal-fired power unit, 6.60 for the methane-fired unit, and 4.21 for

the oil-fired unit. The environmental loading ratio for the wind system was determined to be an

order of magnitude lower than the fossil fuel plants, having a value of 0. 15, compared to 10.37

for the coal plant, 11.78 for the methane plant, and 14.24 for the oil plant. Another performance

indicator included in the analysis was the emergy index of sustainability (EIS), the ratio of the

emergy yield ratio to the environmental loading ratio. The wind turbine's EIS was calculated as

48.300, while the coal plant was 0.529, methane plant was 0.560, and oil plant was 0.295 (Brown

and Ulgiati 2002). A high EIS value implies a high emergy yield compared to its respective

environmental load. These values, therefore, indicate that the wind system performs with a

significantly higher emergy yield per unit of environmental loading.

Two other parameters were included in this research that have not been previously defined,

emergy density (ED) and percent renewable (%R). Emergy density is defined as the emergy

yield per unit area of the power generating plant. As a result of the diffuse nature of wind energy

in comparison to fossil fuels, it was found that the ED of the wind farm was three orders of

magnitude lower than that of the fossil fuel plants, with a value of 1.19E12, compared to

2.18E15 for coal, 2.61E15 for methane, and 2.48E15 for oil. The percent renewable is defined as

the ratio of the local renewable inputs to the total inputs for the system. The wind system' s%R

was calculated as 86.61, while the coal plant' s%R was 8.79, the methane plant' s was 7.83, and









the oil plant' s was 6.56. This parameter can be thought of as another index for measuring

sustainability because it identifies the fraction of the system that is driven by renewable inputs,

i.e., the fraction of the system that does not rely upon externally supplied goods and services or

temporary storage of energy (fossil fuels) that will eventually run out.

"Quantifying the environmental support for dilution and abatement of process emissions -

The case of electricity production" (Ulgiati and Brown 2002) is an emergy synthesis that focused

on quantifying in greater detail the necessary environmental services provided to electricity

production systems, and presenting how the inclusion of these services in the analysis affects the

emergy performance indicators. It was an extension of the aforementioned study, performed by

the same authors, further examining four of the six power plants in Italy: coal (1280 MW), oil

(1280 MW), methane (171 MW), and geothermal (20 MW). These four were chosen because

only the emissions from the operational stage of electricity generation were considered while

emissions resulting from the construction stages were neglected. Emissions from the geothermal

plant during operation include those that are released from deep heat reservoirs, such as H2S,

Radon, and CH4.

Ulgiati and Brown performed an emergy evaluation for each of the four power systems

three different ways. The first analysis included no environmental services required for the

dilution of emissions; the second analysis accounted for the environmental services required to

dilute thermal and chemical emissions resulting from the operation of the power generation

systems down to legal limits; and the third analysis included the environmental services required

to dilute the thermal and chemical emissions down to natural background levels. The results of

this study demonstrate that including the environmental service of emissions dilution in the

emergy synthesis has considerable effects on the performance indicators. The transformities of










each system increase when emission dilution is accounted for, since environmental emergy

inputs to the system increase. The methane plant showed the smallest increase in transformity,

from 1.70E+05 to 1.73E+05 sej/J, attributable to its relatively clean combustion. The emergy

yield ratios were reduced in all cases, ranging from a reduction by a factor of 4 for the

geothermal plant, a factor of 2 for coal, a factor of 1.7 for oil, and a factor 1.6 for the methane

plant, when comparing the no dilution case to the case of dilution down to natural background

levels. As expected, environmental loading ratios were increased in all cases when emissions

dilution services were included in the analysis. Finally, the emergy index of sustainability

(EYR/ELR) was reduced for all systems when emissions dilution was accounted for, since the

emergy yield ratios decreased while the environmental loading ratios increased. A summary of

these data is given in Table 2-4 (Ulgiati and Brown 2002).

Emergy synthesis serves as an alternative method to evaluate the energy flows of a system.

It provides a way to account for differences in energy quality, for environmental services

provided to a system, as well as a means to measure a system's level of sustainability. Recently,

galvanizing issues such as global warming have brought about a growing awareness and concern

for recognizing the limits of the geobiosphere and the environmental services that it can provide.

Emergy synthesis may serve as a useful tool for future decision-making for assessing and

comparing human dominated systems that rely heavily on inputs and services from the

geobiosphere.

2.5 Life Cycle Assessment and Emergy Synthesis

Life cycle assessment and emergy synthesis compliment each other in many ways. Both

are a useful tool for presenting a holistic view of a product or process. LCAs traditionally focus

more on environmental stressors and their corresponding impacts, while emergy analyses focus

more on energy and system sustainability; both address a broader scope than looking solely at









the product' s use or process' operational stage. LCAs quantify the environmental impacts of the

process or product throughout its life cycle, including stages that are often neglected from

analysis. Emergy synthesis accounts for all the energy of one type that was previously used up

in the transformations required to produce the final product. Emergy synthesis also accounts for

environmental services that drive the system, not just the inputs having a monetary value as are

typically included in an analysis for a product of human interest or a human dominated process.

Combining life cycle assessment with emergy synthesis to evaluate a process results in a

comprehensive analysis that provides multiple methodologies for measuring net energy and

environmental performance of the system.

Table 2-1. Summary table of the coal life cycle inventory from Babbitt and Lindner (2005).
System Inputs System Outputs
Coal 2011 kg Electricity 9.68 GJ
Chemicals and other materials 430 kg CCPs 216 kg
Energy 2.31 GJ Emissions to air 1350 kg
Fuels 27.6 m3 Emissions to water 60.7 kg
Equipment 3220 ton-mile Emissions to land 11.2 kg
Infrastructure 330 processes
Water 7.36 x 106 m3
Land 185 m2
Note: All values are based on a functional unit of per 1000 kg of coal combusted.











Table 2-2. Summary table of life cycle CO2 emiSsions of power generating systems from
various LCA studies.


Fuel Reference
Coal Babbit & Lindner 2005
Spath et al. 1999
Spath et al. 1999
Spath et al. 1999
Tahara et al. 1997
Hondo 2005
Gagnon et al. 2002
San Martin 1989
Natural Gas Spath & Mann 2000
Gagnon et al. 2002
San Martin 1989
Fuel Oil Kannan et al. 2004
Tahara et al. 1997
Hondo 2005
Gagnon et al. 2002
San Martin 1989
Wind Lenzen & Munksgaard 2001
Schleisner 1999
Schleisner 1999
European Commission 1997
European Commission 1997
Hondo 2005
Gagnon et al. 2002
San Martin 1989


Power Unit Description
4 Florida plants
Average
NSPS
LEBS
1000 MW unit
1000 MW unit
Average of numerous LCAs
DOE estimated "average"
Combined Cycle
Average of numerous LCAs
DOE estimated "average"
Oil Steam Turbine
1000 MW unit
1000 MW unit
Average of numerous LCAs
DOE estimated "average"
72 various wind farms
Fjaldene (onshore)
Tuno Knob (offshore)
Greece
Germany
300 kW turbine
Average of numerous LCAs
DOE estimated "average"


CO2
1330
1022
941
741
915.9
975.2
960-1050
964
499.1
443
484
932
755.7
742.1
778
726
7.9-123.7
9.7
16.5
8.2
6.46
29.5
9
7.4


Units
kg/1000 kg coal
g/kWh
g/kWh
g/kWh
g/kWh
g/kWh
g/kWh
g/kWh
g CO2-eq./kWh
g/kWh
g/kWh
g CO2-eq./kWh
g/kWh
g/kWh
g/kWh
g/kWh
g/kWh
g/kWh
g/kWh
g/kWh
g/kWh
g/kWh
g/kWh
g/kWh





























Table 2-4. Comparison of emergy indicators for selected power plants for three different
levels of emissions dilution (Ulgiati and Brown 2002).
Required dilution
Thermal and chemical Thermal and chemical
No dilution of emissions down to emissions down to
emissions legal limits natural background


Table 2-3. Unit Emergy Values of common items and services.
Item Transformity (sej/J)
Sunlight 1.00E+00
Global wind circulation 2.50E+03
Peat 3.20E+04
Coal 6.70E+04
Cotton 1.40E+05
Corn 1.60E+05
Electricity 3.40E+05
Butter 2.20E+06
Silk 6.70E+06
Phosphate fertilizer 1.70E+07
Shrimp (aquaculture) 2.20E+07
Steel 8.70E+07
Human Labor 6.32E+16


Specific Emergy (sej/g)


6.70E+08


2.40E+09






7.80E+09


Geothermal
Transformity (sej/J)
EYR
ELR
EYR/ELR
Thermal (oil)
Transformity (sej/J)
EYR
ELR
EYR/ELR
Thermal (coal)
Transformity (sej/J)
EYR
ELR
EYR/ELR
Thermal (methane)
Transformity (sej/J)
EYR
ELR
EYR/ELR


1.47E+05
7.47
0.15
48.30

2.00E+05
4.21
14.24
0.30

1.71E+05
5.48
10.37
0.53

1.70E+05
6.60
11.78
0.56


1.47E+05
4.78
0.44
10.95

2.00E+05
4.14
14.29
0.29

1.71E+05
5.35
10.42
0.51

1.70E+05
6.54
11.79
0.55


1.47E+05
1.87
0.90
2.07

2.33E+05
2.54
17.52
0.14

2.04E+05
2.59
13.51
0.19

1.73E+05
4.13
12.98
0.32









System Frame: a rectangular bo~x drawn to represent the
boundaries of the selected system

Pathway Line: a flow of energy, often with a flowi of materials


0--


-(X


Source: an outsi de source of energy, a forci ng fu ncti on


Sftorage: a compartment of energy storage within the system,
quantity stored i s a balance of i nflows and outflows


Interaction: a process that combines different types of energy flows
or materi al flows to produce an outflow i n proporti on to a fu ncti on of
the inflows

Producer: a unit that collects and transforms lowi-quality energy
under control i nteracti ons of hi gher quality flows


Consumer: a unit that transforms energy quality, stores it, and feeds
it back autocatalytically to improve inflow


Figure 2-1.


Common symbols in systems diagramming. Reprinted with permission from:
Odum, Howard T. Environmental Accountinn- Emerny and Environmental
Decision Makinn. New York: John Wiley & Sons, Inc., 1996.


I i


Jc~')































Figure 2-2.


Global processes of the geobiosphere. Reprinted with permission from: Odum,
Howard T. Environmental Accounting- Emergy and Environmental Decision
Making. New York: John Wiley & Sons, Inc., 1996.


