Environmental Encyclopedia
Подождите немного. Документ загружается.
Environmental Encyclopedia 3
Energy and the environment
There is more evidence that the endocrine systems of
fish and wildlife have been affected by chemical contamina-
tion in their habitats. Groups of animals that have been
affected by endocrine disruption include snails, oysters, fish,
alligators and other reptiles, and birds, including gulls and
eagles. Whether effects on individuals of a particular
species
impact populations of that organism is difficult to prove.
Whether endocrine disruption is confined to specific areas
or is more widespread is also not known. In addition, proving
that a specific chemical causes a particular endocrine effect
is difficult, as animals are exposed to a variety of chemicals
and non-chemical stressors. However, some persistent or-
ganic chemicals such as DDT (dichlorodiphenyltrichloroe-
thane), PCBs (
polychlorinated biphenyls
),
dioxin
, and
some pesticides have been shown to act as endocrine dis-
ruptors in the environment. Adverse effects seen that may
be caused by endocrine disrupting mechanisms include ab-
normal thyroid function and development in fish and birds,
decreased fertility in shellfish, fish, birds, and mammals,
decreased hatching success in fish, birds, and reptiles, demas-
culinization and feminization of fish, birds, reptiles, and
mammals, defeminization and masculinization of
gastro-
pods
, fish, and birds, and alteration of immune and behav-
ioral function in birds and mammals. Many potential endo-
crine disrupting chemicals are persistent and bioaccumulate
in fatty tissues of organisms and increase in concentration
as they move up through the food web. Because of this
persistence and mobility, they can accumulate and harm
organisms far from their original source.
More information is needed to define the ecological
and human health risks of endocrine disrupting chemicals.
Epidemiological investigations, exposure assessments, and
laboratory testing studies for a wide variety of both naturally
occurring and synthetic chemicals are tools that are being
used to determine whether these chemicals as environmental
contaminants have the potential to disrupt hormonally medi-
ated processes in humans and animals.
[Judith L. Sims]
R
ESOURCES
B
OOKS
Colburn, Theo, Dianne Dumanoski, and John Peterson Myers.Our Stolen
Future: Are We Threatening Our Fertility, Intelligence, and Survival? A
Scientific Detective Story.New York, NY: Penguin Books USA, 1997.
Gillette, Louis J., and D. Andrew Crain. ed.Environmental Endocrine Dis-
ruptors.London, England: Taylor & Francis Group, 2000.
Krimsky, Sheldon, and Lynn Goldman.Hormonal Chaos: The Scientific and
Social Origins of the Environmental Endocrine Hypothesis.Baltimore, MD:
Johns Hopkins Press, 1999.
Weyer, Peter, and David Riley.Endocrine Disruptors and Pharmaceuticals in
Drinking Water.Denver, CO: American Water Works Association, 2001.
457
P
ERIODICALS
Kavlock, Robert J. et al. “Research Needs for the Risk Assessment of Health
and Environmental Effects of Endocrine Disruptors: A Report of the U.S.
EPA-Sponsored Workshop.” Environmental Health Perspectives 104 (1996):
715–740.
O
THER
Committee on Environment and Natural Resources, National Science and
Technology Council. Endocrine Disruptors Research Initiative.U.S. Environ-
mental Protection Agency, Washington, DC, June 29, 1999. [cited June
1, 2002]. <http://www.epa.gov/endocrine/>.
Endocrine Disruptors. Natural Resources Defense Council, November 25,
1998. [cited June 1, 2002]. <http://nrdc.org/health/effects/qendoc.asp>.
Endocrine Disruptors. World Wildlife Fund, [cited June 1, 2002], <http://
www.wildlife.org/toxics/progareas/ed/>.
Technical Panel, Office of Research and Development, Office of Prevention,
Pesticides, and Toxic Substances. Special Report on Environmental Endocrine
Disruption: An Effects Assessment and Analysis. EPA/630/R-96/012, U.S.
Environmental Protection Agency, Washington, DC, 1997.
Energy and the environment
Energy is a prime factor in environmental quality. Extrac-
tion, processing, shipping, and
combustion
of
coal
, oil, and
natural gas
are the largest sources of air pollutants, thermal
and chemical
pollution
of surface waters, accumulation of
mine
tailings
and toxic ash, and land degradation caused
by
surface mining
in the United States.
On the other hand, a cheap, inexhaustible source of
energy would allow us people to eliminate or repair much
of the environmental damage done already and to improve
the quality of the
environment
in many ways. Often, the
main barrier to reclaiming degraded land, cleaning up pol-
luted water, destroying wastes, restoring damaged ecosys-
tems, or remedying most other environmental problems is
that solutions are expensive—and much of that expense is
energy costs. Given a clean, sustainable, environmentally
benign energy source, people could create a true utopia and
extend its benefits to everyone.
Our ability to use external energy to do useful work
is one of the main characteristics that distinguishes humans
from other animals. Clearly, technological advances based
on this ability have made our lives much more comfortable
and convenient than that of our early ancestors. They have
also allowed us to make bigger mistakes, faster than ever
before. A large part of our current environmental crisis is
that our ability to modify our environment has outpaced our
capacity to use energy and technology wisely.
In the United States,
fossil fuels
supply about 85%
of the commercial energy. This situation cannot continue
for very long because the supplies of these fuels are limited
and their environmental effects are unacceptable. Americans
now get more than half of their oil from foreign sources at
great economic and political costs. At current rates of use,
Environmental Encyclopedia 3
Energy and the environment
known, economically extractable world supplies of oil and
natural gas will probably last only a century or so. Reserves
of coal are much larger, but coal is the dirtiest of all fuels.
