Survey the environmental impacts of Manjil wind power,
Hydroelectric power plant using the analytic hierarchy process
SAMANEH REZAEI KALLAJ1,LEILA OOSHAKSARAEI2*,ALIREZA MARDOOKHPOUR3
1
Master Student, Department of Environment, Faculty of Natural Resources, Lahijan Branch, Islamic Azad University, Lahijan, Iran
2*Assistat Professor in Enviromental Engineering, Department of Environment, Faculty of
Natural Resources, Lahijan Branch, Islamic Azad University, Lahijan, Iran
3
Assistat Professor, Department of Civil, Faculty of Engineering, Lahijan Branch, Islamic Azad University, Lahijan, Iran
Abstract.The use of renewable energies is one of the effective ways to deal with environmental pollution
resulting from fossil fuel power plants with activities. The aim of this study was to identify and compare the environmental negative impact of hydroelectric plants and wind. In order to identify factors affecting the plants on the environment, the effect was to identify and classify. the study of the analytic hierarchy process And Expert Choice software is used. In line with the results of this study that NOx pollution and land surface occupied by the total weight, respectively, 7010/ , 7010/ The major consequence of the plants is examined. The negative environmental impact of power plants, wind power and hydropower Network weighed 4440/ least environmental impact 1150/ negative effect on weight themselves.
Keywords: Environmental impact, power generation
1- Introduction
The human activities for the provision of welfare facilities and requirements of life and improving the quality of life, directly and indirectly affect the environment and if there is no remedy, they not only fail to improve the quality of life in the long run but destroy it. Environmental pollution is the result of various industrial activities that increasingly threaten the environment [1].
In the settings that the water is considered a critical issue for the development and the role of water resources has remained unknown in the economic boom and social welfare in many third world communities [2] one of the most important methods of acquisition and storage of water is building dams. Building dams, in addition to the exploitation of water resources, provides an energy supply, but the construction of the dam and the power plant has positive and negative consequences in the short term and long term, whether directly and indirectly, on the environmental conditions of the dam site.
The Sepidrud Dam in Manjil, is located 200 km northwest of Tehran at a distance of 100 kilometers from the Caspian Sea a little bit lower than the city of Manjil at the conjunction of the two rivers Ghezel Ozone and Shahrod. The dam height above the riverbed is 92 meters and its crest length is 425 meters.
The Sepidrud Dam has five power generating units that output a total of over 87 megawatts of electricity. The main objective of the the Sepidrud Dam is regulating the currents flowing into Sepidrud River for irrigation of 189832 hectares rice farming in the downstream Gilan and Foumanat plain, and its secondary purposes are flood control, hydroelectric energy generation, drinking water supply and industries in central and eastern cities near Gilan, supplying the requirements of fisheries, aquaculture, and animal husbandry of Sepidrud and also supplying the requirements of the environment [3].
The Manjil wind power plants are located at 70 km milestone of Rasht-Qazvin road. The extent of wind farm in the Manjil site is 650 hectares, of which 160 hectares belong to Manjil & Paskolan, 15 hectares belong to Rudbar power plant, 75 hectares belong to Herzville power plant and 400 hectares belong to Siahposh power plant.
Manjil wind power plant has 127 units of wind turbines with different capacities (such as quadruples 300, 500, 550, and 660), and its development is continuing with a 660 kW model [4]. The generated power of the wind turbines set is 100MW that is transferred to electricity substations of Sepidrud, Loshan and Gilvan. The position of the two power plants is shown in Fig. 1.
Fig. 1- Wind power and hydroelectric power plants location in Manjil 2- Methodology
In order to identify the factors of the power plant electricity production that affect the environment, according to the characteristics of wind and hydroelectric power plants in the region and the environmental pollution standards for the power plants, a list of factors was prepared [5, 6]. The extent of the influence of these factors was reviewed by ten specialists with over ten years experience and expertise in the field of environmental engineering, environmental health, and the university professors. The parameters were rated with regard to the range presented in the table 1, i.e. the larger the number for each parameter, the more important it is. Finally, sub-parameters were selected according to the results of the analysis of the initial questionnaire which had the highest importance, or in other words, the sub-parameters that scored higher than the geometric mean of the total replies to the questionnaire. The sub-parameters with a score less than the geometric mean of the total replies were removed from the process of analysis [7].