Yie d (Y) = R+N+F
Emergy Yield Ratio = Y/F
Emergy Investment Ratio = F/(R+N)
Eny ronmental Loading Ratio = (F+N)/R
Empower Density = (R+N+F)/area
General systems diagram illustrating emergy performance indicators. Reprinted
with permission from: Brown, M.T., and S. Ulgiati. "Emergy-based indices and
ratios to evaluate sustainability: monitoring economies and technology toward
environmentally sound innovation." Ecological Engineering 9 (1997): 51-69.


Figure 2-3.


Non-
Renewable
Uses









CHAPTER 3
METHODOLOGY

This chapter outlines the procedures followed for the life cycle assessment and emergy

synthesis of the theoretical 180 MW wind farm, 360 MW coal-fired power generating unit, and

the 505 MW natural gas combined-cycle (NGCC) power generating unit. For both the LCA and

emergy synthesis, data collection was a primary task, and this chapter details the sources of all

the data used in the models and any assumptions that had to be made in order to perform the

analyses. These assumptions are also given in tabular form categorized by life cycle stage in

Appendix A.

3.1 Power Generating Systems Models

3.1.1 Turbine Model

For the theoretical offshore wind park, Vestas V80-1.8 MW turbines were used as the

model. Vestas is the leading manufacturer of offshore wind turbines, currently representing

approximately 50% of all offshore wind installations. The V80-1.8 MW turbine is the largest

turbine that Vestas imports to North America. As of 2006, 625 of these turbines have been

installed, for a total capacity of 1,125 MW. The V80-1.8 MW turbine is the North American

version of the V80-2.0 MW turbine, which has been used extensively in Europe. The two

models are identical with the exception of their generators and gearboxes. The V80-2.0 MW

model has had 1,578 installations, for a total capacity of 3,156 MW. This is a widely used

turbine model with a successful track record, both on land and offshore. The V80-2.0 MW

turbine was the model installed at the Horns Rev wind park in Denmark. Installed in 2002, it is

currently the world's largest offshore wind park, consisting of 80 turbines for a total capacity of

160 MW. A cutaway diagram of the V80-1.8 MW turbine' s nacelle and its power curve are

shown in Figures 3-1 and 3-2, respectively; the technical specifications are given in Table 3-1.









3.1.2 Power Plant Models

Jacksonville Electric Authority (JEA) currently produces electricity with both steam

turbines and gas turbines, running a fuel mix of coal, petroleum coke, distillate fuel oil, residual

fuel oil, and natural gas. To meet their growing electricity demands, recent power plant

installations at JEA have been the combined-cycle gas turbine units at Brandy Branch (first

constructed in 2001 as simple cycle and retrofitted to combined-cycle in 2005) and the

circulating fluidized bed (CFB) coal plants at Northside Generating Station (2002). Therefore,

two different conventional power plants were considered in this research. The first was a 360

MW coal fired steam turbine unit consisting of a pulverized coal boiler, baghouse filter,

conventional limestone flue gas clean-up (FGC) system, a steam turbine, and a heat recovery

steam generator (Spath et al. 1999). The second system was a 505 MW combined cycle natural

gas unit, comprising 2 Siemens Westinghouse W501F gas turbines, a condensing reheat steam

turbine, and a three pressure heat recovery steam generator (Spath and Mann 2000).

3.2 Life Cycle Assessment

3.2.1 Scope, Boundaries, and Functional Unit

The stages included in the life cycle analysis of the wind farm were raw material extraction

and manufacture, wind farm construction, wind farm operation, and wind farm decommissioning

(not including disposal). Transportation was included for the shipment of the turbine parts from

Denmark to Jacksonville. The life cycle stages included for the coal and natural gas combined-

cycle power units were raw materials extraction (including fuels), power plant transportation,

power plant construction, fuels transportation, and power plant operation. Decommissioning was

not included in the analysis for the fossil-based power plants because it is JEA's current protocol

to keep all retired units in inactive reserve for emergency use or future conversion to new

systems (JEA 2006). Parts manufacture was not included for any of the power systems due to









lack of available data. Level diagrams (Figures 3-3 and 3-4) were created to visually display

each of the systems including the inventoried inputs and outputs of each stage.

These level diagrams were expanded to Level 3.0 to show more detail for each system.

These can be seen in Figures 3-5 through 3-7. Figures 3-6 and 3-7 are both for the power plant

systems. Figure 3-6 illustrates the life cycle stages for the construction of the power plants,

which can be compared to that of the wind farm, whereas Figure 3-7 depicts the life cycle stages

of the fuel cycles for JEA' s current operation. In Figure 3-7 there are 3 simultaneous processes

occurring, one for coal, one for oil and petroleum coke, and one for natural gas. Oil and

petroleum coke are grouped into the same process because they are both crude oil products.

The inventoried stressors were carbon dioxide, methane, nitrous oxide, sulfur oxides and

nitrogen oxides. The functional unit of kilograms of emission per MWh of electricity produced

was used for the analysis of both the wind and the fossil fuel-based systems. This allowed for

direct comparison of the systems regardless of their generating capacities.

3.2.2 Data Acquisition

The data acquisition process utilized several resources. Jacksonville Electric Authority,

Vestas, and Sargent & Lundy LLC provided significant amounts of primary data, which were the

preferred data sources when available. The National Renewable Energy Laboratory (NREL)

maintains a Life Cycle Inventory (LCI) Database, which is a U.S. national compilation of input

and output data of common industrial processes organized into modules. The modules are

organized in such a way that the emissions of the process itself are given, as well as a list of the

required upstream inputs, but the emissions for these upstream inputs are not included.

However, these upstream inputs each have their own separate module. Therefore, upstream

emissions can be determined by linking data from the process module to the other modules of the

required input processes. Employing this technique, these modules were used extensively for










process emission calculations, such as fuels extraction and transportation. Upstream electricity

emissions were determined using domestic summary statistics from the U.S. Department of

Energy's Energy Information Administration. A summary table of the NREL LCI Database

modules used throughout this research can be found in Appendix B. Please refer to Appendix C

for upstream electricity emission factors and Appendix D for a sample calculation using the

NREL LCI Database. Only the first level upstream inputs were included in the analysis while

second level upstream inputs and beyond were considered out of the scope of our research. For

example, a barge is a required input for the Petroleum Refining module, so emissions for the

combustion of diesel from the barge transport were included (first level upstream); however,

emissions for the extraction and refining of the diesel used in the barge were not included

(second level), nor were the emissions resulting from the combustion of fuels required for the

extraction and refining (third level), etc. Worth noting is that the NREL LCI Database has not

been subjected to an internal review. However, the database has been compiled using only peer-

reviewed data sources, and its use has been suggested in the literature (Curran 2004).

For the cases where primary data for the power systems could not be obtained and the

NREL LCI Database did not apply, information available in the literature on previous life cycle

assessments of electricity generating systems was used. If data could not be obtained from the

preferred data sources, i.e. JEA, the NREL LCI Database, or the literature, then miscellaneous

resources, such as manufacturing company websites, were utilized as data sources. For example,

GE' s company website was referenced to determine the weight of the locomotive used in the

model for the transport of coal.

Allocation of data was required for processes that produce more than one product included

in the analysis. Although a process has a certain quantity of inputs, outputs, and emissions









associated with it, they must be divided appropriately among the co-products, based on the

required energy and material inputs for each. Since JEA utilizes three petroleum products, i.e.

residual fuel oil, distillate fuel oil, and petroleum coke, the inputs and outputs from the crude oil

extraction stage and the petroleum refining stage were allocated to these three products. Several

other co-products are also produced in petroleum refining, but the portions of the inputs and

outputs allocated to these co-products were not used in this life cycle assessment. A sample

allocation calculation is demonstrated in Appendix E.

3.2.2.1 Wind farm raw materials extraction

The materials included in the wind farm analysis are only the bulk materials that comprise

the V80-1.8 MW turbines. These consist of steel, concrete, copper, and glass reinforced epoxy.

The sea cables were not included in this analysis due to lack of available data and because they

were assumed to represent a negligible mass fraction of the total materials. This assumption is

supported by a previous life cycle assessment of an offshore wind park that provided mass data

for the sea cables, which represented 1.6% of the total mass of the wind park (Schleisner 2000).

The mass data for the materials that comprise the turbines were obtained directly from

Vestas in the turbine's product brochure and through phone conversations with Vestas'

engineers, with the exception of the generator. The mass and materials composition of the

generator for the V80-1.8 MW turbine could not be determined, however, data were found for a

Vestas 225 kW turbine from Greece's national implementation of the ExternE Program

(European Commission 1997). These data were scaled up from 225 kW to 1.8 MW to give the

weight of the generator. To give a level of confidence to this calculation, the mass of the entire

225 kW turbine was also scaled up and compared to the actual mass of the 1.8 MW turbine, and

a 15.7% error was found. This percent error was concluded to be acceptable and further

discussion of the results of this assumption is included in the Sensitivity Analysis chapter.









Danish emission factors were used for these materials since Vestas manufactures their turbines in

Denmark. These emission factors were found in the literature (Schleisner 2000).

The parts of the turbine included in the analysis were the nacelle, generator, hub, rotor,

tower, transition piece, boat landing platform, and monopile foundation. The nacelle, which is

the encasement of the generator, gearbox, controls systems, transformers, brakes, etc., was

assumed to be 100% steel with the exception of the generator within it. Materials data for the

generator could not be found, so it was assumed to be 50% steel and 50% copper, as assumed in

a similar wind farm LCA (European Commission 1997). The rotors for the Vestas V80-2.0

turbine are 100% glass reinforced epoxy. The hub, tower, monopile foundation, transition piece,

and boat landing platform are 100% steel. The coupling piece is composed of a specially

developed, high strength cement grout, but precise composition could not be found, and was

therefore assumed to be made of Portland cement. The turbine components, their material

composition, and mass data can be found in Table 3-2.

3.2.2.2 Wind farm transport

Since the actual departure location through which Vestas ships turbines to the United

States was unable to be determined, the turbines were assumed to be shipped from Aarhus,

Denmark's principal port and second largest city. Also, Aarhus is only 40 km from Randers,

Denmark, where Vestas is located. From the Vestas website, it was concluded that the turbines

would be transported by rail the 40 km to Aarhus and then shipped by ocean bulk freighter to

Jacksonville Port, Florida, a rounded-up distance of 4600 miles. For both the rail transport and

the ocean freighter transport, the National Renewable Energy Laboratory Life Cycle Inventory

Database's (NREL LCI) Transportation module was used to calculate fuel consumption and

emissions.









The train used in the analysis was a GE Evolution Series locomotive with a weight of

415,000 lb (GE 2006) towing a series of Freight Car America flatbed cars. It was assumed that

each turbine required twelve 89-foot 100-ton flatbeds (two for each of the three blades due to

their length, one for each of the three foundation segments, one for the monopile foundation, one

for the transition piece, and one for the nacelle, generator, and hub) giving a total of 1200

flatbeds. It was also assumed that each locomotive could tow 100 flatbeds, so 12 locomotives

were used.

