wasting energy essay

Essay on Save Energy

Students are often asked to write an essay on Save Energy in their schools and colleges. And if you’re also looking for the same, we have created 100-word, 250-word, and 500-word essays on the topic.

Let’s take a look…

100 Words Essay on Save Energy

Importance of saving energy.

Saving energy is crucial for our planet. It helps in reducing pollution and conserving natural resources.

Ways to Save Energy

Switching off lights when not in use, using energy-efficient appliances, and limiting the use of air conditioners can save energy.

Benefits of Saving Energy

Energy saving reduces electricity bills, decreases carbon emissions, and helps in preserving the environment for future generations.

Everyone should make efforts to save energy. It’s not only beneficial for us but also for our planet.

250 Words Essay on Save Energy

Introduction.

Energy conservation is a pressing global issue, demanding immediate attention. As the world’s natural resources are rapidly depleting, the need to save energy becomes paramount. It is our responsibility to ensure the sustainability of our planet for future generations.

The Importance of Saving Energy

Energy is the lifeblood of modern civilization. It powers our homes, fuels our transportation, and drives our industries. However, the excessive and inefficient use of energy contributes to environmental degradation, climate change, and resource depletion. By saving energy, we can reduce our carbon footprint, slow down global warming, and preserve the earth’s natural resources.

There are numerous ways to save energy, ranging from simple everyday habits to significant technological advancements. At an individual level, we can conserve energy by switching off lights and appliances when not in use, using energy-efficient devices, and choosing public transportation or carpooling.

On a larger scale, industries can adopt energy-efficient technologies, renewable energy sources, and waste-to-energy conversion methods. Governments can promote energy conservation through policies, regulations, and public awareness campaigns.

In conclusion, saving energy is not just a choice, but a necessity for our survival. It requires collective efforts from individuals, industries, and governments. By saving energy, we can ensure a sustainable and prosperous future for our planet and its inhabitants.

500 Words Essay on Save Energy

Energy conservation is critical for several reasons. Firstly, a significant proportion of the world’s energy comes from non-renewable resources like coal, oil, and natural gas. These resources are finite and are depleting at an alarming rate due to overconsumption. Saving energy means reducing the rate of depletion of these resources, thus prolonging their availability.

Secondly, the extraction and use of these non-renewable resources have severe environmental implications. They contribute to air and water pollution, habitat destruction, and climate change. By saving energy, we can mitigate these environmental impacts and contribute to the sustainability of our planet.

One of the simplest ways is by improving energy efficiency. This involves using appliances that consume less energy for the same output, such as LED lights instead of incandescent bulbs, or energy-efficient refrigerators and air conditioners.

Another method is by adopting renewable sources of energy, like solar and wind power. These sources are sustainable and have minimal environmental impact. By installing solar panels or wind turbines, we can generate our own electricity and reduce our dependence on non-renewable resources.

Role of Technology and Innovation

Innovations in renewable energy technology have made it more efficient and cost-effective, making it a viable alternative to traditional energy sources. Smart technologies like IoT and AI can help in monitoring and managing energy consumption in real-time, leading to significant energy savings.

In conclusion, saving energy is a collective responsibility that requires the participation of all stakeholders, including individuals, communities, governments, and corporations. By adopting energy-efficient practices and technologies, and by shifting towards renewable sources of energy, we can ensure the sustainability of our energy resources and contribute to the well-being of our planet. The ‘Save Energy’ concept is not just about preserving resources for the future, but also about creating a sustainable and healthy environment for all.

That’s it! I hope the essay helped you.

If you’re looking for more, here are essays on other interesting topics:

Happy studying!

Leave a Reply Cancel reply

Your email address will not be published. Required fields are marked *

Waste To Energy: How Energy is Produced From Waste and its Benefits

In a growing world where the conventional forms of energy are fast moving towards extinction and contributing generously to global concerns like the  greenhouse effect  and  global warming , the need to innovate and employ alternate or unconventional  energy sources  has become crucial for the existence of a future.

Waste-to-Energy, also widely recognized by its acronym WtE, is the generation of energy in the form of heat or electricity from waste. (The process is also called Energy from waste or EfW) .

This process involves leveraging the developing technology to compress and dispose of waste while attempting to generate energy from it.

