Environmental Engineering Reference
In-Depth Information
the ef
ciency improvements in the rest of the building
sector only cut TPES by an additional
%.)
Increased funding in building technology would be a
winner.
Fossil fuels: Substitution of emission-free fuels for
fossil fuels was discussed in
Chapters
%to
.
The two systems that today make up the largest amount
of emission-free energy, nuclear and big hydropower
dams, run into strong opposition in the United States
and EU from a small but very vocal group that I called
the ultra-greens in the introduction.
Nuclear power: Nuclear power is safe, emission-free,
and economical when well regulated. The Three Mile
Island accident in the United States resulted in negligible
radiation or damage outside the reactor itself. The
Chernobyl accident was a consequence of deliberate dis-
mantlement of all safety systems for reasons still not
understood in a reactor that was known to be capable of
a runaway. The Fukushima accident was determined by
the investigation in Japan to be the result of regulatory
capture, and resulted in fewer years of life lost from the
accident than had the same amount of electricity been
generated from coal or gas. It has resulted in a review of
regulatory systems in all countries with nuclear power.
Nuclear is a safe, emission-free source of base-load elec-
tricity, and thus a winner, as is hydro.
Carbon capture and storage: For reasons I do not
understand, part of the green movement also does not
seem to like carbon capture and storage (CCS) which, if
successful, would allow the use of fossil fuels while making
such use almost emission-free. The goal is to reduce
emissions, and I am skeptical about achieving big emission
,
, and