For the ocean freighter, a bulker was chosen over a tanker or a container ship due to the

characteristics of the cargo it is to transport. More specifically, the Panamax ship, the largest

ship that can transit the Panama Canal, was chosen based on the deadweight specifications.

Deadweight tonnage is defined as the weight that the freighter carries, mostly cargo but also

fuels, crew, etc., measured in long tons. Lightweight is defined as the weight of the ship itself.

The total weight of the 100 turbines is roughly 67,300 tons and a Panamax bulker can carry

between 60,000 to 100,000 deadweight tons (dwt) (Maritime Business Strategies, LLC 2006).

The lightweight displacement (the weight of the ship itself) of the Panamax is 10,000 tons

(Alexander' s Gas and Oil Connections Reports 1997). The amount of fuel required for the trip

was calculated using the NREL LCI Database Transportation module, and the weight of the fuel

was calculated based on a diesel density of 850 kg/m3. The weight of the diesel required was

determined to be approximately 2600 tons, so a rounded-up weight of 5000 tons to account for

fuel, crew, and crew supplies was added to the weight of the bulker. The total weight of the

bulker loaded with the wind farm, fuel, crew, and supplies is approximately 82,300 tons. The

NREL LCI Database was employed to calculate the emissions generated from this transport.









3.2.2.3 Wind farm construction

The Vestas website states that for offshore installations a jack-up barge is used that can

transport four turbines (excluding foundations) at a time (Vestas 2007). Using these data to also

calculate the number of trips for the foundations and transition pieces, since each turbine weighs

309,000 kg (330 tons) and each complete foundation (including transition pieces, coupling

pieces, and boat landing platforms) weighs 301,000 kg (301 tons), it was assumed that the barge

could transport 4 foundations per trip as well. Figure 3-8 illustrates the installation of a nacelle

and rotor by jack-up barge and crane. The distance from Jacksonville Port to the location of

Buoy 41008 is approximately 90 miles. The NREL LCI Database Transportation module was

also used for the fuel consumption and emissions for the construction stage. The weight of the

amount of fuel required (as determined by the NREL LCI Database) was also included in the

weight of the barge, which therefore was calculated iteratively, since more fuel is required to

transport a ship carrying more fuel.

Also included in the construction stage of the wind park was the fuel consumed by the

crane fitted on the jack-up barge. The crane was assumed to be a Manitowoc crane, model 2250.

It has a lifting capacity of 330 tons to a height of 300 feet. The crane is driven by a Caterpillar

engine, model 3406C, a 6-cylinder diesel engine rated at 343 kW and 460 hp, at 2100 rpm. It

has a rated fuel efficiency of 17.5 23.7 gal/h. Therefore, an average fuel efficiency of 20.6

gal/h was assumed for the analysis. A pile driver is used for installing the monopile foundations,

however, the fuel efficiency of a pile driver could not be found. It was therefore assumed to

have the same fuel rating as the Manitowoc crane.

3.2.2.4 Wind farm operation and maintenance

The only inventoried emissions resulting from the turbine operation stage are due to

maintenance. Vestas states that lubricating grease for components in the nacelle must be










replaced every six months (Elsam Engineering A/S 2004). Thus, it was assumed that each

turbine would receive biannual maintenance inspections, provided by boat. Vestas also states

that 1 four-member crew is scheduled to complete one maintenance servicing per 1.5 days

(Poulsen 2004). It was therefore assumed that a total of 150 trips are required every 6 months to

service the 100 turbines. The boat was assumed to weigh 30 tons, and a roundtrip distance of

200 miles was used for the calculation. Its fuel consumption and emissions were calculated

using the transportation module of the NREL LCI Database.

3.2.2.5 Wind farm decommissioning

The decommissioning stage was assumed to be identical to the construction stage, with the

exception of the monopile foundations. It is current protocol to leave in the seabed the sections

of the foundations that are below the ocean floor, while the segment above the seabed is cut off

and removed (Elsam Engineering A/S 2004). This was accounted for in the model, in that the

trips transporting the foundations were assumed to carry half the foundation weight of the trips in

the construction stage. This was assumed based on the length of the foundations being 40 meters

and the distance driven into the seabed roughly 20 meters. The number of required trips for the

jack-up barge, however, remains the same. Again, the Transportation module of the NREL LCI

database was used for the fuel requirements and inventoried stressors.

3.2.2.6 Fossil fuel-based power plant raw materials extraction

The materials data for the construction of the two fossil fuel-fired power plants were both

based on NREL life cycle assessment papers (Spath et al. 1999; Spath and Mann 2000). Similar

to the wind farm analysis, only the bulk materials used in construction were considered. The

power plants were assumed to be composed entirely of steel, iron, aluminum, and concrete. U.S.

emission factors were used for these materials since that is where they were assumed to be

manufactured. The material requirements for the two power plants are given in Tables 3-3 and









3-4. Unlike the wind farm analysis, the power plant analysis must also include raw material

extraction for the fuels used during the operation stage. Therefore, crude oil extraction, natural

gas extraction, and coal mining were included in this stage. Data for this were obtained from the

Primary Fuels Production module of the NREL LCI Database.

3.2.2.7 Fossil fuel-based power plant transportation

The coal-fired steam turbine power unit was assumed to be manufactured by Siemens,

which produces its steam turbines at its manufacturing plant in Charlotte, North Carolina

(Siemens 2007a). The distance from Charlotte to Jacksonville was found to be 400 miles, and

transportation was assumed to be by rail. The transportation emissions were calculated using the

NREL LCI Transportation module.

The natural gas combined-cycle power unit was also assumed to be manufactured by

Siemens, whose gas turbine manufacturing facility is located in Hamilton, Ontario (Siemens

2007b). The distance from Hamilton, Ontario to Jacksonville was found to be 1200 miles and

the NGCC power unit was also assumed to be transported by rail. Emissions were calculated

using the NREL LCI Transportation module.

3.2.2.8 Fossil fuel-based power plant construction

Construction data for the two power plant models were obtained through phone

conversations with several engineers from the Chicago, Illinois headquarters of Sargent & Lundy

LLC, a leading construction contractor to the electric power industry. Data were obtained for an

800 MW coal-fired steam turbine unit, and a 500 MW natural gas combined-cycle unit,

consisting of two gas turbines and one heat recovery steam turbine. These data were then scaled

as a function of generating capacity size for use in this research. The data obtained from Sargent

& Lundy included an estimated number of cranes, dozers, scrapers, pile drivers, and trucks

required for construction. A summary of these data can be found in Table 3-5.









3.2.2.9 Fossil fuel-based power plant operation

Since these units would be installed for JEA, the operational stage was assumed to be

representative of JEA' s current operating trends. Primary emissions data were obtained from

JEA for the CO2, SOx, and NOx emissions for each of their 18 units. JEA reported that the SOx,

and NOx emissions were measured with continuous emission monitors fitted on each of JEA' s

units, and the CO2 emiSsions were calculated using the DOE AP-42 emission factors based on

the units' fuel consumption. Methane and nitrous oxide emissions remained to be determined, so

to be consistent with JEA' s methods, the CH4 and the N20 emissions were also calculated using

DOE AP-42 emission factors. The emissions factors used are based on fuel type, so for units

using multiple fuels, emissions per composite megawatt-hour were calculated based on each

fuel's contribution to 1 MWh, using JEA' s reported average heating values of the fuels. A

sample of this calculation is given in Appendix F.

The operational stage of the natural gas combined-cycle unit was modeled after the

operation of JEA' s Brandy Branch Station. Brandy Branch is a natural gas combined-cycle unit

that was first installed in 2001 as three separate 193 MW simple cycle gas-fired turbines. In

2005, Brandy Branch was retrofitted and converted to a combined-cycle plant with the addition

of a 180 MW heat recovery steam turbine, resulting in a total capacity of 759 MW. The

operational conditions of Brandy Branch that were applied to the 505 MW combined-cycle

model unit of the current research include both intensive and extensive factors. Such intensive

factors include operating on a fuel mix comprising 95.6% natural gas and 4.4% distillate fuel oil,

and running at a loading factor of 59.3%. A capacity factor of 60% was assumed. Extensive

operational data had to be scaled down to apply to the 505 MW capacity size of the model, such

as annual fuel consumption and electrical output.









The operational stage of the coal-fired steam turbine was assumed to operate based on two

different power plants at JEA, Plant Scherer and St. Johns River Power Park, and therefore two

separate scenarios were generated. Plant Scherer is an 841 MW coal-fired generating unit jointly

owned by JEA and Florida Power and Light (FPL). Under the Scherer Unit 4 Purchase

Agreement, JEA is entitled to 23.64% of Scherer' s capacity (180 MW), while FPL receives the

other 76.36%. Plant Scherer operates on 99.96% coal and 0.04% distillate fuel oil at a loading

factor of 91.7%. The first scenario of the coal-fired plant was modeled to operate according to

these conditions, and a capacity factor of 60% was assumed. This plant was chosen to represent

one of the scenarios for the operational stage of the coal-fired unit to provide a life cycle

assessment of a purely coal-fired system.

St. Johns River Power Park, consisting of two 336 MW circulating fluidized bed steam

turbines, was chosen as the second scenario for the operational conditions for the coal-fired

power unit because it runs on a fuel mix of roughly 82% coal, 17% petroleum coke, and 1%

distillate fuel oil, at a loading factor of 91.7%. As above, the second scenario was modeled to

operate according to these conditions, and a capacity factor of 60 % was again assumed.

Including these operating conditions affects the entire life cycle of the coal-fired system by

necessitating the inclusion of the fuel cycles for the additional fuels, e.g. petroleum coke

extraction, refining, transport, etc. St. Johns River Power Park was chosen as a second scenario

for the coal-fired plant because of its inclusion of petroleum coke as a fuel source. Jacksonville

Electric Authority has been in the process of increasing their use of petroleum coke due to its

economic benefit, having generated 17% of their total power supply from petcoke in 2002, and

having increased to 27% by 2005 (JEA 2006a).









3.2.2.10 Fuels extraction, processing, and refining

For fuels extraction, processing, and refining stages, the NREL LCI Database's Primary

Fuels Production module was used. JEA' s coal-fired plants run on bituminous coal (JEA 2006a),

so the Bituminous Coal Production database was used for calculations of emissions. For natural

gas, the Natural Gas Extraction and Processing database was referenced. For petroleum coke

and fuel oil, the Crude Oil Extraction and Petroleum Refining databases were used. These two

databases provide emissions based on the extraction and refining of 1000 kg of crude oil, so

allocation was implemented in order to assign emissions to each of the resulting petroleum

products.