Each month, millions of tons of waste are produced. All this waste either becomes part of landfills or is exported to third-world countries, causing a huge environmental impact on wildlife, ecosystems, and human health.

Keeping this in mind, many new waste treatment plants have come up and have developed new ways to generate energy from landfill waste. This innovation not only provides energy but also helps reduce the pressure put on natural resources when producing energy using conventional ways.

Energy from waste offers energy recovery by converting non-recyclable materials through various processes, including thermal and non-thermal technologies.

The energy produced in the form of electricity, heat, or fuel using combustion, pyrolization, gasification, or anaerobic digestion is clean and renewable , with reduced  carbon emissions  and minimal environmental impact than any other form of energy. This makes EfW a more sustainable way of energy production.

But how exactly does this process happen? In this article, we will dig into the process of producing energy from waste. We will provide all the intricacies of this endeavor, so keep following!

How to Produce Energy From Waste?

‘Incineration’ is the most common and popular method for waste-to-energy generation. It is a highly debated technology due to the concerns it raises regarding safety and environmental impact .

For the uninitiated, incineration, in simple terms, is a type of waste treatment process where the organics from the waste collected are burnt at high temperatures.

Waste treatments that are conducted involving high temperatures are called Thermal Treatment , and the heat generated from this thermal temperature is then used to create energy.

Several countries in Europe, for instance, Sweden, Germany, and Luxembourg are experimenting with Incineration as an alternate means of energy production.

Thermal Technologies

Thermal technologies, as the name suggests, are those that use heat to generate energy from waste.

Notable examples include Depolymerization, gasification, pyrolysis, and plasma arc gasification.

Depolymerization

Depolymerization  uses thermal decomposition and involves the heating of organic compounds at high temperatures in the presence of water. This process of thermal decomposition is called Hydrous Pyrolysis in scientific terms.

Often said to be a replication or representation of the conditions under which fossil fuels were created, Depolymerization has its own benefits and limitations.

Gasification

Gasification  is yet another process employed for the same purpose and involves the converting of carbonaceous substances into carbon dioxide, carbon monoxide, and some amount of  hydrogen .

Similar to incineration, this process utilizes elevated temperatures to achieve desired outcomes. However, a notable distinction sets it apart from incineration — specifically, the absence of combustion. Unlike incineration, this method does not involve the process of burning or combustion.

In this procedure, steam and/or oxygen take the place of conventional fossil fuels or organic substances. The resulting gas from this entire process is termed Synthesis gas, or syngas, representing a promising alternative energy source. Syngas finds extensive use, primarily in the production of heat and electricity, among various other applications.

The third way of getting energy from waste is called Pyrolysis , and is used mainly in industrial processes. It is just like Hydrous pyrolysis, or Depolymerization, albeit without the use of oxygen.

The term Pyrolysis , comes from the amalgamation of two Greek words, namely “ pyr ” meaning fire , and “ lysis ” meaning separating .

In essence, Pyrolysis represents the synthesis of these terms, capturing the concept of separating substances through the application of heat in the absence of oxygen.

Plasma Arc Gasification

The fourth way of generating energy from waste is Plasma arc gasification . As the name suggests, this process uses plasma technologies to obtain syngas or synthesis gas. A plasma torch is used to ionize the gas and thereafter, help obtain synthesis gas. The process generates electricity while compressing the waste.

Non-thermal Technologies

In contrast to the thermal technologies, non-thermal methods of generating energy from waste do not need the use of high temperatures.

Classical examples here include fermentation, anaerobic digestion, and the MBT technology. Let’s take a close look at each of these methods.

Fermentation

Fermentation is also being developed as a form of waste-to-energy management. The science of fermentation is known as zymology.

Fermentation is a metabolic process that, in biochemistry, is narrowly defined as the extraction of energy from carbohydrates in the absence of oxygen . It produces chemical changes in organic substrates through the action of enzymes.

In microorganisms, fermentation is the primary means of producing adenosine triphosphate (ATP) by degrading organic nutrients anaerobically. Humans have used fermentation to produce foodstuffs and beverages since the Neolithic age.

