Final EIAR - Aurecon AME Environmental | Environmental Projects

Proposed Wind and Solar (Photovoltaic) Energy Facilities on Kangnas Farm near Springbok in the Northern Cape: Final EIR 49
• Location alternatives - alternative locations for the entire project proposal or for
components of the project proposal;
• Activity (type) alternatives - also referred to as project alternatives. Requires a change in
the nature of the proposed activity. This category of alternatives is most appropriate at a
strategic decision-making level;
• Layout alternatives- site layout alternatives permit consideration of different spatial
configurations of an activity on a particular site; and
• Technology alternatives – technology alternatives permit consideration of different types
of technology used in the project.
The above categories of alternatives are the ones most pertinent to this EIA process, and were
be explored in detail in the Scoping Phase and are summarised below. The purpose of this
section of the report is to summarise the potential alternatives assessed in the EIA Phase.
3.4.2 Location alternatives
South Africa is on the verge of increasing the percentage contribution made by renewable
energy power generation to the existing energy mix. In response to this potential for the
implementation of a large scale renewable energy production, and in particular the 1 850 MW
and 1 450 MW which is required from wind and PV energy respectively, Mainstream has
identified many potential sites across the country and is currently pursuing the best suited
locations for wind and PV energy production.
Mainstream undertook a fatal flaw analysis of four sites in the Northern and Western Cape, of
which the current site was one. These sites were identified by considering the following
technical aspects:
The fatal flaw analysis considered the following environmental aspects:
• Surrounding land uses;
• Existing services infrastructure;
• Climate;
• Topography, geology and soils;
• Botany;
• Fauna;
• Avifauna;
• Freshwater ecology;
• Archaeology and palaeontology;
• Visual landscape;
• Socio-economic aspects;
• Agricultural production and potential; and
• Planning consistency.
The sites were visited and desktop studies were undertaken to identify potential issues and fatal
flaws from an EIA perspective. Input was provided by the following specialists:
• Dr Dave McDonald, Bergwind Botanical Tours & Surveys (botany);
• Mr Doug Harebottle, Private Consultant (avifauna);
• Mr Kurt Barichievy, SiVEST (agriculture);
• Dr Tim Hart, ACO & Associates (heritage); and
© Aurecon (2012) No unauthorised reproduction, copy
or adaptation, in whole or in part, may be made.
P:\Projects\108495 Kangnas WEF & PV EIA's\3 Project Delivery\4 Reports\FEIR\FEIR 210213 Final.doc