3.2.2.11 Coal transport

Jacksonville Electric Authority has fuel contracts to supply the maj ority of their fuels, and

obtains the rest in the open market. In 2005, JEA purchased 82% of their coal requirements

through Southern Coal & Land Company and the remaining 18% through RAG Coal Sales of

America (now know as Foundation Energy Sales, Inc.).

Coal is supplied to JEA through a combination of rail and ship. JEA owns 4 sets of 90-car

trains operated by CSX Transportation Inc., with each car having a carrying capacity of 105 tons

of coal. Coal arriving by rail comes from mines in Kentucky and West Virginia (JEA 1997).

These four trains were modeled as GE Evolution Series locomotives towing 90 Aluminum Quad

Hopper cars, which have a load capacity of 117.05 tons (FreightCar America 2006), the most

similar to JEA' s aluminum hopper cars for which data were found.

Coal transported by ship or barge arrives at the St. Johns River Coal Terminal, a 30-acre

site located on Blount Island that can handle up to 3 million tons of coal per year. The coal is

then transported to the Power Park by a 3.2 mile-long enclosed conveyor system. Receiving coal

by ship offers the economic benefit of being able to purchase coal on the spot market when










prices are lower than those of JEA' s coal purchasing contracts (JEA 1997). The ships were

modeled as Panamax ocean cargo bulkers.

Emissions resulting from coal transportation were calculated using the NREL LCI

Database Transportation module. It was assumed that 75% of the coal arrived by rail and the

remaining 25% arrived by ship. The distance used for rail transport was the average distance

between Lexington, KY and Jacksonville and Charleston, WV and Jacksonville. This distance

was calculated to be 555 miles, so a rounded up distance of 600 miles was assumed. For the coal

arriving by ship, it was found that the U. S. imports 99% of its coal from Columbia, Venezuela,

Indonesia, and Canada (EIA 2007). Thus, the following ports were chosen from each country

and distances to Jacksonville were calculated: Santa Marta, Columbia; Maracaibo, Venezuela;

Jakarta, Indonesia; and Charlottetown, Canada. These distances were weighted by their

respective fraction of U.S. coal imports that they represent, and this Einal weighted average

distance of 2165 miles was used for the ship transport emissions calculations using the NREL

LCI Transportation module.

3.2.2.12 Petroleum coke transport

In 2005 JEA purchased 64% of their petcoke requirements from Oxbow LLC, 25% from

Energy Coal SpA, and the remaining 11% in the spot market (JEA 2006a). Since petcoke is a

by-product of petroleum refining, it was assumed that JEA receives their petcoke by ship from

U.S. refineries. Texas (including offshore), Alaska, California, and Louisiana produce 78% of

the total crude oil produced in the U.S. It was assumed that the crude oil is processed at

refineries in relatively close proximity to extraction sites. The following port cities were chosen,

one for each of the four states, and average distances to Jacksonville by sea were calculated:

Baton Rouge, LA; Baytown, TX; Valdez, AK; and San Francisco, CA. It was assumed that the

Valdez and San Francisco tankers would travel through the Panama Canal, and the Baton Rouge









and Baytown tankers would travel around the southern tip of Florida. The average distance of

these four locations to Jacksonville, weighted by percent contribution to U.S. crude oil

production, was found to be 3150 miles.

3.2.2.13 Fuel oil transport

JEA maintains a 45 to 60 day supply of oil inventory, and purchases its fuel oil in the open

market (JEA 2006a). Being a petroleum product, the transportation of fuel oil was assumed to be

the same as petroleum coke transportation, detailed above.

3.2.2.14 Natural gas transport

Jacksonville Electric Authority has a 20 year contract that began in 2001 to purchase a

7,300,000 mmBtu per year of natural gas through EPM (now BGLS). This value is planned to

increase to 22,265,000 mmBtu per year in 2007. JEA has a contract to use the Florida Gas

Transmission interstate pipeline for transportation of 19,710,000 mmBtu per year. In fiscal year

2005, JEA purchased the maj ority of their natural gas from EPM.

Natural gas transport emissions were calculated using both the Natural Gas Precombustion

database (from the Energy and Fuels Precombustion module) and the Natural Gas Extraction and

Processing database (from the Primary Fuels Production module) of the NREL LCI Database.

The Precombustion module accounts for extraction, processing, transport, and storage of fuels.

Therefore, data from the Extraction and Processing database were subtracted from the data from

the Precombustion database to isolate the emissions due solely to natural gas transport and

storage.

3.2.3 Lifetime Power Output

The lifetime power output of the wind farm was calculated as the product of the wind

farm' s capacity, a capacity factor of 30%, and the number of hours operating over its 20-year

lifespan. This results in a power output of 9,467,280 MWh. The lifetime power outputs of the









fossil fuel-fired systems were similarly calculated as the product of their capacities, a capacity

factor of 60%, a loading factor of 91.7% for the coal-fired unit and 59.3% for the natural gas-

fired unit, and the number of hours in their 30-year lifespans. This results in a lifetime power

output of 52,088,975 MWh for the coal-fired units (both the Scherer-based and St. Johns River

Power Park-based units), and 47,251,983 MWh for the natural gas-fired unit. The reason the

power outputs for the coal plant and the NGCC unit were based on different loading factors is

because they were assumed to operate as JEA currently operates similar systems. JEA runs its

coal-fired units more continuously than its NGCC unit. Brandy Branch, the natural gas

combined-cycle unit at JEA, underwent 103 start-ups in 2004, compared to only 9 start-ups for

St. Johns River Power Park.

3.2.4 Environmental Impact Assessment

The impact assessment was conducted using the Environmental Risk Evaluation Method as

outlined by Allan and Shonnard (2002). In this method, the dimensionless risk index is

calculated by Equation 3-1.

[ (EP) (IIP) ]
(DimensionlessRiskhidex) = (3-1)
S[(EP)(IIP)],

where EP is the exposure potential, IIP is the inherent impact potential, i is the indexed

compound, and B is the benchmark compound. The dimensionless risk index for global

warming and acid rain are referred to by Allen and Shonnard (2002) as global warming potential

(GWP) and acid rain potential (ARP) respectively. GWP values used in the impact assessment

for CO2, CH4, N20 and NOx are 1, 21, 310, and 40, respectively; ARP values for SO2 and NO2

are 1 and 0.7, respectively (Allan and Shonnard 2002). Some of the data sources used reported

air emissions as SOx and NOx, while other data sources reported air emissions as SO2 and NO2

only. In this impact assessment, all of the SO2 and SOx data were lumped together, using the









ARP for SO2. Similarly, the NO2 and NOx data values were grouped together with GWP for

NOx and the ARP for NO2 applied, based on availability of data and dimensionless risk index

values. To assess the total index, I, for global warming and acid rain impacts resulting from the

air emissions inventoried from all stages of the electricity production systems, Equation 3-2 was

used, in accordance with the method outlined by Allan and Shonnard (2002).

I = [ [(DimensionzlessRisklrndex), x m: ] (3 -2)


where i is the indexed stressor (i.e., CO2, CH4, N20, SO2, NOx), the Dimensionless Risk Index

is either the GWP of i or the ARP of i (depending on which impact is being assessed), and m is

the total mass of i emitted throughout all the life cycle stages considered per functional unit.

More details of the GWP and ARP are given below.

3.2.4.1 Global warming potential

According to the Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change, the GWP is the cumulative

infrared energy capture from the release of 1 kg of a greenhouse gas relative to that from 1 kg of

carbon dioxide, the benchmark compound (Allan and Shonnard 2002). This can be expressed by

Equation 3-3.



G Wl = O (3 -3)
aCO2 CO2d


where a, is the predicted radiative forcing of gas i (W/m2) (a function of the chemical's infrared

absorption properties and C,), C, is the predicted concentration in the atmosphere (ppm), and n is

the number of years over which the integration is performed. Substituting the calculated GRPi

values and the mass of emissions into Equation 3-2 above produces impact potential units of kg

of CO2 eqUIValents per MWh.









3.2.4.2 Acid rain potential

The acid rain potential of a compound is determined by the number of moles of H+ it

creates per number of moles of the compound (Allan and Shonnard 2002). The acidification is

expressed on a mass basis (Equation 3-4) where i is again the compound of interest and rli is the

number of moles H+ per kg i. SO2 is the benchmark compound for acid rain potential (Allan and

Shonnard 2002).

ARPi= ri/ElSO2 (3 -4)

Substituting the ARPi values and the mass of emissions into Equation 3-2 above produces impact

potential units of kg of SO2 eqUIValents per MWh.

3.3 Emergy Synthesis

3.3.1 Scope and Boundaries

The emergy analysis included the same stages as the life cycle assessment, i.e. raw

materials extraction and manufacture, transportation, construction, and operation for all three

power generating systems, and decommissioning was also included for the wind farm system.

A system diagram representing the construction, operation, and maintenance of the power

plant systems and the wind farm system is shown in Figure 3-9. The external sources included in

the analysis are wind, fuels, materials, machinery, and human services. The two main storage

are the assets of the power plants and the wind farm. For simplicity, separate components in the

systems diagrams were not drawn for the natural gas combined-cycle power unit and the coal-

fired steam turbine power unit, because the two components would be identical. Thus, the JEA

PP (Jacksonville Electric Authority power plant) component shown in Figure 3-9 represents

either of the systems. Separate emergy accounting tables were constructed for these two

systems, however, because the energy, materials, and service flows are of different quantities.

The dashed line in the system diagram is a monetary flow and represents an exchange of money









coming into the system obtained through the sale of electricity, and then leaving the system in

exchange for human services. There is also a fraction of this monetary flow that remains in the

system as profit; however, this was not included in the analysis and was therefore neglected from

the system diagram.

Also for simplicity, the construction and maintenance stages are represented by the same

interaction symbol, one for each power system, since they both combine materials with fuels,

machinery, and human services, but they operate at different times in the life cycle, never

simultaneously. The outflows of the construction/maintenance interaction symbols feed into the

storage of the power systems' assets. The operation stages are represented by the interaction

symbols located within the boxed boundaries of the individual power systems. The inflows for

the coal and natural gas-fired systems are fuels, assets, and human services, while the inflows for

the wind park are wind, assets, and human services. The outflows of the interactions

representing the operational stage are electricity. Inputs that were considered to be outside the

scope of our research include the emergy flows of the construction equipment and cooling water

required, and were not included in the analysis. All interactions and storage in the system

diagram have heat sinks exiting through the bottom of the symbols, representing the inherent

losses of these components. Examples of these losses include energy lost during combustion in

the form of heat, or wear and depreciation of assets over the system's life time.