Its contribution of
greenhouse gases
that cause global
warming are reason enough to curtail our coal use. In addi-
tion, coal burning is the largest single source in the United
States of
sulfur dioxide
and
nitrogen oxides
(which cause
respiratory health problems,
ecosystem
damage, and
acid
precipitation). Paradoxically, coal-burning
power plants
also release
radioactivity
, since radioactive minerals such
as
uranium
and thorium are often present in low concentra-
tions in coal deposits.
Nuclear power
was once thought to be an attractive
alternative to fossil fuels. Billed as “the clean energy alterna-
tive” and as an energy source “too cheap to bother metering,”
nuclear power was promoted in the 1960s as the energy
source for the future. The disastrous consequences of acci-
dents in nuclear plants, such as the explosion and fire at
Chernobyl in the Ukraine in 1986, problems with releases
of radioactive materials in mining and processing of fuels,
and the inability to find a safe, acceptable permanent storage
of nuclear waste have made nuclear power seem much less
attractive in recent years. Between seventy and ninety percent
of the citizens of most European and North American coun-
tries now regard nuclear power as unacceptable.
The United States Government once projected that
1,500 nuclear plants would be built. In 2002, only 105 plants
were in operation and no new construction has been under-
taken since 1975. Many of these aging plants are now reach-
ing the end of their useful life. There will be enormous costs
and technical difficulties in dismantling them and disposing
of the radioactive debris. Some reactor designs are inherently
safer than those now in operation, but public confidence in
nuclear power technology is at such a low level that it seems
unlikely that it will never supply much energy. Damming
rivers to create hydroelectric power from spinning water
turbines has the attraction of providing a low-cost, renew-
able, air pollution-free energy source. Only a few locations
remain in the United States, however, where large hydroelec-
tric projects are feasible. Many more sites are available in
Canada, Brazil, India, and other countries, but the social and
ecological effects of building large
dams
,
flooding
valuable
river valleys, and eliminating free-flowing rivers are such
that opposition is mounting to this energy source.
An example of the ecological and human damage done
by large hydroelectric projects is seen in the James Bay region
of Eastern Quebec. A series of huge dams and artificial lakes
have flooded thousands of square miles of forest.
Migration
routes of caribou are disrupted, the
habitat
for game on
which indigenous people depended is destroyed, and de-
caying vegetation has acidified waters, releasing
mercury
from the bedrock and raising mercury concentrations in fish
458
to toxic levels. The
hunting
and gathering way of life of
local Cree and Inuit people has probably been destroyed
forever. This kind of tragedy has been repeated many times
around the world by ill-conceived hydro projects.
There are several sustainable, environmentally benign
energy sources that should be developed. Among these are
wind power,
biomass
(burning
renewable energy
crops
such as fast-growing trees or shrubs), small-scale hydropower
(low head or run-of-the- river turbines), passive-solar space
heating, active-solar water heaters, photovoltaic energy (di-
rect conversion of sunlight to electricity), and ocean tidal
or
wave power
. There may be unwanted environmental
consequences of some of these sources as well, but they seem
much better in aggregate than current energy sources. A
big disadvantage is that most of these
alternative energy
sources
are diffuse and not always available when or where
we want to use energy.
We need ways to store and ship energy generated from
these sources. There have been many suggestions that a
breakthrough in battery technology could be on the
horizon
.
Other possibilities include converting biomass into
methane
or
methanol
fuels or using electricity to generate
hydrogen
gas through electrolysis of water. These fuels would be easily
storable, transportable, and used with current technology
without great alterations of existing systems. It is estimated
that some combination of these sustainable energy sources
could supply all of American energy needs by utilizing only
a small fraction (perhaps less than one percent) of United
States land area. If means are available to move this energy
efficiently, these energy farms could be in remote locations
with little other value.
Clearly, the best way to protect the environment from
damage associated with energy production is to use energy
more efficiently. Many experts estimate that people could
enjoy the same comfort and convenience but use only half
as much energy if they practiced
energy conservation
using
currently available technology. This would not require great
sacrifices economically or in one’s lifestyle. See also Acid rain;
Air pollution; Greenhouse effect; Photovoltaic cell; Solar
energy; Thermal pollution; Wind energy
[William P. Cunningham Ph.D.]
R
ESOURCES
B
OOKS
Davis, G. R. Energy for Planet Earth. New York: W. H. Freeman, 1991.
P
ERIODICALS
Weinberg, C. J., and R. H. Williams. “Energy from the Sun.” Scientific
American 263 (September 1990): 146-55.
Environmental Encyclopedia 3
Energy conservation
Energy conservation
Energy
conservation
was a concept largely unfamiliar to
America—and to much of the rest of the world—prior to
1973. Certainly some thinkers prior to that date thought
about, wrote about, and advocated a more judicious use of
the world’s energy supplies. But in a practical sense, it seemed
that the world’s supply of
coal
, oil, and
natural gas
was
virtually unlimited.
In 1973, however, the
Organization of Petroleum
Exporting Countries
(OPEC) placed an arbitrary limit on
the amount of
petroleum
that non-producing nations could
buy from them. Although the OPEC embargo lasted only
a short time, the nations of the world were suddenly forced
to consider the possibility that they might have to survive
on a reduced and ultimately finite supply of the
fossil fuels
.
In the United States, the OPEC embargo set off a
flurry of administrative and legislative activity, designed to
ensure a dependable supply of energy for the nation’s further
needs. Out of this activity came acts such as the
Energy
Policy
and Conservation Act of 1976, the Energy Conserva-
tion and Production Act of 1976, and the National Energy
Act of 1978.
An important feature of the nation’s (and the world’s)
new outlook on energy was the realization of how much
energy is wasted in
transportation
, residential and commer-
cial buildings, and industry. When energy supplies appeared
to be without limit, waste was a matter of small concern.
However, when energy shortages began to be a possibility,
conservation of energy sources assumed a high priority.