The method is used for preservation in a process that produces lactic acid in sour foods such as pickled cucumbers, kombucha, kimchi, and yogurt, as well as for producing alcoholic beverages such as wine and beer. Fermentation also occurs within the gastrointestinal tracts of all animals, including humans.

Anaerobic Digestion

Anaerobic digestion  is a slow process. Here, microorganisms are used to destroy biodegradable content. No oxygen is present during this procedure. It is used both domestically and even on a commercial level to tap the release of energy during the process and use it.

Anaerobic technologies are seen as good agents to reduce the greenhouse gases from the atmosphere and a worthy replacement for  fossil fuels . The process works as a boon for developing countries for creating low energies for cooking and lighting in homes.

Both China and India have mastered using this technology, employing it as a part of their respective development schemes and investing in it. Biogas is used to run a gas engine, and energy is created for small-scale use.

The MBT Technology

The MBT technology stands for Mechanical Biological treatment or mechanical biological pre-treatment and relates to a group of solid waste treatment systems.

The technology uses domestic, industrial, and commercial waste to generate products. These systems enable the recovery of materials contained within the mixed waste and facilitate the stabilization of the biodegradable component of the material.

The sorting component of the plants typically resembles a facility for materials recovery. This component is configured to recover the individual elements of the waste or produce a refuse-derived fuel that can be used for power generation. The components of the mixed waste stream that can be recovered include ferrous metal, non-ferrous metal, plastic, and glass.

Benefits of Waste to Energy (WtE)

Here are some of the benefits of the waste-to-energy process:

1. Reduction of Waste Going to Landfill Sites

The WtE reduces the expense of trash transportation and landfilling while, at the same time, it produces power. This reduces the amount of waste going to landfill sites and minimizes cost of transporting waste to landfills, as many significant landfills are fairly distant from the primary town hall.

2. Reduction of Greenhouse Gases

WtE initiative has a variety of ecological advantages. It generates much less and sometimes entirely avoids production of greenhouse gas , like methane; a greenhouse gas mainly sent out from decomposing the waste stream in landfills.

And just in case you didn’t know, methane gas is over 20 times more potent than carbon dioxide and is one of the most noteworthy contributors to climate modification.

Hence, b y avoiding the production of methane in waste-to-energy facilities, we’re saving the planet and the same time making the most out of what we produce from in our everyday activities. Presently, these facilities in the US account for around 20% of renewable electricity generation.

3. Reduction in the Use of Fossil Fuels

The waste-to-energy process stays clear of the consumption of natural deposits like oil, gas, and coal, which are or else used to create energy. A solitary waste-to-energy center saves over 200,000 barrels of oil annually.

4. It is Environment-friendly

Electricity and heat can be generated from waste, providing an alternative and more environment-friendly energy source. Waste-to-energy is an emerging innovative set of technologies aimed at better sustenance of the environment, with minimum damage to the ecosystems.

With these technologies developing by the day and their acceptance increasing amongst households and industrial set-ups worldwide, waste-to-energy is seen as a development tool for emerging countries.

5. Creation of Jobs

The local community around these facilities benefits from the jobs created. The Power Recuperation Council states that the WTE sector supports approximately 14,000 jobs and $890 million in wages, salaries, and benefits. WTE facilities support local economies, buying goods and services from local vendors.

6. Better Recovery of Products

US WTE facilities recover more than 730,000 tons of ferrous metals for recycling. Communities that rely on WTE recycle more than the national average. WTE facilities recover metal for recycling that would have been buried forever if sent to a landfill.

7. Save Ecological Cycles

Waste to energy or energy from waste is a conscious attempt to equalize the patterns of our planet and save our ecological cycles. The energy generations from these technologies are small-scale right now, and their employment for domestic and industrial use is sparse. However, they are seen as the emerging solutions for tomorrow that are set to affect the world immensely.