3.3.2 Data Acquisition

The emergy synthesis was performed with the same data used in the life cycle assessment,

but some additional data were also required. Additional data included in the emergy analysis

were hours of labor for each stage, type of labor (graduated or not specialized), wind energy

inputs to the wind farm, and oxygen demand for combustion of fuels. Primary data provided by

Sargent & Lundy LLC were used for labor for the construction stage of the fossil-fired power









units, and data from the literature were used for the wind farm construction stage. Labor data for

other stages had to be assumed, based on equipment requirements, etc. for the process. Oxygen

demand for combustion of fuels was calculated based on mole ratios of the associated

combustion process, which were then converted to mass ratios.

3.3.2.1 Wind energy inputs to wind farm

Energy inputs to the wind farm system were calculated based on the kinetic energy of the

air in the control volume of the wind farm. The size of the control volume was calculated as the

product of the sea area required for the wind farm, based on spacing the turbines one half mile

apart (Bryant 2007) for a total sea area of 25 square miles (65 square kilometers), and the height

of the turbines, measured to the tip of the blades in their vertical position (120 m, based on 80 m

tower height and 40 m blade length). This results in a total control volume of 7.8 cubic

kilometers. An average wind speed of 6.98 meters per second, as recorded by NOAA' s National

Data Buoy Center' s Buoy 41008 was used for the velocity. The raw wind speed data used for

this calculation as well as the conversion calculations performed are given in Appendix G. The

kinetic energy of the wind was calculated assuming an air density of 1.225 kg/m3. The wind

energy input to the wind park was determined to be 6.3 8E+15 J.

3.3.2.2 Labor for wind farm transport

Labor for the transport of the power units was calculated based on the mode of

transportation used, size of vehicle, and number of required trips. For the transport of the wind

turbines the twenty-five miles from Randers to Aarhus by rail, it was assumed that 120 workers

were involved. This allowed for 10 people for each of the 12 locomotives towing 100 flatbeds.

It was assumed to take one complete eight-hour work day, for a total of 960 man-hours. It is

standard procedure record all flows in an emergy synthesis on a yearly basis. Therefore, for

stages such as transportation, construction, and decommissioning, it is necessary to normalize all









flows by dividing the total energy, material, and service flows by the life time of the system.

Normalizing the transportation labor over the wind farm life time of twenty years results in 48

man-hours/year, or 5.48E-03 years/year.

The transportation of the wind turbines from Aarhus to Jacksonville by sea was assumed to

require a crew of 100 people and take two weeks to complete, including the time required to load

the turbines onto the Panamax bulker. This resulted in 11,200 man-hours, assuming eight hours

of labor for the average day during the trip. Normalizing over the life time of the wind park

results in 560 man-hours/year, or 6.39E-02 years/year for the overseas transport stage.

3.3.2.3 Labor for wind farm construction and decommissioning

Labor involved for the construction of the wind farm was assumed to be a crew of 200

workers, half of which were assumed to be graduated labor and the other half non-specialized

labor. Construction labor data were obtained from a life cycle assessment performed by Elsam

Engineering A/S for Vestas. Installation of each tower requires 20 hours, each nacelle 10 hours,

each foundation 20 hours, and each rotor and set of three blades 6 hours (Elsam Engineering A/S

2004). An additional 5 hours per turbine was included for miscellaneous construction labor.

This results in a total of 1,220,000 man-hours. Normalizing this to a yearly basis results in

61,000 man-hours/year, or 6.96E+00 years/year (3.48E+00 years/year each of graduated labor

and non-specialized labor).

Labor data for decommissioning of the wind park were also obtained from the Elsam

Engineering LCA. The number of hours required for dismantling is exactly the same as those

required for installation. The only differences in the construction and decommissioning stages

are that construction requires pile driving, whereas decommissioning requires that the

foundations be cut off at the surface of the seabed and the remaining buried segments be left in

the ocean floor. This difference, however, does not have an effect on the required labor time,










remaining at 20 hours per foundation (Elsam Engineering A/S 2004). Therefore, the total man-

hours required for decommissioning is also 56,000 man-hours/year, or 6.39E+00 years/year.

Consistent with the construction stage, the labor for decommissioning was assumed to be

comprised of half graduated labor and half non-specialized labor.

3.3.2.4 Labor for wind farm maintenance

Calculation of labor for maintenance of the wind farm is based on the required biannual

service calls to each of the turbines. One four-member crew is scheduled to complete one

maintenance servicing per 1.5 days (Poulsen 2004). It was therefore assumed that a total of 150

eight-hour work days are required for four people every 6 months to service the 100 turbines, for

a total of 9600 man-hours per year, or 1.10E00 years/year.

3.3.2.5 Labor for coal-fired power unit transportation

The coal-fired steam turbine unit was assumed to be transported by rail from the Siemens

manufacturing facility in Charlotte, NC. The 400 mile distance was assumed to take 14 hours, a

rounded-up estimate for moving at an average speed of 30 mph. The number of 89-foot, 100-ton

flatbed cars required for the transport was determined by the total weight of the power unit

(83,540 tons), resulting in a rounded up number of 900 flatbeds. Thus, it was assumed that 9

locomotives would be required, each towing 100 flatbed cars. Consistent with the wind farm

transportation calculation, it was assumed that 10 workers were required for each locomotive and

set of 100 flat cars, resulting in a total crew of 90. Therefore, the labor required for the steam

turbine transport was determined to be 1260 man-hours, or 4.79E-03 years/year when normalized

to a yearly basis using a power plant life time of thirty years.

3.3.2.6 Labor for natural gas combined-cycle unit transportation

Labor for the natural gas combine-cycle unit transportation was calculated in the same

manner as detailed above for the coal-fired steam turbine. The gas turbine unit was assumed to










be transported by rail from the Siemens manufacturing plant in Hamilton, Ontario, a distance of

1200 miles, taking 40 hours at an average speed of 30 mph. The total mass of the gas turbine

combined-cycle unit is 72,028 tons, requiring a rounded up number of 750 flatbed cars. Thus, it

was assumed that eight locomotives were required, resulting in a crew of 80 workers. The total

labor for the gas turbine transport was found to be 3200 man-hours, or 1.22E-02 years/year when

normalized over the power plant life time.

3.3.2.7 Labor for coal-fired unit construction

Data for the construction stage of the coal fired plant were obtained through phone

conversations with engineers from Sargent & Lundy LLC. These data were based on a reference

proj ect for the construction of an 800 MW coal-fired steam turbine unit, which required 1500

workers during peak construction, with fewer workers during the beginning and ending phases of

construction, and lasting 52 months. These data were then scaled to apply to the 360 MW unit

for our research, resulting in 675 workers during peak construction, and construction lasting for

24 months. This calculated time frame for construction is supported by other data found in the

literature, i.e. that a 360 MW coal-fired unit requires two years for construction (Spath et al.

1999). Assuming that non-peak construction phases require 300 workers and last for four

months at the beginning and end of construction (making up one-third of the total construction

time), the total labor required for construction was assumed to be 3,168,000 man-hours, or

105,600 man-hours/year (1.20E+01 years/year) when normalized over the thirty year life time of

the power plant.

3.3.2.8 Labor for natural gas combined-cycle unit construction

The reference data provided by Sargent & Lundy engineers for the construction of the

natural gas combined-cycle (NGCC) unit were based on a 500 MW unit, which was reported to

require roughly 80% of the labor of the 800 MW coal-fired steam turbine unit. It was therefore









determined that the NGCC unit requires 128% of the labor of the coal-fired system when put on

the basis of per MW of capacity. This ratio was used to calculate the labor required for the 505

MW unit that is the model under analysis for the current research, which resulted in 1215

workers during peak construction, 540 during non peak times, and construction lasting for 43

months. It was again assumed that the non-peak construction represented one-third of the total

construction time, or in this case 7 months each at the beginning and end of construction. These

calculations and assumptions result in 10,270,800 man-hours, or 342,360 man-hours/year

(3.91E+01 years/year).

3.3.2.9 Labor for fuels transport

Labor for the fuels transport for the coal system was calculated based on the required trips

by rail to transport a year' s supply of coal. The 360 MW coal system modeled after Plant

Scherer, for which 99.96% of its power generation is supplied by coal, requires approximately

790,000 tons of coal per year. Making use of JEA' s utility-owned trains, this would require 90

fully-loaded shipments, i.e. all 90 hopper cars filled to their 105-ton capacity. It was assumed,

however, that shipments received were one-third of this maximum capacity, received three times

more frequently, due to possible limitations of receiving capabilities and fuel storage facilities. It

was assumed that a crew of 10 workers is required for each 90-car train, and the 600-mile

average distance trip from Kentucky or West Virginia takes 20 hours, assuming a speed of 30

mph. Accounting for round-trip labor, this results in 108,000 man-hours per year, or 1.23E+01

years/year of non-specialized labor.

Labor for the fuels transport for the steam turbine unit modeled after St. Johns River Power

Park was calculated similarly; however, the transport of petroleum coke and distillate fuel oil by

ship was also included. The total number of trips required by rail for coal delivery was

calculated to be 75 in order to transport the required 646,000 tons of coal per year. The number









of shipments of petcoke by small ocean tanker with a carrying capacity of 60,000 deadweight

tons (Maritime Business Strategies LLC 2007) was determined to be 2 per year, in order to

transport the required 101,000 tons of petcoke consumed annually by the power unit. The

number of shipments by small ocean tanker required to transport the 4000 tons of distillate fuel

oil required by the power unit per year was determined to be one. The rail labor was calculated

in the same manner as for the Scherer based scenario, and the labor for the ship transportation of

the petcoke and fuel oil was assumed to take I week with a crew of 100 working standard eight

hour shifts, per shipment. This results in total labor values of 30,000 man-hours for the rail

transport and 24,000 man-hours for the tanker ship transport, or 6. 16E+00 years/year of non-

specialized labor.

Labor required for the natural gas transport for the natural gas combined-cycle power unit

was assumed to be negligible, since it is delivered by pipeline to Jacksonville Electric Authority.

3.3.2.10 Oxygen demand for combustion

Oxygen demand was included in the emergy synthesis as a renewable input required for

the combustion of fuels used throughout all stages of the power generating systems' life times,

e.g. fuel required for fuels extraction, etc. The oxygen demand was calculated based on mole

ratios in the combustion reaction for each fuel. The combustion equation for petroleum coke

could not be determined, so it was assumed to have the same oxygen demand as coal. Electricity

required for upstream processes was also assumed to have the same oxygen demand as coal,

since coal provides roughly 50% of the electricity produced in the United States.

3.3.3 Emergy Accounting Table

After the systems diagram was constructed to clearly define the scope (Figure 3-9), a table

that includes all the actual flows of materials, energy, and labor was generated for each power

generating system. Another column in this table is the Unit Emergy Value (UEV) for each item.