Energy conservation is certainly one of the most attain-
able goals the federal government can set for the United
States. Almost every way we use energy results in enormous
waste. Only about 20% of the energy content of
gasoline
,
for example, is actually put to productive work in an
automo-
bile
. Each time we make use of electricity, we produce waste
when coal is burned to heat water to drive a turbine to
operate a generator to make electricity. No wonder more
than ninety% of the energy generated in the electrical process
is wasted.
Fortunately, a vast array of conservation techniques
are available in each of the major categories of energy use:
transportation, residential and commercial buildings, and
industry. In the area of transportation, conservation efforts
focus on the nation’s use of the private automobile for most
personal travel. Certainly, the private automobile is an enor-
mously wasteful method for moving people from one place
to another. It is hardly surprising, therefore, that conserva-
tionists have long argued for the development of alternative
means of transportation: bicycles, motorcycles, mopeds, car-
pools and van-pools, dial-a-rides, and various forms of
mass
transit
. The amount of energy needed to move a single
459
individual on the average is about one-third on a bus what
it is in a private car. One need only compare the relative
energy cost per passenger for eight people travelling in a
commuter van-pool to the cost for a single individual in her
private automobile to see the advantages of some form of
mass transit.
For a number of reasons, however, mass transit systems
in the United States are not very popular. While the number
of new cars sold continues to rise year after year, investment
in and use of heavy and light rail systems, trolley systems,
subways and various types of pools remain modest.
Many authorities believe that the best hope for energy
conservation in the field of transportation is to make private
automobiles more efficient or to increase the tax on their
use. Some experts argue that technology already exists for
the construction of 100-mi-per-gal (42.5 km/l) automobiles
if industry will make use of that technology. They also argue
for additional research on electric cars as an energy-saving
and pollution-reducing alternative to internal
combustion
vehicles.
Increasing the cost of using private automobiles has
also been explored. One approach is to raise the tax on
gasoline to a point where commuters begin to consider mass
transit as an economical alternative. Increased parking fees
and more aggressive traffic enforcement have also been tried.
Such approaches often fail—or are never attempted—be-
cause public officials are reluctant to anger voters.
Other methods that have been suggested for increasing
energy efficiency
in automobiles include the design and
construction of smaller, lighter cars, extending the useful
life of a car, improving the design of cars and tires, and
encouraging the design of more efficient cars through federal
grants or tax credits.
A number of techniques are well known and could be
used, however, to conserve energy in large buildings or even
small two-room cottages. A thorough insulation of floors,
walls, and ceilings, for example, can save up to 80% of the
cost of heating and cooling a building.
In addition, buildings can be designed and constructed
to take advantage of natural heating and cooling factors in
the
environment
. A home in Canada, for example, should
be oriented with windows tilting toward the south so as to
take advantage of the sun’s heating rays. A home in Mexico
might have quite a different orientation.
One of the most extreme examples of environmental-
friendly buildings are those that have been constructed at
least partially underground. The earthen walls of these build-
ings provide a natural cooling effect in the summer and
provide excellent insulation during the winter.
The kind, number, and placement of trees around a
building can also contribute to energy efficiency. Trees that
Environmental Encyclopedia 3
Energy efficiency
lose their leaves in the winter will allow sunlight to heat a
building during the coldest months, but will shield the build-
ing from the sun during the hot summer months.
Energy can also be conserved by modifying appliances
used within a building. Prior to 1973, consumers became
enamored with all kinds of electrical devices, from electric
toothbrushes to electric shoe-shine machines to trash com-
pactors. As convenient as these appliances may be, they are
energy wasteful and do not always meet a basic human need.
Even items as simple as light bulbs can become a factor
in energy conservation programs. Fluorescent light bulbs use
at least 75% less energy than do incandescent bulbs, and
they often last 20 times longer. Although many commercial
buildings now use fluorescent lighting exclusively, it still
tends to be relatively less popular in private homes.
As the largest single user of energy in American soci-
ety, industry is a prime candidate for conservation measures.
Always sensitive to possible money-saving changes, industry
has begun to develop and implement energy savings devices
and procedures. One such idea is
cogeneration
, the use of
waste heat from an industrial process for use in the genera-
tion of electricity.
Another approach is the expanded use of
recycling
by industry. In many cases, re-using a material requires less
energy than producing it from raw materials. Finally, re-
searchers are continually testing new designs for equipment
that will allow that equipment to operate on less energy.
Governments and utilities have two primary methods
by which they can encourage energy conservation. One ap-
proach is to penalize individuals and companies that use
too much energy. For example, an industry that uses large
amounts of electricity might be charged at a higher rate per
kilowatt hour than one that uses less electricity, a policy just
the opposite of that now in practice in most places.
A more positive approach is to encourage energy con-
servation by techniques such as tax credits. Those who insu-
late their homes might, for example, be given cash bonuses
by the local utility or a tax deduction by state or federal
government.
In recent years, another side of energy conservation
has come to the fore, its environmental advantages. Obvi-
ously, the less coal, oil, and natural gas that humans use,
the fewer pollutants are released into the environment. Thus,
a practice that is energy-wise, conservation, can also provide
environmental benefits. Those concerned with global warm-
ing and
climate
change have been especially active in this
area. They point out that reducing our use of fossil fuels
will both reduce our consumption of energy and our release
of
carbon dioxide
to the
atmosphere
. We can take a step
toward heading off climate change, they point out, by taking
the wise step of wasting less energy.
460
Energy conservation does not yet appear to have won
the heart of most Americans. The general public concern
about energy waste engendered by the 1973 OPEC
oil em-
bargo
eventually dissolved into complacency. To be sure,
some of the sensitivity to energy conservation created by that
event has not been lost. Many people have switched to more
energy-efficient forms of transportation, think more carefully
about leaving house lights on all night, and take energy effi-
ciency into consideration when buying major appliances.