Waste Energy Companies in USA

http://www.covantaenergy.com

Covanta Energy (pronounced coh-van-tuh) is one of the world’s largest owners and operators of infrastructure for the conversion of waste-to-energy (known as “energy-from- waste” or “EfW”), as well as other waste disposal and renewable energy production businesses.

http://wheelabratortechnologies.com

Wheelabrator Technologies Inc. is a world leader in the safe and environmentally sound conversion of municipal solid waste – and other renewable waste fuels – into clean energy.

http://www.sierraenergycorp.com

Sierra Energy is a waste gasification and renewable energy company founded in Davis, California, in 2004. Sierra Energy commercializes in revolutionary FastOx waste gasification technology, a simple derivative of the centuries-old blast furnace technology.

http://enertech.com

EnerTech Environmental, Inc. is a renewable energy company dedicated to protecting public health and the environment through the development and commercialization of clean energy technologies for biosolids (sewage sludge) and other organic wastes.

http://www.zerowasteenergy.com

Zero Waste Energy is a development company that designs, builds, and operates integrated solid waste facilities throughout North America.

http://www.tetronics.com

Tetronics International is a global leader in the supply of Direct Current (DC) Plasma Arc systems for a wide range of applications, including Waste Recovery, Hazardous Waste Treatment, Industrial Waste Treatment, Metal Recovery, Production Processes, and Nano Materials.

http://www.advancedplasmapower.com

Advanced Plasma Power Limited (APP) is the world leader in waste-to-energy and advanced fuel technology.  APP is revolutionizing how we treat waste sustainably by maximizing the value of it as a source of materials and energy while also minimizing the impact of waste on the environment.

http://efactor3.com

Whatever you intend to recycle or turn into an alternative fuel eFACTOR3 can provide a custom solution to meet your needs. This includes post-industrial waste, C&D waste, MSW (Municipal Solid Waste), post-consumer waste, paper and cardboard, Paper Sludge, wood, carpet, packaging film, agriculture film, plastic, or Biomass.

References:

http://www.epa.gov/waste/nonhaz/municipal/wte/

About Rinkesh

A true environmentalist by heart ❤️. Founded Conserve Energy Future with the sole motto of providing helpful information related to our rapidly depleting environment. Unless you strongly believe in Elon Musk‘s idea of making Mars as another habitable planet, do remember that there really is no 'Planet B' in this whole universe.

Interesting Posts You May Like...

Are Zoos Really Ethical? Insights From The 2 Sides of The Debate!

How To Dispose of Broken TV Sustainably?

20+ Things That You Shouldn’t Buy as an Environmentalist

The 8 R’s of Sustainability: True Environmental Stewardship

Pros and Cons of a Heat Pump

Pros and Cons of Tiny House Living

Waste to Energy A privatised false solution

• State of Power
• Energy Democracy

In the face of a growing energy crisis and a surging global waste forecasted to increase by 70% by 2050, the Waste to Energy (WtE) industry emerges as a thriving yet controversial player. Explored in this essay are the power dynamics, environmental repercussions, and societal resistance surrounding WtE, examining case studies from India, Lebanon, Denmark, and Slovenia. The narrative delves into the industry's rapid expansion, its privatization challenges, and the potential for sustainable waste management under public control. The essay concludes with recommendations for policymakers and activists navigating the complex landscape of WtE.

Longread by

Social sharing

Jimmy Baikovicius/Flickr/CC BY-SA 2.0 DEED

The world is not only facing an energy crisis but it is also increasingly littered: the World Bank predicted that global waste would grow by 70% by 2050 . 1 Waste which is buried, dumped at sea or turned into ash pollutes the environment. These two trends have been used to boost a new and thriving private business: the Waste to Energy (WtE) industry, which has expanded worldwide based on contracts that last for decades, and often for 50 years.  

This essay explores the power relations of waste to energy, exploring its rapid expansion, the industry that drives it, the social and environmental impacts, resistance – and alternatives.   This is explored in several case studies. In India and Lebanon, for example residents, activists and (informal) workers are actively resisting WtE, yet face considerable institutional power that is promoting its expansion of and especially its privatisation. In contrast, there are the possibilities, as explored through the case studies on Denmark and Slovenia, for WtE to offer a sustainable contribution to waste management, when it is publicly owned and controlled. The essay concludes with recommendations on how policy-makers and activists can best address the phenomenal rise of WtE.