The actual flow amounts (in grams or Joules) were multiplied by the UEVs (in sej/g or sej/J) to

give the emergy flows for each item (in solar emjoules). Following typical emergy accounting

procedure, all flows were put on an annual basis, thereby requiring that flows for construction,

transportation, and decommissioning be normalized to a yearly basis by dividing these values by

the system' s life time. The wind park' s expected life time was assumed to be twenty years,

while the coal-fired and natural gas combined-cycle power plants' expected life times were both

assumed to be thirty years. The emergy flows were then summed to give an emergy value to the

product, in this case electricity. Lastly, the determined emergy value of the product was divided

by the quantity of electricity to give the system's UEV for electricity. Two transformities were

calculated, one that includes labor and services and one that does not. Performance indicators

were calculated for each of the three systems, including the emergy yield ratio, emergy

investment ratio, environmental loading ratio, emergy index of sustainability, and percent

renewable.












Table 3-1. Vestas V80-1.8 MW turbine specifications.
Rotor


Diameter
Area swept
Nominal revolutions
Number of blades
Power regulation
Air brake

Tower
Hub height
Operational Data
Cut-in wind speed
Nominal wind speed (1800 kW)
Cut-out wind speed
Generator
Type
Nominal output
Operational data


80 m
5027 m2
15.5/16.8 rpm

Pitch/OptiSlip
Full blade pitch by three separate hydraulic pitch
cylinders

78 m

4 m/s
15 m/s
25 m/s

Asynchronous with OptiSlip
1800 kW
60 Hz
690 V


Gearbox
Type
Control
Type


Planet/parallel axles


Microprocessor-based control of all the turbine
functions with the option of remote monitoring.
Output regulation and optimization via
OptiSlip and OptiTip pitch regulation.


Weight
Nacelle
Rotor
Tower


67 metric tonnes (t)
37 t
195 t










Table 3-2. V80-1.8 MW turbine components, materials, and masses.
Component Material Mass (kg/turbine)
Blades glass reinforced epoxy (GRE) 21000


Hub
Nacelle
Generator
Tower
Monopile Foundations
Transition Piece
Boat Landing Platform
Coupling Piece


16000
58534
8466
205000
200000
90000
10000
1000
610000


steel
steel
50% steel-50% copper
steel
steel
steel
steel
concrete


Total


Table 3-3. Materials required for the 360 MW coal-fired power plant.
Material Amount required (kg)
Concrete 57152880
Steel 18259560
Iron 222840
Aluminum 150840
Total 75786120

Table 3-4. Materials required for the 505 MW natural gas combined-cycle power unit.
Material Amount required (kg)
Concrete 49363245
Steel 15670150
Iron 206040
Aluminum 103020
Total 65342455











:details.



Model used in analysis
Manitowoc crane, model 2250
330 ton lifting capacity
Caterpillar 6-cylinder diesel engine, model 3406C3
Engine rated at 343 kW, 460 hp, 2100 rpm
Fuel efficiency of 17.5 23.7 gal/h
Manitowoc crane, model 6D16-TLA2B
50 ton lifting capacity
Caterpillar 6-cylinder diesel engine, model 3126B
Engine rated at 149kW, 200hp, 2000 rpm
Fuel efficiency of 8.8 to 10.2 gal/h
Medium-sized Caterpillar, model H24H
C15 ACERT engine rated at 328 kw, 440 hp
Fuel efficiency of 10.9 to 23.5 gal/h
Medium-sized Caterpillar, model 623G
C15 ACERT engine rated at 328 kw, 440 hp
Fuel efficiency of 10.9 to 23.5 gal/h
Caterpillar off-highway truck, model 773F
60 ton max payload
C27 ACERT engine rated at 740 hp, 1800 rpm
Fuel efficiency of 34.3 to 42.5 gal/h


Table 3-5. Power plant construction equipment
Hours Used
Coal-Fired Natural Gas
Equipment Steam Turbine Combined-Cycle
2 large 700 1250
cranes


10 small
cranes




Wheel
dozers


Scrapers



Off-
highway
trucks


1400





200



200



5000


2500





350



350



9000




















~~;

C'.






,+


C~`
?I~
;ii


Q)Hub controller Gearbox I High voltage transformer M~ ~~achine foundation

SPitch cylinders M lehanical disc brake~ Q Blade IPYaw gears

SBlade hub OSrervie cran Blade bearing Co~'mpositedisEcouplingZ

Main rl shaft I VMP-Top controller gRortor lock system Q Opti~plip* generator
with converter
SOil cooler UOIltrasonic sensors I Hydraulic unit. Ai r ooer forgenerator

Figure 3-1. Cutaway diagram of Vestas V80-1.8 MW turbine. Reprinted with permission
from: Vestas Wind Systems A/S. Randers, Denmark. 2007. Last accessed March
2007.


s~~"~(P"~:














I ~, ---- -


200


SIEC dass 1.A
SIEC dalss 2A~

Power curve for Vestas V80-1.8 MW turbine. Reprinted with permission from:
Vestas Wind Systems A/S. Randers, Denmark. 2007. Last accessed March 2007.







terials 2. 1 Raw Materials Extract. /Manufacture A~ir Emlissionl s
(CO,, CH4I, N,O, NO,, SOK)
2.2 Wind Farm Construction



2.3 Wind Farm Op ration Electricity


1,400U
1,2600


1


0 5 10 15
Wm~2d afapc~d (~w~s/s


20 5 S


Figure 3-2.


Raw MIa







Energy


Figure 3-3.


Level 1.0 with embedded Level 2.0 diagram for wind farm system.













2. 1 R~aw Materials Extraction


2.2 Raw Materials Processing


2.3 Power Plant Construction


2.4 Power Plant Operation


I -
Level 1.0 with embedded Level 2.0 diagram for power plant system.


L


Raw Miaterials





Energy


A4ir Emissions

(c o,, ca,, No, No,, so,)


Electricity


Figure 3-4.


Air Emissions:
CO,,CH,, N O, NOx,SOx


2.4 Wind Farm
Decommissiorning


2.4.1 Jack-up
Barge fitted with
crane


Energy


Energy


;.0 diagram for wind farm system.


2.1 Rawv Material
Extraction and
Ma nufa cture

2.1.1Steel

2.1.2 Concrete

12.1.3 Copper

12.1.4 G.R epoxy~


Energy Rave
M aterialIs


Figure 3-5. Level 3


2.2 Wind Farm
Construction


2.3.1 Jack-up
Barge fitted with
crane






Energy


2.3 Wind Farm
O peratio n



2.3.1 Blannual
Service calls











__


Air Emissio~ns:
CO,,CH4, N,O, NOx,SOx



2.3 Porwer Plant
O peration

2.3.1 Coal PP
Combustion


2.3.2 NGCC PP
Combustion



Energy

Elecctric ity


Figure 3-6.


Level 3.0 diagram for power plant systems.


Figure 3-7.


Level 3.0 diagram for JEA' s current operation.


2.1 Raw Matalial
Extraction and
Manufacture

2.1.1Concret

12.1.2 Steel

12.1.3 Iron I

12.1 4 Aluminum

t f
Energy Raw
Mate rialsI


2.2 Power Plant
Co~nstruction

2.2.1 Coal Power
Plant


2.2.2 NGCC
Power Plant



Energy





S,
a
,
,I,


d


Figure 3-8.


The raising of nacelle and rotor by j ack-up barge fitted with a crane. Reprinted
with permission from: Vestas Wind Systems A/S. Randers, Denmark. 2007. Last
accessed March 2007.


rl I








































Figure 3-9.


System diagram for emergy synthesis.









CHAPTER 4
RESULTS

4.1 Life Cycle Assessment

Overall results of the impact assessment are given in Table 4-1, the global warming

potential impact of each power system, and Table 4-2, the acid rain potential impact of each

power system. These values are depicted graphically in Figures 4-1 through 4-4. The wide,

shaded blue bars represent global warming impact, and these values correspond to the scale on

the left y-axis, whereas the narrower green bars represent acid rain impacts, and these values are

read from the scale on the right y-axis.

The wind farm system was found to have a global warming impact of 24 kg CO2

equivalents per MWh of electricity produced, compared to 1452 for the coal-fired steam turbine

unit based on operating conditions of Plant Scherer (Coal- Scherer); 1 146 for the coal fired steam

turbine unit based on operating conditions of St. Johns River Power Park (Coal- SRPP); and 682

for the natural gas combined-cycle power unit based on operating conditions of Brandy Branch

(NGCC- BB). Similarly, the acid rain potential impact of the wind farm was also more than an

order of magnitude lower than the steam turbine or gas turbine units, having a value of 0.2 kg

SO2 eqUIValents per MWh, compared to 6.4 for the coal plant based on Scherer, 5.0 for the coal

plant based on St. Johns River Power Park, and 6.1 for the natural gas combined-cycle unit.

For the wind farm, the life cycle stage with the greatest environmental impacts was found

to be the materials extraction stage, followed by the power unit transportation stage,

construction, decommissioning, and lastly, operation/maintenance. In contrast, the operation

stage for the fossil fuel-fired systems is by far the stage with the greatest environmental impact,

followed by fuels extraction and fuels transport, respectively. The power unit materials









extraction, power unit transport, and power unit construction stages all negligibly contribute to

the systems' environmental impact potentials.

Figure 4-5 is a side-by-side comparison of the total environmental impacts of the four

power systems modeled. This figure clearly depicts the drastic differences in both global

warming and acid rain impacts of the wind farm when compared to all three of the fossil fuel-

fired power systems. In terms of carbon dioxide equivalents savings, the wind farm produces

1428 kg CO2 eqUIValents per MWh less than the coal fired unit based on Plant Scherer. Over the

twenty-year life time of the wind farm, this results in a savings of roughly 13,500,000,000 kg, or

15 million tons of CO2 eqUIValents. Similarly, the wind farm results in a savings of

approximately 12 million tons of CO2 eqUIValents over its life time when compared to the coal

unit based on operating conditions of St. Johns River Power Park. When compared to the natural

gas combined-cycle unit, the wind farm produced 658 kg CO2 eqUIValents per MWh less,

resulting in a savings of roughly 7 million tons CO2 eqUIValents over its life time. As for savings

in acid rain emissions, over its life time the wind farm results in approximately 65,000 fewer tons

SO2 eqUIValents than the Scherer-based coal plant, 63,000 tons less than the natural gas

combined-cycle unit, and 50,000 tons less than the St. Johns River Power Park-based coal plant.

These values can be found in Table 4-3.

