Multi Objective Optimization Of Environmental And Energy Planning Problems

Broadly speaking, friendly sources of energy have less amount of pollution compared to our current sources. In fact, by expanding studies in the area of research and development can definitely revolutionize our way of living. To elucidate on, clean fuels can solve the problems related to the natural places like forests and help animals from dearth. Additionally, it also can be a wisdom solution regarding the air and water pollution by large firms. Ergo, by taking prudent measure in the matter, we readily will solve baffling issues and reach the zenith in our life. This issue is pinpointed when we glance at the advanced societies that currently use the clean energies. To illustrate what was stated above, a vivid example is put forth. In a research among different countries in diverse positions, it was mentioned that countries which spend much more money on study and development of natural sources as fuels have a higher rate of growth in healthier society and environment, as a

The International Energy Agency’s (IEA’s) preliminary estimate of energy-related CO2 emissions in 2015 reveals that emissions stayed flat compared with the year before, whereas the global economy grew (3). The IEA noted that “There have been only four periods in the past 40 years in which CO2 emission levels were flat or fell compared with the previous year, with three of those—the early 1980s, 1992, and 2009—being associated with global economic weakness. By contrast, the recent halt in emissions growth comes in a period of economic growth.”

Wilson asserts, “No one should look to GNPs and corporate annual reports for a competent projection of the world’s long-term economic future.” In other words, the Gross National Product (GNP) and corporations will not accurately depict the long-term economic future, due to the lack of environmental factors that if implemented would surely fluctuate the projections. Furthermore, the more reliable sources are from research reports from the natural-resource specialists and ecological economists that provide an accurate representation of the financial and environmental future. In addition, the environmental experts factor in the imperil that is posed to the environment while expanding the economy. Thus, the idealistic balance between the environment and economy will not be found in the GNP reports, but in the ecological economist reports that can veritably attest to both sides of the political spectrum. On a national scale, converting to renewable energy is not prioritized, due to the fact the fossil fuel industry has an abundant of sizable investments. So, reasonably an annual national report would be in favor of the large corporations, such as the fossil fuel industry. As a result, the projections for the economic-future with fossil fuel as our main energy source is one-sided and

Because the energy technology that society employs directly influences the quantity and quality of life, the energy option that is chosen should have the greatest cost- benefit effectiveness as well as maximizing flexibility and purchases. However, those who believe in continuous energy consumption growth, seem to forget that there is only a limited supply of energy in every energy system, and to "overdo" any resource may provide for an unacceptable impact upon global and regional ecology.

In this final assignment for Environmental Policy, Regulation, and Law, I will discuss the Energy Policy Act. This discussion will be geared toward the current usage of renewable energy with reference to the incentives created in the Energy Policy Act. The introduction into this topic will include a brief synopsis of the act’s history. Following the history of the Energy Policy Act, there will be a discussion and argument for the act and its present incentives for the use of renewable energy sources. In conclusion, the expected future of the Energy Policy Act and the closing argument for its regulation will be covered.

While industrialization has been strongly associated with greenhouse gas emissions, it is premature, however, to conclude that economic growth is the independent factor responsible to climate change. Neumayer (1998) contended that there is no sound scientific evidence documenting consequences of economic development on the environmental degradation in the long term (p. 4). There is also no linear association between economic growth and environmental deterioration, as maintained by Ferguson et al. (1996, p. 28) that the existing evidence “cannot be used to justify a view that economic growth (…) will automatically be good or bad for the environment” (cited in Neumayer 1998, p. 16).

The purpose of the following blog post is to introduce the reader to the relationship between our global Economy, the Energy that we produce and the Environment we are part of, also known as the three Es. My goal is to give my readers a better understanding of the connections these three different areas have and how they relate to one another. Furthermore I would like to enable readers to comprehend the increasing challenges all three E’s are facing, and the implications these may have on our future.