The rise of waste to energy

Waste to Energy (WtE) is rising fast. While in 2022 its market size was estimated to be of over US$42 billion this is expected to double by 2032 . 2 Currently around 15% of the of global waste collected is burned in WtE plants, 3 most of which are located in the global North, especially Japan, the US and Europe. 4 In Europe, six countries – Germany, the UK (before Brexit), France, Italy, the Netherlands, Sweden and   Italy account for 75% of the EU’s incineration capacity. 5  

The rise of WtE is a global phenomenon. In Asia there are ever more WtE plants being built. China alone is operating 927 plants . 6 India has 106, Thailand plans to build 79 WtE in the next few years and Indonesia has 17 planned. In Africa and Latin America and the Caribbean, WtE is new but also on the rise as several countries have started to experiment with WtE, such as Ethiopia, Ghana and South Africa in Africa and Brazil and Mexico in Latin America. 7

Several big players have entered the WtE market, among them multinational companies that have a long history in waste management. For example, Veolia runs more than 90 WtE plants worldwide and was recently awarded a contract to build the biggest WtE plant in Europe, which has a capacity for 1.1 million tonnes of waste annually. 8   Other major players are China Everbright and the US companies Waste Management Inc. and Covantana. Engineering companies such as the Hitachi Zosen and the Mitsubishi group are also increasingly entering the WtE market. 9  

The WtE business model relies on an increasing volume of waste and has already created a scramble for waste as many of the leading WtE countries need to import waste to fill their incinerators. Sweden, for example, imports almost 800,000 tons of waste annually from the UK, Norway, Italy and Ireland to be able to operate its WtE incinerators. But Italy and the UK, for instance, are rapidly expanding their own WtE industry. Simultaneously, most European countries are developing waste avoidance and recycling strategies supported by EU legislations. This means that Europe could soon run out of enough waste to operate all the existing WtE plants. This has already happened in China since owing to its effective municipal recycling and sorting strategy the country no longer has not enough waste to burn. Hence, in recent years China’s WtE plants have frequently stood idle due to waste shortages. 10  

Waste to Energy: An environmental solution?

Converting waste into energy may sound like a good idea for addressing two environmental problems at the same time: too little clean energy and too much waste. Yet, in reality WtE offers a solution for neither. On the contrary, it facilitates the problem of increasing waste, and it produces little and not very clean energy. 11 In Europe, where WtE is most advanced, it only provided for 5,134 MW in 2022–2023 , less than 3% of the continent’s energy. Due to its low energy productivity even the Confederation of European Waste-to-Energy Plants (CEWEP) – the lobby group behind WtE – admitted that WtE makes no sense as an energy source alone . 12

Research undertaken by the United Nations Environment Programme (UNEP) showed that WtE produces 1.2 tonnes of CO2 for every tonne of waste it burns . Confirming this, a recent study concluded that the ‘ CO2 emissions from plastic waste-to-energy systems are higher than those from current fossil fuel-based power systems per unit of power generated, even after considering the contribution of carbon capture and storage’. 13 The health of residents living nearby is negatively affected. In China, one study found that hazard-index and cancer-risk figures were above safety levels a kilometre downwind from the incineration plants. 14 A Greenpeace study on WtE in the UK found that WtE plants are more likely to be located in the poorest and most racially mixed areas than in the wealthiest, homogeneous white residential areas. 15 In other words, WtE incinerators deepen health inequalities. Consequently, many people living near to these plants are mobilising and resisting the building and expansion of WtE.  

Moreover, WtE is at odds with the circular economy. This is firstly because WtE plants burn mostly recyclable or compostable waste , almost all of which comes from municipal waste. 16   Secondly, WtE plants require a minimum volume of waste in order to be able to operate. Large-scale incinerators need about 100,000 tonnes of municipal solid waste a year. As such, WtE creates a dependency on waste, which runs counter to the principles of waste avoidance. UNEP has warned about this ‘ lock in effect ’ through which the need to fill WtE incinerators ‘hamper[s] efforts to reduce, reuse and recycle’. 17 This risk is heightened when WtE is privatised. Incinerators are expensive to build, so for the companies to recover the investment costs and to make profits they usually demand very long-term contracts with municipalities stretching over decades – between 20 and 50 years. These contracts usually bind municipalities to deliver a minimum volume of waste or to pay compensation if they fail to do so (see more on the issue of privatisation below).