A comparison of the life cycle stages that are common to all four systems, namely, power

unit materials extraction, power unit transport, and power unit construction, is shown in Figure

4-6. The material requirements for the power systems are all on the same order of magnitude,

with the wind farm consisting of 61,000,000 kg of materials, the coal plant 75,786,000 kg, and

the natural gas unit 65,342,000 kg. However, the lifetime power output of the wind farm is an

order of magnitude less, having a value of 9,467,000 MWh, compared to 52,089,000 MWh for









the coal plant and 47,252,000 MWh for the natural gas unit. This results from several factors,

namely, the wind farm having a smaller capacity of 180 MW compared to the 360 MW coal

plant and the 505 MW natural gas unit; the wind farm' s shorter life time of 20 years as opposed

to 30 years for the fossil-fired units; and the wind farm operating at a lower capacity factor of

30% as compared to 60% for the fossil-fired units. Therefore, as illustrated by Figure 4-6, the

material requirements are greater for the wind farm system when normalized to a basis of per

megawatt-hour of electricity produced. This is as expected, since wind energy is less

concentrated than fossil fuel energy and therefore more equipment is necessary to harness an

equal amount of energy. It can also be seen in Figure 4-6 how this increased materials

requirement for the wind farm per MWh of electricity produced has a trickle-down effect on the

other two life cycle stages in the graph, power unit transport and construction.

The global warming and acid rain potential impacts for each of the fuel cycles were also

determined. These fuel cycles include the fuels' extraction and processing, transport, and

combustion stages only. The fuel cycles analyzed were natural gas, distillate fuel oil burned in a

gas combined-cycle turbine, distillate fuel oil burned in a steam turbine, coal, and petroleum

coke. These data illustrate the environmental impact potentials as a function of fuel type,

whereas the previously discussed impacts were calculated as a function of the power generating

unit's operating fuel mix. Thus, those data for each life cycle stage were proportional to the

fraction of the composite MWh that each fuel supplied. The fuel cycles' environmental impacts,

however, represent the impacts for the case where 100% of the MWh is supplied by that fuel.

These data are given in Table 4-4 and graphically in Figure 4-7. It was found that the coal fuel

cycle has the largest global warming impact potential, followed by petroleum coke, distillate fuel

oil combusted in a gas combined-cycle turbine, DFO combusted in a steam turbine, and lastly,










natural gas. As for acid rain, coal was also found to have the highest impact potential, followed

by natural gas, petroleum coke, DFO burned in a steam turbine, and lastly, DFO burned in a gas

combined-cycle turbine.

4.2 Emergy Synthesis

The emergy accounting tables for the four power generating systems are given in Tables 4-

5 through 4-8. These tables include the calculations of the transformities for the electricity

produced by each system. Table 4-9 summarizes the data of each system based on type of input,

e.g. services, renewable input, etc. It also gives the performance indicators determined for each

system. It was found that the wind farm system performs slightly lower but on the same scale as

the fossil fuel-based systems in terms of emergy yield ratio, having a value of 11.6, compared to

18.2 for the coal system based on Scherer, 18.8 for the coal system based on St. Johns River

Power Park (SJRPP), and 12.4 for the natural gas system based on Brandy Branch. The emergy

investment ratios were also on the same scale, with the coal (SJRPP) system having the lowest

value of 0.06, the coal (Scherer) system 0.06, the wind farm 0.08, and the natural gas system

0.09. The environmental loading ratio, however, for the wind farm system was found to be much

lower than those of the other systems. The wind farm's ELR was determined to be 0.1, while the

coal systems ranged from 13.1 to 15.1 and the natural gas system was found to be 22.4.

Because of the large differences in the environmental loading ratios, the emergy index of

sustainability (EIS) for the wind farm is much greater, with a value of 121.9. The coal systems

were found to have EISs of 1.2 to 1.4, and the natural gas system 0.6. Finally, the percent

renewable performance indicator also showed large differences in the wind system compared to

the conventional power systems. The wind farm was determined to be driven by 91.3%

renewable inputs, while the coal systems ranged from 6.2% to 7.1%, and the natural gas system

4. 3%.












































Total (kg SO2-eq/MWh) 0.2 6.4 5.0 6.1
Note: Values are given in SO2 equivalents per MWh


Table 4-3. Lifetime savings in global warming and acid rain impact potentials resulting from
implementation of the wind farm system.
GWP Impact (kg ARP Impact (kg Lifetime Power CO2-eq SO2-eq
CO2-eq/MWh) SO2-eq/MWh) Output (MWh) Savings (tons) Savings (tons)
Wind Farm 24.0 0.2 9,467,280
NGCC Unit (BB) 681.5 6.2 47,251,983 6,861,604 62,579
Coal ST (Scherer) 1452.4 6.4 52,088,975 14,906,739 64,653
Coal ST (SJRPP) 1141.5 5.0 52,088,975 11,662,378 49,970



Table 4-4. Global warming and acid rain impact potentials for the fuel cycles.


Table 4-1. Global warming impact potentials for each power system.
Wind Farm Coal Scherer Coal SJRPP NGCC BB


Materials Extraction
Fuels Extraction & Processing
Power Unit Transport
Fuels Transport
Construction
Operation
Decommissioning


8.1
104.9
0.1
31.6
3.1E-04
1307.4


8.1
119.1
0.1
37.4
3.1E-04
980.8



1145.5


7.7
118.3
0.2
28.2
6.0E-04
527.3


Total (kg CO2-eq/MWh) 24.0
Note: Values are given in CO2 equivalents per MWh


1452.1


681.7


Table 4-2. Acid rain impact potentials for each power system.
Wind Farm Coal Scherer
Materials Extraction 1.6E-01 3.1E-02


Coal SJRPP
3.1E-02
1.1
6.3E-04
0.4
2.3E-06
3.5


NGCC -BB
3.0E-02
5.5
1.8E-03
0.5
4.6E-06
0.1


Fuels Extraction & Processing
Power Unit Transport
Fuels Transport
Construction
Operation
Decommissioning


1.0
6.3E-04
0.3
2.3E-06
5.0


2.0E-02

1.6E-03
1.6E-03
1.5E-03


GWP (kg CO2-eq/MWh) ARP (kg SO2-eq/MWh)
656.7 6.3


DFO (gas CC turbine)
DFO (steam turbine)
Coal
Petroleum Coke


Natural Gas


1046.2
897.8
1444.5
1323.0













Table 4-5. Emergy accounting table for the wind farm system.


Unit Emergy
Amount Units Value
(sej/unit)


Solar
Emergy
(sej/yr)

7.09E+17
1.88E+16
1.73E+15

1.55E+16
7.11E+16
1.58E+17
1.30E+16
2.15E+17
5.70E+15
8.67E+16
1.73E+17

2.48E+16
6.59E+14
1.61E+19
2.76E+16

2.12E+17
5.63E+15
8.67E+16
1.73E+17
1.76E+19


Reference
for
UEV

[1]
[2]
[3]

[1]
[1]
[3]
[1]
[1]
[2]
[3]
[3]

[1]
[2]
[1]
[3]

[1]
[2]
[3]
[3]


[41


Item


Wind Farm Transport*
1 Diesel
2 Oxygen
3 Labor (not specialized)
Construction*
4 Steel
5 Copper
6 Glass Reinforced Epoxy
7 Cement
8 Diesel
9 Oxygen
10 Labor (not specialized)
11 Labor (graduated)


6.39E+12
3.64E+08
6.94E-02

2.92E+06
2.12E+07
1.05E+08
5.00E+06
1.94E+12
1.11E+08
3.48E+00
3.48E+00


J
g
years

g
g
g
g
J
g
years
years

J
g
J
years

J
g
years
years


1.11E+05
5.16E+07
2.49E+16

5.31E+09
3.36E+09
1.50E+09
2.59E+09
1.11E+05
5.16E+07
2.49E+16
4.98E+16

1.11E+05
5.16E+07
2.52E+03
2.49E+16

1.11E+05
5.16E+07
2.49E+16
4.98E+16


Wind Farm operation and Maintenance
12 Diesel 5.04E+11
13 Oxygen 2.87E+07
14 Wind 6.38E+15
15 Labor (not specialized) 1.10E+00
Wind Farm Decommissioning*
16 Diesel 1.91E+12
17 Oxygen 1.09E+08
18 Labor (not specialized) 3.48E+00
19 Labor (graduated) 3.48E+00
Total Inputs
Product
20 Electricity Produced 1.70E+15


1.03E+04 1.76E+19


*Items have been normalized to an annual basis by dividing by 20 year wind farm lifetime
References for Unit Emergy Values
[1] Brown & Ulgiati 2004
[2] Brown & Ulgiati 2002
[3] Ulgiati & Brown 2002
[4] This work, final result of calculations












Table 4-6. Emergy accounting table for coal-fired steam turbine power unit based on the
operational conditions of Plant Scherer.


Unit Emergy
Amount Units Value
(sej/unit)


Solar
Emergy
(sej/yr)

5.30E+17
2.71E+19
3.40E+19
3.65E+17
2.37E+18
1.40E+18

2.07E+18
5.49E+16
3.07E+17

8.63E+16
2.29E+15
1.19E+14

6.63E+18
3.23E+18
1.86E+16
8.20E+16
1.23E+17
3.28E+15
1.50E+17
3.00E+17


Reference
for
UEV

[1]
[1]
[1]
[1]
[1]
[2]

[1]
[2]
[3]

[1]
[2]
[3]

[1]
[1]
[1]

[1]
[2]
[3]
[3]

[1]
[2]


[41


# Item

Fuels Extraction
1 Coal
2 Diesel
3 Electricity
4 Natural Gas
5 Residual Oil
6 Oxygen
Fuels Transport
7 Diesel
8 Oxygen
9 Labor (not specialized)
Power Unit Transport*
10 Diesel
11 Oxygen
12 Labor (not specialized)
Construction*
13 Concrete
14 Steel
15 Iron
16 Aluminum
17 Diesel
18 Oxygen
19 Labor (not specialized)
20 Labor (graduated)
Operation
21 Coal
22 Oxygen required
Total Inputs
Product
23 Electricity produced


7.91E+12
2.44E+14
1.00E+14
4.54E+12
2.62E+13
2.71E+10

1.86E+13
1.06E+09
1.23E+0 1

7.78E+11
4.44E+07
4.79E-03

1.91E+09
6.09E+08
7.43E+06
5.03E+06
1.11E+12
6.35E+07
6.02E+00
6.02E+00


J
J
J
J
J
g

J
g
years

J
g
years

g
g
g
g
J
g
years
years


6.71E+04
1.11E+05
3.40E+05
8.05E+04
9.06E+04
5.16E+07

1.11E+05
5.16E+07
2.49E+16

1.11E+05
5.16E+07
2.49E+16

3.48E+09
5.31E+09
2.50E+09
1.63E+10
1.11E+05
5.16E+07
2.49E+16
4.98E+16


1.83E+16 J
1.91E+12 g


6.25E+15 J


6.71E+04 1.23E+21
5.16E+07 9.85E+19
1.41E+21

2.25E+05 1.41E+21


*Items have been normalized to an annual basis by dividing by 30 year power plant lifetime
References for Unit Emergy Values
[1] Brown & Ulgiati 2004
[2] Brown & Ulgiati 2002
[3] Ulgiati & Brown 2002
[4] This work, final result of calculations