International Energy Agency & Organisation for Economic Co-operation and Development (2013). World energy outlook 2013. Paris: OECD/IEA.

Many of the elements in general planning interconnect, for example as just explained ineffective land-use can directly and adversely contribute to the environmental element of planning. If one was to try to summarize environmental planning with two words they would be sustainability and waste management; when people talk about sustainability they are typically referring to sustainable energy; energy that does not hinder the lives of future generations. Developed countries are entering a progressive era which requires the use of renewable energy and sustainable growth, as CO¬2 levels sour past the 400PPM range--meanwhile corporations are lobbying for the right to continue polluting our air and water supply, it has become evident that the demand for sustainable energy is higher than ever.

There is a great understandable hunger for energy in the world. Increases uses of energy are strongly correlated with the gross domestic product

The discussion will be the subject of Energy. In a personal way, energy can be defined as efficiency and effectiveness. The majority of energy regulations is done by the national government. At the national level, there are concerns for the environment and environmental problems when it comes to energy planning. The national government has to establish national standards for all the states that are involved in energy planning and producing energy resources. Due to the national level and national regulations, this means that energy planning is a joint activity between the states and the federal government.

The economic vs. environmental growth debate has been a topic discussed in America for quite some time. The perfect example of this is the decision is whether America should to drill onshore for oil rather than importing their oil. Many believe that there is a relationship between the two. As the economy grows, the environment takes a knock. Some argue the need to stop economic growth and focus more on the harm that is being inflicted on the environment. As we drill onshore for oil, we are able to create more jobs for our country but at the same time it affects our environment in a negative manner. As the largest consumer of oil, continuing to import can become costly and we may become too dependent on other countries (Telegram, 2014). The question remains, can our nation improve without economic growth? Can we continue to grow our nation with continued dependency on other countries? Do the benefits of drilling onshore for oil outweigh the negative environmental affects? There have been many arguments showing the pros and cons of the tactics it takes to obtain economic growth.

For starters, modern economy relies heavily on fossil fuels, which is a main resource that contributes to global warming. Adopting renewable energy might sharply reduce GHG emissions. However, according to international energy agency, “switching from fossil fuels to low-carbon sources of energy will cost $44 trillion between now and 2050”(IEA, 2009). In case 44 trillion is too abstract, 1 trillion dollar can fill up an entire soccer field and stack more than 10 feet high. This cost could be intimidating for any country. Moreover, the cost also depends on how long it takes for us to start reducing emissions. “The IPCC report showed that continuing to hold off on reducing emissions could increase costs by 40 percent” (IPCC, 2008) For developing countries, this cost would be a financial burden and a limiting reagent on GDP growth. Socially, civilian’s life quality will be affected by the GDP reduction. As a result, it becomes more challenging for countries to take initiative in addressing this problem. The question eventually came down to whom should bear the astronomical cost? Are we willing to invest in something that might cost more than its benefits?

Energy system analysis has a wide scope and is well-suited as a component of an integrated energy modelling approach. It is interdisciplinary, with its main contributions coming from economics and engineering. Insights from other social sciences (e.g. political science, sociology and policy analysis) and natural sciences (e.g. atmospheric chemistry and environmental studies) are incorporated when and where is needed. The model can be focused on energy system as a whole (economy-wide), on specific elements of the energy chain (e.g. upstream), or on key sectors like residential. (UKERC, 2011). We should note that energy modelling plays a central role in policy making, due to the fact of the gravity of energy projections in decision-making policy and the political importance of modelling results in debates about policy (UKERC, 2011).

For example, energy usage in an LDC such as South Africa has substantially increased since 1983, partially due to massive population growth. Van Ginneken and van Diepen (1993, p 360: ¶ 2) forecasted that, “in 2050, the share of LDC’s in the total use of energy would be 87%, compared to 27% now.” There is a degree of uncertainty involved as to whether these energy demands can be fulfilled, and whether the associated polluting emissions can be suitably dealt with in