Thus, WtE stands in direct contrast to recycling initiatives – formal and informal. The work of informal recycling workers is often forgotten or disregarded. Yet, according to research produced by the International Labour Organization (ILO) there are around 15 and 20 million informal waste workers worldwide who collect , sort and sell and re-use household or commercial/industrial waste on the street, co-operative recycling facilities or in open dumps. 18 While informal waste work is not only both a highly unpleasant and hazardous occupation it provides a means of survival for people and households who often lack other alternatives. In many countries around the world the informal waste workers provide the only form of recycling and often also the only waste collection – and that at no cost to the municipalities. WtE plants that burn recyclable waste are thus taking away their livelihoods. These informal waste workers should be involved in the process of implementing WtE and any other questions regarding solid waste management (SWM) systems. Unfortunately, this is seldom the case. Together with citizens, informal waste workers across the world have therefore organised against WtE. 19

Delhi, India – hazardous emissions and the destruction of the informal circular economy

India has a long history of failed WtE projects. The first attempt was in 1987 in Dehli when a plant was built for US$ 4.4 million by the Danish company Volund Miljotecknik Ltd. The plant was supposed to incinerate 300 tons of municipal solid waste per day to generate 3.75 MW of electricity. In fact, the plant only ran for three weeks. Then it had to shut down as the incoming waste was of inadequate quality (usually calculated in terms of calorific value) for the plant to run.   It attempted to supplement this by adding diesel fuel, but even that failed. 20 

Following the global WtE trend, this experience has not stopped India in persisting with WtE. To date, Delhi alone has three WtE plants. The biggest is the Timarpur-Okhla plant, which was planned for over a decade and started to operate in 2012 and is another Public–Private Partnership (PPP). The plant claims to have the capacity to burn 25% of Delhi’s mixed waste but has been the subject of much controversy.   Residents and activists have raised their concerns for years due to the emissions and health hazards. Indeed, a report by India’s Central Pollution Control Board (CPCB) submitted to the National Green Tribunal and the Supreme Court in September 2020 proved that all three of the WtE plants in Delhi release toxins beyond what is legally permitted. 21 The WtE plants also destroy India’s informal recycling system and threated the employment of about half a million informal waste workers who are making a significant contribution Delhi’s circular economy system. 22 Despite the negative consequences of WtE and the resistance of residents and informal workers India continues to build mostly privatised WtE facilities all over the country. By the end of 2023 India had 109 WtE plants in operation according to Statista. 23  

Beirut, Lebanon – Resistance to WtE

Lebanon has been facing a waste crisis since August 2015. In fact, since the end of the civil war (1975–1990) there has never been a functional waste management system. The government contracted out waste management services without even a call for tender, landfills are overflowing, and much waste has been openly burned and/or just accumulated on the street. Serious environmental damage and air pollution is the consequence and waste spilling over into the Mediterranean is creating global pollution concerns.

The solution to this crisis was thought to be WtE, ignoring citizens who had protested against waste incineration since 1997. A new WtE incinerator was planned to be built in Karantina, an area of Beirut which already suffered from air pollution due to two open-air waste incinerators and the residents suspected that a further WtE incinerator will only worsen and not enhance the situation. 24 The WtE plans went directly against the initiatives to sort the waste and enable recycling. It also ignored the existing informal recycling undertaken mainly by refugees (mostly from Syria) who make a living through such activities. A group of informal recyclers and citizens therefore formed the ‘Waste Management Coalition (WMC)’ to advocate for recycling and sustainable waste disposal in Lebanon. 25

Lebanon’s problematic economic and political situation means it is very reliant on international funding to cover the cost of waste management. The European Union (EU) and the World Bank provided finance for Lebanon to improve its solid waste management (SWM) that mostly involved WtE as well as landfilling. 26 However, a recent study found the 16 SWM facilities that were established through these international grants of €89 million between 2004 and 2017 not only failed to provide local people with improved environmentally friendly waste management but also created the risk of environmental and health hazards – as well as wasting money and incentivising corruption. 27 In June 2023 the EU again allocated €3.7 million to fund a circular economy project implemented by the United Nations Industrial Development Organization (UNIDO). 28  

Solutions are desperately needed. Citizens have taken matters into their own hands. To date the protests have stopped the building of the WtE plant in Karantina and a few innovative recycling projects have been established. For example, the ‘Drive Throw’ project has now two recycling stations in Beirut where people can dump their recyclables, for which they are paid in cash. While these stations have managed to collect and sort 450 tons of recyclables, they rely on people having private transport, so it is only a small, wealthy and environmentally conscious element of the population that uses the stations. 29 There have also been projects that recycle glass into traditional Lebanese slim-necked water jugs. 30 Yet, these initiatives are not sufficient to establish a functioning and universal waste management system that Lebanon so desperately needs.

