Dr Jo Smith describes some of the recent developments in the Carbon Calculator.

Intro

Jo Smith of Aberdeeen University outlines some important points to be considered when using the Windfarm Carbon Payback Calculator.

Pt.1

'Is it possible to have further guidance about what a detailed hydrological model would involve in terms of site measurements?'

Pt. 2

Jo Smith & Dali Nayaks responses to pre-submitted questions. The first question was submitted by SK Enviros

'Is it possible to have further guidance about what a detailed hydrological model would involve in terms of site measurements?'

Pt. 3

Jo Smith & Dali Nayaks responses to pre-submitted questions. The first question was submitted by SK Enviros

'Is it possible to have further guidance about what a detailed hydrological model would involve in terms of site measurements?'

There is some general discussion surrounding this question, before consideration is given to a question submitted by Scottish & Southern Energy Renewables.

'Does the model assume that any excavated peat is lost and that the restoration "Y" button only kicks in upon: decommissioning of the wind farm after 25 yrs, or if you intend to implement compensatory peatland restoration as part of an HMP?'

Pt. 4

Jo Smith & Dali Nayak of Aberdeen University consider a question submitted by Scottish & Southern Energy Renewables.

'Does the model assume that any excavated peat is lost and that the restoration "Y" button only kicks in upon: decommissioning of the wind farm after 25 yrs, or if you intend to implement compensatory peatland restoration as part of an HMP?'

Pt 5:

'If wind speed reduction by kinetic energy capture is sufficient to reduce evapotranspiration from adjacent mire and areas downwind, raising watertable and increasing surface wetness, what evidence in peer reviewed publications would be required for the calculator to include this effect?'

They then move on to consider a second question by SK Enviros;

'The embedded carbon in the site infrastructure (+10% in turbine lifecycle) is often flaged us as a key issue by decision makers. Would it be possible to amend the model to include other site construction materials such as concrete, steel and sand etc?'

Pt. 6

'The embedded carbon in the site infrastructure (+10% in turbine lifecycle) is often flaged us as a key issue by decision makers. Would it be possible to amend the model to include other site construction materials such as concrete, steel and sand etc?'

Pt. 7

'Is there scope for offering an option of calculating the short and long-term effects of forestry on deep peat on the carbon balance to compare with felling and restoration back to active blanket bog as part of mitigation for a wind-farm development?'

Pt. 8

'In some cases, we have used the model to predict carbon emissions from sites with different types of infrastructure. These include: meteorology masts, settlement ponds etc. Would it be possible to add a category for additional infrastructure, where the total volume of peat removed can be calculated and entered?'

Also

'How applicable do the authors consider the model to be for England, Wales & Ireland? (obviously with revised counterfactual emission factors for the Republic of Ireland?'

Pt. 9

'We are assisting with some hydro-power schemes on peatland. What are your thoughts on carbon payback for areas where peatland is submerged?'

Pt. 10

'Whether, and if so how to accomodate a cost-benefit analysis, rate of interest.'

Pt. 11

'What is the current status of the calculator in terms of EIA requirements, and how will this change in the future?'

Pt.12

Review and Wrap up of Question Time and the meeting as a whole.