1.Economic:
Any new activity can be justified only if it is cost effective; that is, the net result must show a profit improvement or cost reduction greater than the cost of the activity. Energy management has proven time and time again that it is cost effective.
An energy cost savings of 5-15 percent is usually obtained quickly with little to no required capital expenditure when an aggressive energy management program is launched. An eventual savings of 30 percent is common, and savings of 50, 60, and even 70 percent have been obtained. These savings all result from retrofit activities. New buildings designed to be energy efficient often operate on 20 percent of the energy (with a corresponding 80 percent savings) normally required by existing buildings.
In fact, for most manufacturing and other commercial organizations
“Energy management is one of the most promising profit improvement-cost reduction programs available today.”
2.National Good
Energy management programs are vitally needed today. One important reason is that energy management helps the nation face some of its biggest problems.
Reducing energy use can help minimize these problems by:
Reducing Acid Rain:
Lake Acidification and deforestation have been the greatest effects of acid rain from the combustion of fossil fuels containing significant amounts of sulfur, such as coal and some oil.
The Clean Air Act Amendments of 1990 will restrict the future emission of sulfur dioxide to the level emitted in 1980.
Limiting Global Climate Change:
Carbon dioxide, the main contributor to potential global climate change, is produced by the combustion of fossil fuel, primarily to provide transportation and energy services. In 1992, many countries of the world adopted limitations on carbon dioxide emissions.
Limiting Ozone Depletion:
About half of the CFC’s—which have been associated with ozone depletion—are used in providing energy services through refrigeration and air conditioning, and in manufacturing insulation. International agreements substantially phased out the use of CFC’s in industrialized countries in 1996.
There are no easy answers. Each of the possibilities discussed below has its own problems. Many look to coal as the answer. Yet coal burning produces sulfur dioxide and carbon dioxide, which produce acid rain and potential global climate change.
Synfuels:
Synfuels require strip mining, incur large costs, and place large demands for water in arid areas. On-site coal gasification plants associated with gas-fired, combined-cycle power plants are presently being demonstrated by several electric utilities. However, it remains to be seen if these units can be built and operated in a cost-effective and environmentally acceptable manner.
Solar-Generated Electricity:
Solar generated electricity whether generated through photo voltaic or thermal processes, is still more expensive than conventional sources and has large land requirements. Technological improvements are occurring in both these areas, and costs are decreasing.
Sometime in the near future, these approaches may become cost effective; however, in 2005, the cost of large-scale solar PV generation was still about $6000 per kW.
Biomass Energy:
Biomass energy is also expensive, and any sort of monoculture would require large amounts of land. Some fear total devastation of forests. At best, biomass can provide only a few percentage points of our total needs without large problems.
Wind Energy:
Wind energy is only feasible in limited geographical areas where the wind velocity is consistently high, and there are also some noise and aesthetic problems. However, the cost of wind generation systems has come down to $1000-$2000 per kW, and they are cost-effective. Operating costs are very low, and with new wind turbine technologies, large wind farms are being constructed.
Alcohol Production:
Alcohol production from agricultural products raises perplexing questions about using food products for energy when large parts of the world are starving. Newer processes for producing alcohol from wood waste are just being tested, and may offer some significant improvements in this limitation. In the meantime, quite a few new ethanol plants are being started up to produce this alternate energy fuel.
Fission:
Fission has the well-known problems of waste disposal, safety, and a short time span with existing technology. Without breeder reactors or nuclear fuel reprocessing, we will soon run out of fuel, but breeder reactors dramatically increase the production of plutonium—a raw material for nuclear bombs. Nuclear fuel reprocessing could provide many years of fuel by recycling partially used fuel now being kept in storage.
Fusion:
Fusion seems to be everyone’s hope for the future, but many claim that we do not know the area well enough yet to predict its problems. When available commercially, fusion may very well have its own style of environmental-economical problems.
No comments:
Post a Comment