Table 1- The rating range of the parameters
Next, in order
Level of impact
Very high
high Medium low Very low
to determine the negative environmental effects of the studied power plants a questionnaire was designed based on the selected parameters and sub-parameters, and was again distributed among the experts.
According to the study of multi-parameter decision making methods, the analytic hierarchy process (AHP) was used for prioritizing. In this method, first the graphical display is offered, on which the objectives, parameters, sub-parameters and options are shown. By analyzing the problem to these levels, the decision maker can focus on a smaller set of the decisions (8).
The rating range of any of the parameters and sub-parameters was on the basis of identical to fully preferred preference scales that include between 1 to 9 [9] -table 2. The responses and the comments of specialists were analyzed using the Expert Choice software. The weight of the indicators relative to the higher level index (relative weight) was calculated and the composition of the judgments were combined (10).
Table 2- The two-by-two comparison in AHP
Degree of importance in two-by-two comparison Numerical rating
Identical preference 7
Identical to approximate preference 4
Approximate preference 3
Approximate to high preference 4
High preference 1
High preference to very high preference 6
Very high preference 1
Very high to extreme preference 5
Extreme preference 9
3- The results
In this study, we classified parameters in six categories which include air pollution, water pollution, noise pollution, changing landscape, wastewater production, and plant and animal habitats. With the integration of expert opinion into the initial questionnaire, the sub-parameters prioritization was calculated based on geometric and arithmetic mean of their importance by the Excel software -table 3.
Table 3: Factors influencing the environment with regard to the studied power plants Main parameters Secondary parameters or
sub-parameters
Total score
Status
Water pollination BOD 6.9 Good
COD 6.1 Good TSS 1 Deleted TDS 1.4 Deleted NO3 1.4 Good DO 6.1 Good PH 1.7 Deleted
Changing water temperature 4.5 Deleted
The hierarchical tree to determine the environmental consequences of Manjil’s wind and hydroelectric power plants on the basis of selected parameters and sub-parameters and AHP method are shown in Fig. 2.
Business-administrative area 1.1 Good
Industrial area 3.1 Deleted
Air pollution NOX 1.9 Good
SOX 6 Good
CO 6.1 Good
CO2 6.1 Good
N2O 1 Deleted
(PM) suspended particles 1 Deleted
Wastewater production Heavy metals 6.3 Good
Oily materials, oil, fuel 6.3 Good
Organic & pathogenic materials
4.1 Deleted
Sanitary sewage 4 Deleted
Changing landscape Occupied surface area 6.4 Good
Extension and construction of access roads
6.3 Good
Changing soil texture
(excavation, backfilling)
1.4 Deleted
Effects on plant & animal habitat
Effects on birds 1.5 Good
Effects on aquatic organisms 6.1 Good
Figure 2: the hierarchical structure of the environmental consequences of the hydroelectric power plant Manjil
3-1 The paired comparison and priority and weight of the parameters
After obtaining the hierarchical structure of the environmental consequences of Manjil’s hydroelectric and wind power plants, by utilizing the Expert Choice software and using the numeric comparison method, the paired comparison of the parameters was carried out.
The parameters according to their importance in the environment with respect to the performance of the studied power plants were weighed by the specialists. The results of the integrated expert opinions about the paired comparison of the parameters are provided in table 4. The weights of the parameters are shown in fig.3.
According to the results presented in fig. 3, air pollution with a maximum weight of 0.252 was the heaviest and most importance one, and sound pollution was the least important with the lowest weight 0.09.