But some of the more aggressive efforts to conserve
energy have become stalled. Higher taxes on gasoline, for
example, still are certain to raise an enormous uproar among
the populace. And energy-saving construction steps that
might well be mandated by law still remain optional, and
frequently ignored.
In an era of apparently renewed confidence in an end-
less supply of fossil fuels, many people are no longer con-
vinced that energy conservation is very important or have
the will to act on their suspicion that it is. And governments,
reflecting the will of the people, do not take leadership action
to change that trend.
[David E. Newton]
R
ESOURCES
B
OOKS
Fardo, S. Energy Conservation Guidebook. Englewood Cliffs, NJ: Prentice
Hall, 1993.
P
ERIODICALS
Reisner, M. “The Rise and Fall and Rise of Energy Conservation.” Amicus
Journal 9 (Spring 1987): 22-31.
Energy crops
see
Biomass
Energy efficiency
The utilization of energy for human purposes is a defining
characteristic of industrial society. The conversion of energy
from one form to another and the efficient production of
mechanical work for heat energy has been studied and im-
proved for centuries. The science of thermodynamics deals
with the relationship between heat and work and is based
on two fundamental laws of
nature
, the first and second
laws of thermodynamics
. The utilization of energy and
the
conservation
of critical, nonrenewable energy resources
are controlled by these laws and the technological improve-
ments in the design of energy systems.
The First Law of Thermodynamics states the principle
of conservation of energy: energy can be neither created nor
Environmental Encyclopedia 3
Energy efficiency
destroyed by ordinary chemical or physical means, but it can
be converted from one form to another. Stated another way,
in a closed system, the total amount of energy is constant. An
interesting example of energy conversion is the incandescent
light bulb. In the incandescent light bulb, electrical energy
is used to heat a wire (the bulb filament) until it is hot
enough to glow. The bulb works satisfactorily except that
the great majority (95%) of the electrical energy supplied to
the bulb is converted to heat rather than light. The incandes-
cent bulb is not very efficient as a source of light. In contrast,
a fluorescent bulb uses electrical energy to excite atoms in
a gas, causing them to give off light in the process at least
four times more efficiently than the incandescent bulb. Both
light sources, however, conform to the First Law in that no
energy is lost and the total amount of heat and light energy
produced is equal to the amount of electrical energy flowing
to the bulb.
The Second Law of Thermodynamics states that
whenever heat is used to do work, some heat is lost to the
surrounding
environment
. The complete conversion of heat
into work is not possible. This is not the result of inefficient
engineering design or implementation but, rather, a funda-
mental and theoretical thermodynamic limitation. The max-
imum, theoretically possible efficiency for converting heat
into work depends solely on the operating temperatures of
the heat engine and is given by the equations:E=1-T
2
/
T
1
.T
1
is the absolute temperature at which heat energy is
supplied and T
2
is the absolute temperature at which heat
energy is exhausted.
The maximum possible thermodynamic efficiency of
a four-cycle internal
combustion
engine is about 54%; for
a diesel engine, the limit is about 56%; and for a steam
engine, the limit is about 32%. The actual efficiency of real
engines, which suffer from mechanical inefficiencies and
parasitic losses (eg. friction, drag, etc.) is significantly lower
than these levels. Although thermodynamic principles limit
maximum efficiency, substantial improvements in energy
utilization can be obtained through further development of
existing equipment such as
power plants
, refrigerators, and
automobiles and the development of new energy sources
such as solar and geothermal.
Experts have estimated the efficiency of other common
energy systems. The most efficient of these appear to be
electric power generating plants (33% efficient) and steel
plants (23% efficient). Among the least efficient systems are
those for heating water (1.5–3%), for heating homes and
buildings (2.5–9%), and refrigeration and air-conditioning
systems (4–5%). It has been estimated that about 85% of
the energy available in the United States is lost due to ineffi-
ciency.
The predominance of low efficiency systems reflects
the fact that such systems were invented and developed when
461
energy costs were low and there was little customer demand
for energy efficiency. It made more sense then to build
appliances that were inexpensive rather than efficient because
the cost to operate them was so low. Since the 1973
oil
embargo
by the
Organization of Petroleum Exporting
Countries
(OPEC), that philosophy has been carefully re-
examined. Experts began to point out that more expensive
appliances could be designed and built if they were also more
efficient. The additional cost to the manufacturer, industry
and homeowner could usually be recovered within a few
years because of the savings in fuel costs.
The concept of energy efficiency suggests a new way
of looking at energy systems and that is the examination of
the total lifetime energy use and cost of the system. Consider
the common light bulb. The total cost of using a light bulb
includes both its initial price and the cost of operating it
throughout its lifetime. When energy was cheap, this second
factor was small. There was little motivation to make a bulb
that was more efficient when the life-cycle savings for its
operation was minimal.
But as the cost of energy rises, that argument no longer
holds true. An inefficient light bulb costs more and more
to operate as the cost of electricity rises. Eventually, it makes
sense to invent and produce more efficient light bulbs. Even
if these bulbs cost more to buy, they pay back that cost in
long-term operating savings.
Thus, consumers might balk at spending $25 for a
fluorescent light bulb unless they knew that the bulb would
last ten times as long as an incandescent bulb that costs
$3.75. Similar arguments can and have been used to justify
the higher initial cost of energy-saving refrigerators, solar-
heating systems, household insulation, improved internal
combustion engines and other energy-efficient systems and
appliances.
Governmental agencies, utilities, and industries are
gradually beginning to appreciate the importance of increas-
ing energy efficiency. The 1990 amendments to the
Clean
Air Act
encourage industries and utilities to adopt more
efficient equipment and procedures. Certain leaders in the
energy field, such as Pacific Gas and Electric and Southern
California Edison have already implemented significant en-
ergy efficiency programs.
