This environmental impact assessment for Kriegers flak ... - Vattenfall

• The mining of approximately 840 000 tons of coal/
year
• Carbon dioxide emission of approximately 2 100 000
tons/year
• Sulphur dioxide emission of approximately 2 520
tons/year
• Nitrogen dioxide emission of approximately 2 100
tons/year
(Source: SOU 1999:75)
10.2.2 Wind power in a different location
Kriegers Flak meets almost half of the Government’s
goals for production from renewable energy sources,
which is 10 TWh of additional electricity in 2010.
If the farm is not built and the electricity instead is
produced by wind power at different locations, it will
probably have greater visual impact on the landscape
than the Sweden Offshore planned project at Kriegers
Flak, as most of the other locations are closer to the
coast or onshore. For Skåne, Kriegers Flak is the only
area that far away from the coast.
10.3 The Kriegers Flak area
The zero alternative means that the marine environment
and the seabed at Kriegers Flak are kept in the
condition they are today. The zero alternative also
means that the risk of over-Þ shing in the area remains.
Finally, the zero alternative means that the free horizon
remains as well as the fact that the collision risk disappears.
THE ZERO ALTERNATIVE 61
10.4 Alternative I to the zero alternative
A comparison has been made above with a case where
no farm is built in the appointed area. It can, however,
be questioned if this comparison is relevant. Kriegers
Flak is one of the best locations for large-scale
wind power development in Sweden and it is therefore
likely that wind power will be developed at the location.
Another company, Eurowind, already have plans
for a farm consisting of 180-220 turbines. Compared
to these plans, the alternative that Sweden Offshore
presents in this document, means less of an environmental
impact at the location but also that less energy
will be produced.
10.5 Alternative II to the zero alternative
As the permit for a wind farm within the German economic
zone is expected early 2005, the scenario of this
farm should be brought up as an alternative to the zero
alternative. The only differences this brings is that the
visual impact on the landscape remains, even if the impact
in that case is a lot less, as well as the fact that the
collision risk remains (se Attachment 12.2 chapter II).