Table 4-The result of the paired comparison of parameters in the Expert Choice software Plant & animal habitat Changing landscape Wastewater production Noise pollution Water pollution Air pollution 7.77 7.43 4.64 4.15 7.31 - Air pollution 7.01 7 7.66 4.64 - - Water pollution 7.49 7.66 7.64 - - - Noise pollution 7.31 7.77 - - - - Wastewater production 7.31 - - - - - Changing landscape - - - - - - Plant & animal habitat
Fig. 3- The weight of examined parameters based on environmental implications
With the use of Expert Choice software, after entering the questionnaires’ information into the software and the paired comparison, the amount of weight and ranking of parameters was determined. Weighing of parameters was according to their importance in the environment with respect to the studied plants.
Table 4-The final weight and priority of the sub-parameters Parameter Parameter
weight
Rank Sub-parameters Relative weight Total weight Total score Air pollution 0.414 7 NOX 0.446 0.701 7 SOX 0.444 0.016 9 CO 0.769 0.044 73 CO2 0.754 0.0415 77 Water pollution 0.793 4 BOD 0.391 0.016 4 COD 0.434 0.0417 74 NO3 0.749 0.044 76 DO 0.447 0.046 70 Noise pollution 0.09 6 Residential area 0.193 0.017 1 Commercial / Administrative area 0.401 0.075 71 Wastewater production 0.741 1 Heavy metals 0.344 0.04 74
Oily materials / oil / fuel 0.615 0.054 3 Changing landscape 0.714 3 Occupied surface area 0.601 0.701 4 Access road extension 0.391 0.065 1 Plant & animal habitat 0.761 4 Impact on birds 0.315 0.019 5 Impact on aquatic life 0.440 0.069 6 Vegetation coverage reduction 0.444 0.036 71
3-3 Review of the environmental implications of power plants
According to the results of questionnaires filled by the appropriate experts, in the Expert Choice software environment, the overall results derived from the study of the negative environmental consequences of Manjil’s wind and hydroelectric power plants are as follows severally and generally. It should be noted that the higher weight in the study of the environmental impact of power plant represents the higher negative consequences of it.
Based on the opinion of experts, in the study of Manjil power plants’ impact on water pollution, the hydroelectric plant produced more pollution and negative effects with the weight difference of 0.761- fig.4. Also, for the parameter of air pollution, the hydroelectric plant produced more pollution and negative effects relative to the wind power plant with a weight of 0.635- fig.5. On the sound pollution and changing landscape parameters, the Manjil wind power plant with the weights of the 0.594 and 0.701 respectively, with a large difference compared to the hydroelectric power, has higher negative effects on the environment. On the parameter of wastewater production, the hydroelectric power plant generates more pollution and negative effects with a weight of 0.621 –fig. 8.
Both power plants are almost identical with respect to animal and plant habitat parameter but partially the hydroelectric power plant (the dam) with a weight of 0.522 has the greatest negative impact.
Fig. 4- The result of the investigation of the negative environmental consequences of studied power plants based on water pollution parameter
Fig. 5- The result of the investigation of the negative environmental consequences of studied power plants based on air pollution parameter
Fig. 6- The result of the investigation of the negative environmental consequences of studied power plants based on noise pollution parameter
Fig. 7- The result of the investigation of the negative environmental consequences of studied power plants based on changing landscape parameter
Fig. 8- The result of the investigation of the negative environmental consequences of studied power plants based on wastewater parameter
Fig. 9- The result of the investigation of the negative environmental consequences of studied power plants based on plant and animal habitat parameter
3-4 Review of the total environmental implications of power plants
Generally, by consideration of all parameters and sub-parameters, the result of the negative consequences of plant environmental the power plants are presented in fig.10. The result of this research suggests that generally the wind power plants with a weight of 0.442 have less environmental impacts and next comes the hydroelectric power plant with the weight of 0.558 with regard to negative environmental outcomes.