[David E. Newton and Richard A. Jeryan]
R
ESOURCES
B
OOKS
Miller, G. T., Jr. Energy and Environment: The Four Energy Crises. 2nd
edition. Belmont, CA: Wadsworth Publishing Company, 1980.
Sears, F. W. and M. W. Zemansky. University Physics. 2nd edition. Reading,
MA: Addison-Wesley Publishing, 1957.
Environmental Encyclopedia 3
Energy flow
O
THER
Council on Environmental Quality. Environmental Quality, 21st annual
report. Washington, DC: U. S. Government Printing Office, 1990.
Energy flow
Understanding energy flow is vital to many environmental
issues. One can describe the way ecosystems function by
saying that matter cycles and energy flows. This is based on
the laws of
conservation
of matter and energy and the
second law of thermodynamics, or the law of energy degra-
dation.
Energy flow is strictly one way, such as from higher
to lower or from hotter to colder. Objects cool only by
loss of heat. All cooling units, such as refrigerators and air
conditioners, are based on this principle: they are essentially
heat pumps, absorbing heat in one place and expelling it to
another.
This heat flow is explained by the laws of radiation,
as seen in fire and the color wheel. All objects emit radiation,
or heat loss, but the hotter the object the greater the amount
of radiation, and the shorter and more energetic the wave-
length. As energy intensities rise and wavelengths shorten,
the radiation changes from infrared to red, then orange,
yellow, green, blue, violet, and ultraviolet. A blue flame, for
example, is desired for gas appliances. A well-developed
wood fire is normally yellow, but as the fire dies out and
cools, the color gradually changes to orange, then red, then
black. Black coals may still be very hot, giving off invisible,
infrared radiation. These varying wavelengths are the main
differences seen in the electromagnetic spectrum.
All chemical reactions and
radioactivity
emit heat as
a by-product. Because this heat radiates out from the source,
the basis of the second law of thermodynamics, one can
never achieve 100%
energy efficiency
. There will always
be a heat-loss tax. One can slow down the rate of heat loss
through insulating devices, but never stop it. As the insula-
tors absorb heat, their temperatures rise and they in turn
lose heat.
There are three main applications of energy flow to
environmental concerns. First, only 10% of the food passed
on up the
food chain/web
is retained as body mass; 90%
flows to the
atmosphere
as heat. In terms of caloric effi-
ciency, more calories are obtained by eating plant food than
meat. Since fats are more likely to be part of the 10% retained
as body mass, pesticides dissolved in fat are subject to
bioac-
cumulation
and
biomagnification
. This explains the high
levels of DDT in birds of prey like the
peregrine falcon
(Falco peregrinus) and the
brown pelican
(Pelecanus occiden-
talis).
462
Second, the%age of waste heat is an indicator of energy
efficiency. In light bulbs, 5% produces light and 95% heat,
just the opposite of the highly efficient fire fly. Electrical
generation from
fossil fuels
or
nuclear power
produces
vast amounts of waste heat.
Third, control of heat flow is a key to comfortable
indoor air and solving global warming. Well-insulated build-
ings retard heat flow, reducing energy use. Atmospheric
greenhouse gases
, such as
anthropogenic carbon diox-
ide
and
methane
, retard heat flow to space, which theoreti-
cally should cause global temperatures to rise. Policies that
reduce these greenhouse gases allow a more natural flow of
heat back to space. See also Greenhouse effect
[Nathan H. Meleen]
R
ESOURCES
P
ERIODICALS
“Energy.” National Geographic 159 (February 1981): 2-23.
Energy Information Admistration
see
U.S. Department of Energy
Energy path, hard vs. soft
What will energy use patterns in the year 2100 look like?
Such long-term predictions are difficult, risky, and perhaps
impossible. Could an American citizen in 1860 have pre-
dicted what the pattern of today’s energy use would be like?
Yet, there are reasons to believe that some dramatic
changes in the ways we use energy may be in store over the
next century. Most importantly, the world’s supplies of non-
renewable energy—especially,
coal
, oil, and natural gas—
continue to decrease. Critics have been warning for a least
two decades that time was running out for the
fossil fuels
and that we could not count on using them as prolifically
as we had in the past.
For at least two decades, experts have debated the best
way to structure our energy use patterns in the future. The
two most common themes have been described (originally
by physicist Amory Lovins) as the “hard path” and the “soft
path.”
Proponents of the hard path argue essentially that we
should continue to operate in the future as we have in the
past, except more efficiently. They point out that predictions
from the 1960s and 1970s that our oil supplies would be
depleted by the end of the century have been proved wrong.
If anything, our reserves of fossil fuels may actually have
increased as economic incentives have encouraged further
exploration.
Environmental Encyclopedia 3
Energy policy
Our energy future, the hard-pathers say, should focus
on further incentives to develop conventional energy sources
such as fossil fuels and
nuclear power
. Such incentives
might include tax breaks and subsidies for coal,
uranium
and
petroleum
companies. When our supplies of fossil fuels
do begin to be depleted, our emphasis should shift to a
greater reliance on nuclear power.
An important feature of the hard energy path is the
development of huge, centralized coal-fired and nuclear-
powered plants for the generation of electricity. One charac-
teristic of most hard energy proposals, in fact, is the emphasis
on very large, expensive, centralized systems. For example,
one would normally think of
solar energy
as a part of the
soft energy path. But one proposal developed by the National
Aeronautics and Space Administration (NASA) calls for a
gigantic solar power station to be orbited around the earth.
The station could then transmit power via microwaves to
centrally-located transmission stations at various points in
the earth’s surface.
Those who favor a soft energy path have a completely
different scenario in mind. Fossil fuels and nuclear power
must diminish as sources of energy as soon as possible,
they say. In their place, alternative sources of power such
as hydropower,
geothermal energy
,
wind energy
, and
photovoltaic cells must be developed.