Table 4-7. Emergy accounting table for coal-fired steam turbine power unit based on the
operational conditions of St. Johns River Power Park.
Unit Emergy Solar Reference
# Item Amount Units Value Emergy for
(sej/unit) (sej/yr) UEV
Fuels Extraction
1 Coal 2.21E+12 J 6.70E+04 1.48E+17 [1]
2 Diesel 6.92E+13 J 1.10E+05 7.62E+18 [1]
3 Electricity 4.26E+13 J 1.85E+05 7.88E+18 [1]
4 Natural Gas 4.00E+13 J 8.10E+04 3.24E+18 [1]
5 Residual Oil 2.97E+13 J 1.10E+05 3 .27E+18 [1]
6 Oxygen 1.33E+10 g 5.16E+07 6.87E+17 [2]
Fuels Transport
7 Diesel 1.77E+13 J 1.30E+05 2.30E+18 [1]
8 Oxygen 1.01E+09 g 5.16E+07 5.21E+16 [2]
9 Labor (not specialized) 6.16E+00 years 2.49E+16 1.53E+17 [3]
Power Unit Transport*
10 Diesel 2.83E+12 J 1.30E+05 3.67E+17 [1]
11 Oxygen 4.44E+07 g 5.16E+07 2.29E+15 [2]
12 Labor (not specialized) 4.79E-03 years 2.49E+16 1.19E+14 [3]
Construction*
13 Concrete 1.91E+09 g 5.08E+08 9.68E+17 [1]
14 Steel 6.09E+08 g 2.77E+09 1.69E+18 [1]
15 Iron 7.43E+06 g 2.77E+09 2.06E+16 [1]
16 Aluminum 5.03E+06 g 1.77E+10 8.90E+16 [1]
17 Diesel 3.06E+11 J 1.30E+05 3.97E+16 [1]
18 Oxygen 6.35E+07 g 5.16E+07 3.28E+15 [2]
19 Labor (not specialized) 6.02E+00 years 2.49E+16 1.50E+17 [3]
20 Labor (graduated) 6.02E+00 years 4.98E+16 3.00E+17 [3]
Operation
21 Coal 5.12E+15 J 6.70E+04 3.43E+20 [1]
22 Petroleum Coke 1.07E+15 J 1.10E+05 1.18E+20 [1]
23 Distillate Oil 5.99E+13 J 1.30E+05 7.79E+18 [1]
24 Oxygen required 6.23E+11 g 5.16E+07 3.22E+19 [2]
25 Labor (not specialized) 0.00E+00 years 2.49E+16 0.00E+00 [3]
Total Inputs 5.30E+20
Product
26 Electricity produced 6.82E+15 J 7.77E+04 5.30E+20 [4]
*Items have been normalized to an annual basis by dividing by 30 year power plant lifetime
References for Unit Emergy Values
[1] Brown & Ulgiati 2004
[2] Brown & Ulgiati 2002
[3] Ulgiati & Brown 2002
[4] This work, final result of calculations













Table 4-8. Emergy accounting table for natural gas combined-cycle power generating unit.
Unit Emergy Solar Reference
# Item Amount Units Value Emergy for
(sej/unit) (sej/yr) UEV
Fuels Extraction
1 Coal 0.00E+00 J 6.70E+04 0.00E+00 [1]
2 Diesel 1.84E+13 J 1.10E+05 2.03E+18 [1]
3 Electricity 7.67E+13 J 1.85E+05 1.42E+19 [1]
4 Natural Gas 9.32E+14 J 8.10E+04 7.55E+19 [1]
5 Residual Oil 1.26E+13 J 1.10E+05 1.39E+18 [1]
6 Oxygen 7.68E+10 g 5.16E+07 3.96E+18 [2]
Fuels Transport
7 Natural Gas 5.64E+14 J 8.10E+04 4.57E+19 [1]
8 Oxygen 4.05E+10 g 5.16E+07 2.09E+18 [2]
9 Labor (not specialized) 0.00E+00 years 2.49E+16 0.00E+00 [3]
Power Unit Transport*
10 Diesel 2.01E+12 J 1.10E+05 2.21E+17 [1]
11 Oxygen 1.15E+08 g 5.16E+07 5.92E+15 [2]
12 Labor (not specialized) 1.22E-02 years 2.49E+16 3.04E+14 [3]
Construction*
13 Concrete 1.65E+09 g 5.08E+08 8.36E+17 [1]
14 Steel 5.22E+08 g 2.77E+09 1.45E+18 [1]
15 Iron 6.87E+06 g 2.77E+09 1.90E+16 [1]
16 Aluminum 3.43E+06 g 1.63E+10 5.60E+16 [1]
17 Diesel 2.00E+12 J 1.10E+05 2.20E+17 [1]
18 Oxygen 1.14E+08 g 5.16E+07 5.88E+15 [2]
19 Labor (not specialized) 1.95E+01 years 2.49E+16 4.86E+17 [3]
20 Labor (graduated) 1.95E+0 1 years 4.98E+16 9.71E+17 [3]
Operation
21 Natural Gas 1.88E+16 J 8.10E+04 1.52E+21 [1]
22 Distillate Oil 6.41E+14 J 1.10E+05 7.05E+19 [1]
23 Oxygen required 1.39E+12 g 5.16E+07 7.16E+19 [2]
24 Labor (not specialized) 0.00E+00 years 2.49E+16 0.00E+00 [3]
Total Inputs 1.81E+21
Product
25 Electricity produced 5.67E+15 J 3.20E+05 1.81E+21 [4]
*Items have been normalized to an annual basis by dividing by 30 year power plant lifetime
References for Unit Emergy Values
[1] Brown & Ulgiati 2004
[2] Brown & Ulgiati 2002
[3] Ulgiati & Brown 2002
[4] This work, final result of calculations











Table 4-9. Summary of data and performance indicators for the four power systems.


Summary of data
R Renewable input
Nonrenewable input, without
N services
Services and investments for fuel
SN supply
Purchased plant inputs other than
F fuel, without services
Labor in plant and services for plant
SF manufacture
Y Yield (R+N+F), without services
Yield (R+N+SN+F+SF), with
YS services

Indices
Solar Transformity without services,
(R+N+F)/energy of output
Solar Transformity with services,
(R+N+SN+F+SF)/energy of output
Emergy Yield Ratio, EYR =
EYR (R+N+SN+F+SF)/(F+SF+SN)
Emergy Investment Ratio, EIR =
EIR F/(R+N)
Environmental Loading Ratio, ELR
ELR = (N+SN+F+SF)/R
Emergy Index of Sustainability, EIS
EIS = EYR/ELR
%/R Percent renewable, (R/YS)


Wind Farm
1.61E+19

0.00E+00

0.00E+00

1.24E+18

2.89E+17
1.73E+19

1.76E+19


Coal Scherer
9.99E+19

1.23E+21

3.07E+17

7.66E+19

4.50E+17
1.41E+21

1.41E+21


Coal SJRPP
3.29E+19


NGCC Units
7.76E+19 sej


4.69E+20 1.5 9E+21 sej

1.53E+17 0.00E+00 sej

2.76E+19 1.46E+20 sej

4.50E+17 1.46E+18 sej
5.29E+20 1.82E+21 sej

5.30E+20 1.82E+21 sej


1.02E+04

1.03E+04

11.6

0.08

0.1

121.9
91.3%


2.25E+05

2.25E+05

18.2

0.06

13.1

1.4
7.1%


7.76E+04 3.20E+05 sej/J

7.77E+04 3.21E+05 sej/J


18.8

0.06

15.1

1.2
6.2%


12.4

0.09

22.4

0.6
4.3%


Note: SN represents services associated with nonrenewable inputs, e.g. labor required for fuels transport.
SF represents services associated with imported goods, e.g. services required for construction.



























---~~ I -----~ ---- ----- rrrr rr ITT -Tm
Transport construction Operation Decomissioning


0.18


0.16

0.14~

0.12
v,
0.1

0.08~

0.06 .5

0.04 -2

0.02

0


"120
o
-




"10 I




0 5





Figure 4-1.


Mate rials
Extraction


Life Cycle Stage
Global warming and acid rain impact potentials for the life cycle stages of the
wind farm.
















(DFOO






Poe lan oal Minming On ai Coal DFilPoerUnt oetil onsructh ion Coale Dt F til


coal-fired steam turbine unit based on Plant Scherer.


1400

S1200

4 1000




E600


S400

200

0




Figure 4-2.
































Power Plant Coal Mining Oil Oil Coal Petcoke DF Oil Power Unit Construction Coal Petcoke
Materials Extraction Extraction Transport Transport Transport Transport Operation Operation
Extraction and Refining and Refining
(PC) (DFO)
Life Cycle stage


S700

S600

500

400

300

S200

100


2.5


2 v


1.5

1


S0.5


DF Oil
Operation


Figure 4-3.



600



S500


0 400


H sa



E200


B
g 100


Global warming and acid rain impact potentials for the life cycle stages of the
coal-fired steam turbine unit based on St. Johns River Power Park.


7 6


4



3



2


""""""" -" ,~
Power Plant Natural Gas Oil Natural Gas DF Oil Power Unit construction Natural Gas
Materials Extraction Extraction Transport Transport Transport Operation
Extraction and and Refining
Processing (DFO)


Figure 4-4.


I ,


DFOil
Operation


Life Cycle Stage
Global warming and acid rain impact potentials for the life cycle stages of the
natural gas combined-cycle unit based on Brandy Branch.












1600

1400

1200

1000

800

600

400

200


7

6

5
4"
3


2"

1


-


Wind Farm


NGCC Unit (BB) Coal ST (Scherer)
Power Generating Unit


Coal ST (SJRPP)


Figure 4-5. Side-by-side comparison of global warming and acid rain impacts over the
complete life cycle for the four power generating systems.

25

Wind Farm
Coal Scherer
S20
O oCoal -SJRPP
ONGCC-BB

8 15


Figure 4-6.


Materials Extraction Power Unit Transport Construction


Comparison of global warming potential impact of life cycle stages that are
common to all four power systems, neglecting the operation stage.










1600.0

1400.0 -

S1200.0

1000.0 -

800.0 -

600.0

400.0 _

S200.0 -


7.0

6.0

5.0 0




3.01


2.0

1.0


0.0


Coal Petroleum Coke


Natural Gas DFO (gas CC DFO (stearn


turbine)


turbine)


Figure 4-7.


Global warming and acid rain impact potentials of the fuel cycles.