Fig. 10- The general result of investigating the negative environmental impact of Manjil’s wind power plant
4-Discussion
Skanapio et al. (2013) studied and compared the electrical power plants. The parameters they selected include the impact on the water, the soil, the air, on plants and animals, on the ecosystem, noise pollution and vibrations, landscape, socio-economic and environmental damages. The results of their studies showed that in terms of these environmental parameters the wind power plant is the best power plant and has the lowest negative environmental implications and the nuclear, water, solar, oil and gas fuel, and coal fuel power plants rank next, respectively [12].
In line with research conducted on renewable energy, Demirtas(2013) in a study to determine the best renewable energy technology for sustainable energy and environment with the AHP method concluded that the wind energy, among the studied renewable energies like geothermal energy, solar energy, hydroelectric energy, and hydroelectric energy is the most suitable technology of energy production [13].
Also, kaya & Kahraman (2010), studied the best renewable energy alternatives in Istanbul with the AHP method and concluded that the wind energy is the best option among renewable energies and next comes solar, geothermal, and hydroelectric power plants [14]. In this study, similar to the present study, two power plants were compared in terms of environmental impact with results similar to this research.
According to the analysis made on the comments of experts in the research, according to the results, what is indisputable is that the wind power plant, based on the defined six parameters and the seventeen sub-parameters has the lowest negative impact on the surrounding environment. This study can be used in the construction of the new power plants to help managers in decision making.
REFERENCE
[1]Mohammad Shaneh (2008). Planning and Management of the Control and Reduction of Environmental Pollution in the Steel Industry to Achieve Optimal Safety, Health, and the Desirable Environment (Case study: Kavyan Steel Company), MSc thesis, Science & Research, Ahvaz branch.
[2] Samani, Maryam Riahi;Torabi Hafshjani, Elham; Kabiri Samani, Abdolreza (2003). The Assessment of the Environmental Effects of Dam and Power Plant Construction on the Karun River in the Chaharmahal and Bakhtiari Province. The national conference on water power plants of the country.
[3] Gilan regional water joint stock company, 2013. Access address: http://www.glrw.ir/fa/Menu.aspx4041 22 Nov. 2014
[4] Manjil green electricity production company, 2014. Manjil wind power plant. Access address:
http://www.sabzniroo.ir/%D9%85%D8%B9%D8%B1%D9%81%DB%8C-%D8%B4%D8%B1%DA%A9%D8%AA
[5] Sohrab, Tika, Samadi, Reza. 2012. Applying the AHP in Determining the Effective Factors in the Power Plant Pollution Standards. The twenty-seventh international conference on electric power.
[6] Shaeri, Ali Mohammad; Rahmati, Alireza (2012) Laws, Regulations, and Standards of Human Environment. The EPA. 1st ed. Hak publ.
[7] Josie, Seyed Ali; Hosseini, Seyed Mohsen, , Tabib Shooshtari, Mehrnosh (2010)
Environmental Risk Assessment of the Balarod Dam Construction in Khuzestan Using Analytical Hierarchy Process (AHP). Journal of marine science & technology researches. [8] Josie, A. Malmasi, S. Marandi, R. Jafarian Moghadam, A. (2012) the Environmental Analysis of the Biological Effects of the Arvand Petrochemical Complex on the Ecosystem of Bandar Imam Khomeini Special Economic Zone with the Analytical Hierarchy Process (AHP) Method. Earth. Vol.V.
[9]-Scannapieco, D. Naddeo, V. and Belgiorno,V., 2013, Sustainable power plants: A support tool for the analysis of alternatives, Land Use Policy.
[10]-Demirtas, O., 2013, Evaluating the Best Renewable Energy Technology for Sustainable Energy Planning, International Journal of Energy Economics and Policy .
[11]-Kaya,T. Kahraman, C., 2010, Multicriteria renewable energy planning using an integrated fuzzy VIKOR & AHP methodology: The case of Istanbul.
[12] Ghodsipor, H. (2013) Discussions on the Multiple-criteria Decision Analysis, Analytical Hierarchy Process. 11th ed. Tehran, Amir Kabir University publ., 224 pages.