In addition, the soft-pathers say, we should encourage
conservation
to extend coal, oil, and
natural gas
supplies
as long as possible. Also since electricity is one of the most
wasteful of all forms of energy, its use should be curtailed.
Most importantly, soft-path proponents maintain en-
ergy systems of the future should be designed for small-
scale use. The development of more efficient solar cells, for
example, would make it possible for individual facilities to
generate a significant portion of the energy they need.
Underlying the debate between hard- and soft-pathers
is a fundamental question as to how society should operate.
On the one hand are those who favor the control of resources
in the hands of a relatively small number of large corpora-
tions. On the other hand are those who prefer to have that
control decentralized to individual communities, neighbor-
hoods, and families. The choice made between these two
competing philosophies will probably determine which en-
ergy path the United States and the world will ultimately
follow. See also Alternative energy sources; Alternative fuels;
Energy and the environment
[David E. Newton]
R
ESOURCES
B
OOKS
Lovins, A. Soft Energy Paths. San Francisco: Friends of the Earth, 1977.
463
Energy policy
Energy policies are the actions governments take to affect
the demand for energy as well as the supply of it. These
actions include the ways in which governments cope with
energy supply disruptions and their efforts to influence en-
ergy consumption and economic growth.
The energy policies of the United States government
have often worked at cross purposes, both stimulating and
suppressing demand. Taxes are perhaps the most important
kind of energy policy, and
energy taxes
are much lower
in the U. S. than in other countries. This is partially responsi-
ble for the fact that energy consumption per capita is higher
than elsewhere, and there is less incentive to invest in
conser-
vation
or alternative technologies. Following the 1973 Arab
oil embargo
, the federal government instituted price con-
trols which kept energy prices lower than they would other-
wise have been, thereby stimulating consumption. Yet the
government also instituted policies at the same time, such
as fuel-economy standards for automobiles, which were de-
signed to increase conservation and lower energy use. Thus,
policies in the period after the embargo were contradictory:
what one set of policies encouraged, the other discouraged.
The United States government has a long history of
different types of interference in energy markets. The
Natu-
ral Gas
Act of 1938 gave the
Federal Power Commission
the right to control prices and limit new pipelines from
entering the market. In 1954 The Supreme Court extended
price controls to field production. Before 1970, the Texas
Railroad Commission effectively controlled oil output (in
the United States) through prorationing regulations that
provided multiple owners with the rights to underground
pools. The federal government provided tax breaks in the
form of intangible drilling expenses and gave the oil compa-
nies a depletion allowance. A program was also in place
from 1959 to 1973 which limited oil imports and protected
domestic producers from cheap foreign oil. The ostensible
purpose of this policy was maintaining national security, but
it contributed to the depletion of national reserves.
After the oil embargo, Congress passed the Emergency
Petroleum
Allocation Act giving the federal government
the right to allocate fuel in a time of shortage. In 1974
President Gerald Ford announced Project Independence
which was designed to eliminate dependence on foreign
imports. Congress passed the Federal Non-Nuclear Re-
search and Development Act in 1974 to focus government
efforts on non-nuclear research. Finally, in 1977 Congress
approved the cabinet-level creation of the U. S. Department
of Energy (DOE) which had a series of direct and indirect
policy approaches at its disposal, designed to encourage and
coerce both the energy industry as well as the commercial
and residential sectors of the country to make changes. After
Environmental Encyclopedia 3
Energy policy
Ronald Reagan became president, many DOE programs
were abolished, though DOE continued to exist, and the net
impact has probably been to increase economic uncertainty.
Energy policy issues have always been very political in
nature. Different segments of the energy industry have often
been differently affected by policy changes, and various
groups have long proposed divergent solutions. The energy
crisis, however, intensified these conflicts. Advocates of
strong government action called for policies which would
alter consumption habits, reducing dependence on foreign
oil and the nation’s vulnerability to an oil embargo. They
have been opposed by proponents of free markets, some of
whom considered the government itself responsible for the
crisis. Few issues were subject to such intensive scrutiny and
fundamental conflicts over values as energy policies were
during this period. Interest groups representing causes from
energy conservation
to
nuclear power
mobilized. Busi-
ness interests also expanded their lobbying efforts.
An influential advocate of the period was Amory Lov-
ins, who helped create the
renewable energy
movement.
His book, Soft Energy Paths: Toward A Durable Peace (1977),
argued that energy problems existed because large corpora-
tions and government bureaucracies had imposed expensive
centralized technologies like nuclear power on society. Lov-
ins argued that the solution was in small scale, dispersed,
technologies. He believed that the “hard path” imposed by
corporations and the government led to an authoritarian,
militaristic society while the “soft path” of small-scale dis-
persed technologies would result in a diverse, peaceful, self-
reliant society.
Because
coal
was so abundant, many in the 1970s
considered it a solution to American dependence on foreign
oil, but this expectation has proved to be mistaken. During
the 1960s, the industry had been controlled by an alliance
between management and the union, but this alliance disin-
tegrated by the time of the energy crisis, and wildcat strikes
hurt productivity. Productivity also declined because of the
need to address safety problems following passage of the
1969 Coal Mine Health and Safety Act. Environmental
issues also hurt the industry following passage of the
Na-
tional Environmental Policy Act
of 1969, the
Clean Air
Act
of 1970, the
Clean Water Act
of 1972, and the 1977
Surface Mining Control and Reclamation Act
. Worker
productivity in the mines dropped sharply from 19 tons per
worker day to 14 tons, and this decreased the advantage
coal had over other fuels. The 1974 Energy Supply and
Environmental Coordination Act and the 1978 Fuel Use
Act, which required utilities to switch to coal, had little
effect on how coal was used because so few new plants were
being built.
Other energy-consuming nations responded to the en-
ergy crises of 1973–74 and 1979–80 with policies that were
464
different from the United States. Japan and France, although
via different routes, made substantial progress in decreasing
their dependence on Mideast oil. Great Britain was the
only major industrialized nation to become completely self-
sufficient in energy production, but this fact did not greatly
aid its ailing economy. When energy prices declined and
then stabilized in the 1980s, many consuming nations elimi-
nated the conservation incentives they had put in place.
Japan is the most heavily petroleum-dependent indus-
trialized nation. To pay for a high level of energy and raw
material imports, Japan must export the goods which it
produces. When energy prices increased after 1973, it was
forced to expand exports. The rate of economic growth in
Japan began to decline. Annual growth in GNP averaged
nearly 10% from 1963–1973, and from 1973–1983 it was
just under 4%, although the association between economic
growth and energy consumption has weakened.
The Energy Rationalization Law of 1979 was the basis
for Japan’s energy conservation efforts, providing for the
financing of conservation projects and a system of tax incen-
tives. It has been estimated that over 5% of total Japanese
national investment in 1980 was for energy-saving equip-
ment. In the cement, steel, and chemical industries over
60% of total investment was for energy conservation, Japa-
nese society shifted from petroleum to a reliance on other
forms of energy including nuclear power and liquefied natu-
ral gas.
In France, energy resources at the time of the oil
embargo were extremely limited. It possessed some natural
gas, coal, and hydropower, but together these sources consti-
tuted only 0.7% of the world’s total energy production. By
1973, French dependence on foreign energy had grown to
76.2%: oil made up 67% of the total energy used in France,
up from 25% in 1960.
France had long been aware of its dependence on
foreign energy and had taken steps to overcome it. Political
instability in the Mideast and North Africa had led the
government to take a leading role in the development of
civilian nuclear power after World War II. In 1945 Charles
de Gaulle set up the French
Atomic Energy Commission
to develop military and peaceful uses for nuclear power. The
nuclear program proceeded at a very slow pace until the
1973 embargo, after which there was rapid growth in Fran-
ce’s reliance on nuclear power. By 1990, more than 50 reac-
tors had been constructed and over 70% of France’s energy
came from nuclear power. France now exports electricity to
nearly all its neighbors, and its rates are about the lowest
in Europe. Starting in 1976 the French government also
subsidized 3,100 conservation projects at a cost of more
than 8.4 billion francs, and these subsidies were particularly
effective in encouraging energy conservation.
Environmental Encyclopedia 3
Energy recovery
Concerned about oil supplies during World War I,
the British government had taken a majority interest in
British Petroleum and tried to play a leading role in the
search for new oil. After the World War II, the government
nationalized the coal, gas, and electricity industries, creating,
for ideological reasons as well as for postwar reconstruction,
the National Coal Board, British Gas Corporation, and
Central Electricity Generating Board. After the discovery
of oil reserves in the 1970s in the North Sea, the government
established the British National Oil Company. This govern-
ment corporation produced about 7% of North Sea oil and
ultimately handled about 60% of the oil produced there.
All the energy sectors in the United Kingdom were
thus either partially or completely nationalized. Government
relations with the nationalized industries often were difficult,
because the two sides had different interests. The govern-
ment intervened to pursue macroeconomic objectives such
as price restraint, and it attempted to stimulate investment
at times of unemployment. The electric and gas industries
had substantial operating profits and they could finance their
capital requirements from their revenues, but profits in the
coal industry were poor, the work force was unionized, and
opposition to the closure of uneconomic mines was great.
Decision-making was highly politicized in this nationalized
industry, and the government had difficulty addressing the
problems there. It was estimated that 90% of mining losses
came from 30 of the 190 pits in Great Britain, but only since
1984–85 has there been rapid mine closure and enhanced
productivity. New power-plant construction was also poorly
managed, and comparable coal-fired power stations cost
twice as much in Great Britain as in France or Italy.
The Conservative Party proposed that the nationalized
energy industries be privatized. However, with the exception
of coal, these energy industries had natural monopoly charac-
teristics: economies of scale and the need to prevent duplicate
investment in fixed infrastructure. The Conservative Party
called for regulation after privatization to deal with the natu-
ral monopoly characteristics of these industries, and it took
many steps toward privatization. In only one area, however,
did it carry its program to completion, abolishing the British
National Oil Company and transferring its assets to private
companies. See also Alternative energy sources; Corporate
Average Fuel Efficiency Standards; Economic growth and
the environment; Electric utilities; Energy and the environ-
ment; Energy efficiency; Energy path, hard vs. soft
[Alfred A. Marcus]
R
ESOURCES
B
OOKS
Marcus, A. A. Controversial Issues in Energy Policy. Phoenix, AZ: Sage
Press, 1992.
465
Energy recovery
A fundamental fact about energy use in modern society is
that huge quantities are lost or wasted in almost every field
and application. For example, the series of processes by
which nuclear energy is used to heat a home with electricity
results in a loss of about 85 percent of all the energy originally
stored in the
uranium
used in the nuclear reactor. Industry,
utilities, and individuals could use energy far more efficiently
if they could find ways to recover and
reuse
the energy that
is being lost or wasted.
One such approach is
cogeneration
, the use of waste
heat for some useful purpose. For example, a factory might be
redesigned so that the steam from its operations could be used
to run a turbine and generate electricity. The electricity could
then be used elsewhere in the factory or sold to power compa-
nies. Cogeneration in industry can result in savings of between
10 and 40 percent of energy that would otherwise be wasted.
Cogeneration can work in the opposite direction also.
Hot water produced in a utility plant can be sold to industries
that can use it for various processes. Proposals have been
made to use the wasted heat from electricity plants to grow
flowers and vegetables in greenhouses, to heat water for
commercial fish and shell-fish farms, and to maintain ware-
houses at constant temperatures. The total
energy effi-
ciency
resulting from this sharing is much greater than it
would be if the utility’s water was simply discarded.
Another possible method of recovering energy is by
generating or capturing
natural gas
from
biomass
. For
example, as organic materials decay naturally in a
landfill
,
one of the products released is
methane
, the primary com-
ponent of natural gas. Collecting methane from a landfill is
a relatively simple procedure. Vertical holes are drilled into
the landfill and porous pipes are sunk into the holes. Meth-
ane diffuses into the pipes and is drawn off by pumps. The
recovery system at the Fresh Kills landfill on Staten Island,
New York, for example, produces enough methane to heat
10,000 homes.
Biomass can also be treated in a variety of ways to
produce methane and other combustible materials. Sewage,
for example, can be subjected to
anaerobic digestion
, the
primary product of which is methane. Pyrolysis is a process
in which organic wastes are heated to high temperatures in
the absence of oxygen. The products of this reaction are
solid, liquid, and gaseous
hydrocarbons
whose composition
is similar to those of
petroleum
and natural gas. Perhaps
the most known example of this approach is the manufacture
of
methanol
from biomass. When mixed with
gasoline
,a
new fuel,
gasohol
, is obtained.
Energy can also be recovered from biomass simply by
combustion
. The waste materials left after sugar is extracted
from sugar cane, known as bagasse, have long been used as
Environmental Encyclopedia 3
Energy Reorganization Act (1973)
a fuel for the boilers in which the sugar extraction occurs.
The burning of
garbage
has also been used as an energy
source in a wide variety of applications such as the heating
of homes in Sweden, the generation of electricity to run
streetcars and subways in Milan, Italy, and the operation of
a desalination plant in Hempstead, Long Island.
The recovery of energy that would otherwise be lost
or wasted has a secondary benefit. In many cases, that wasted
energy might cause
pollution
of the
environment
. For ex-
ample, the wasted heat from an electric power plant may
result in
thermal pollution
of a nearby waterway. Or the
escape of methane into the
atmosphere
from a landfill
could contribute to
air pollution
. Capture and recovery of
the waste energy not only increases the efficiency with which
energy is used, but may also reduce some pollution problems.
[David E. Newton]
R
ESOURCES
B
OOKS
Franke, R. G., and D. N. Franke. Man and the Changing Environment.
New York: Holt, Rinehart and Winston, 1975.
Moran, J. M., M. D. Morgan, and J. H. Wiersma. Introduction to Environ-
mental Science. 2nd ed. New York: W. H. Freeman, 1986.
Energy Reorganization Act (1973)
Passed in 1974 during the Ford Administration, this act
created the
Energy Research and Development Adminis-
tration
(ERDA) and
Nuclear Regulatory Commission
(NRC). The purpose of the act was to begin an extensive
non-nuclear federal research program, separating the regula-
tion of the
nuclear power
from research functions. Regula-
tion was carried out by the NRC, while nuclear power re-
search was carried out by the ERDA. The passage of the
1974 Energy Reorganization Act ended the existence of the
Atomic Energy Commission
, which had been the main
instrument to implement nuclear policy. In 1977 ERDA
incorporated into the newly created
U.S. Department of
Energy
. See also Alternative energy sources; Energy policy
Energy Research and Development
Administration
This agency was created in 1974 from the non-regulatory
parts of the
Atomic Energy Commission
(AEC), and it
existed until 1977, when it was incorporated into the
U.S.
Department of Energy
. In its short life span, the Energy
Research and Development Administration (ERDA) started
to diversify U.S. energy research outside of
nuclear power
.
Large-scale demonstration projects were begun in numerous
466
areas. These included projects to convert
coal
and solid
wastes into liquid and gaseous fuels; experiments on methods
to extract and process
oil shale
and
tar sands
, as well as
an effort to develop a viable breeder reactor that would
ensure a virtually inexhaustible source of
uranium
for elec-
tricity. The agency also supported research on
solar energy
for space heating, industrial process heat, and electricity. In
the short time available, basic problems could not be solved,
and the achievements of many of the demonstration projects
were disappointing. Nevertheless, many important advances
were made in commercializing cost-effective technologies
for
energy conservation
, such as energy-efficient lighting
systems, improved heat pumps, and better heating systems.
The agency also conducted successful research in environ-
mental, safety, and health areas.
Energy taxes
The main energy tax levied in the United States is the one
on
petroleum
, though the United States tax is half of the
amount levied in other major industrialized nations. As a
result,
gasoline
prices in the United States are much lower
than elsewhere, and both environmentalists and others have
argued that this encourages energy consumption and
envi-
ronmental degradation
and causes national and interna-
tional security problems.
In 1993, the House passed a
Btu
tax while the Senate
passed a more modest tax on
transportation
fuels. A Btu
tax would restrict the burning of
coal
and other
fossil fuels
and proponents maintain that this would be both environ-
mentally and economically beneficial. Every barrel of oil and
every ton of coal that is burned adds
greenhouse gases
to the
atmosphere
, increasing the likelihood that
future
generations
will face a global climatic calamity. United
States dependence on foreign oil, much of it from potentially
unstable nations like Iraq, now approaches 50%. A Btu tax
would create incentives for
energy conservation
, and it
would help stimulate the search for alternatives to oil. It
would also help reduce the burgeoning trade deficit, of which
foreign petroleum and petroleum-based products now con-
stitute nearly 40%.
President Bill Clinton urged Americans to support
higher energy taxes because of the considerable effect they
could have on the federal budget deficit. For instance, if
the government immediately raised gasoline prices to levels
commonly found in other industrial nations (about $4.15 a
gallon), the budget deficit would almost be eliminated. It is
estimated that every penny increase in gasoline taxes, yields
a billion dollars in revenue for the federal treasury, and in
June 2002 the budget deficit was estimated to be about $6
trillion.