The institutional power behind WtE

The WtE industry is well organised. In Europe, the Confederation of European Waste-to-Energy Plants (CEWEP) , the umbrella association of the operators of WtE incinerators, is its most outspoken lobby group. CEWEP represents about 410 plants from 23 European countries and, in its own words, contributes to ‘ European environmental and energy legislation’ through the following:

• ‘Close and permanent contact with the European Institutions
• Careful analysis and proactive contributions to EU environment and energy policy
• Participation in on-going studies (UNEP, OECD and EU)
• Undertaking our own studies, e.g. based on Life Cycle Thinking, composition and recycling of bottom ash etc.’ 

CEWEP also states that it is ‘often in the European Parliament, in order to inform decision makers and the public about Waste-to-Energy’. 31    

In the US, Friends of the Earth revealed that Covanta, one of the biggest WtE companies in North America, lobbied to get billions of dollars in climate funding under the Renewable Fuel Standard. 32 Covanta has for decades advocated for WtE , boasting that it has thereby ‘sustainably diverted over half a billion tons of waste from landfills’. 33    

Not only lobby groups but also the international and regional financial institutions have played a considerable role in the promotion of WtE by financing PPPs with multinational corporations to build and operate WtE plants. As shown in the example of Serbia, the World Bank has not only financed but also advised countries to develop their WtE industry. The European Investment Bank (EIB) also finances several WtE plants, for example the construction of one in Olstyn, Poland in 2021 for €47million . 34   The Asian Development Bank (ADB) has helped to facilitate and finance WtE plants in China, Bangladesh, India, and the Philippines. 35 And 2018, a US$100 million ADB loan financed the PPP between Vietnam and China Everbright to also build a series of WtE plants in Vietnam. 36    

Burning of waste – a largely privatised model

Most of the WtE plants worldwide have been constructed through PPPs. Research has shown that in China that around 80% of the WtE plants have been built and operated through PPPs , with three players holding nearly 50% of the market in 2019 – China Everbright (19.7%) International, Henan City Environment (13.2%) and Shanghai SUS Environment 10.5%). 37   In Germany, Europe’s leading WtE country, most of the plants are completely privatised ; 95% are run via PPPs and only 5% are in public ownership. 38 Also, in Sweden and Italy WtE is mostly fully privatised or operated via PPPs, as it is in the UK 39 and the US.

Only very few countries have public ownership of WtE, for example Austria and Denmark. A recent academic study compared private and public ownership of WtE and concluded that ‘private ownership generally leads to inefficiencies’ 40 . This can be seen from the experience of two cities – Belgrade and Ljubljana – which illustrates that public ownership and control is essential for a holistic waste management system that allows the prioritisation of environmental concerns over profit.

Furthermore, the example of Denmark, showed that when it is in public ownership WtE can be adjusted according to the country’s needs. Developing waste prevention and recycling schemes alongside WtE treatment meant that by 2018 Denmark had to import nearly a million tons of waste. 41 Consequently, it decided to reduce its incineration capacity by 30% by 2030, with the closure of seven incinerators in order to expand recycling. These decisions were enabled by the fact that Denmark’s incinerators are in public ownership and hence the country is not facing legal lawsuits for compensation due to the decision to close the plants.  

Belgrade, Serbia – privatised WtE hampers recycling

In Serbia the introduction of WtE has become a barrier for developing the country’s recycling capacity. The privatised WtE came into being through a PPP contract signed with the Suez-Itochu consortium in 2017 for a duration of 25 years for the provision of municipal waste treatment and disposal services, with WtE at the core of the contract. It was then the largest PPP contract in Serbia and had an estimated value of €957 million over the course of the contract. The PPP was financed through loans from the World Bank’s International Finance Corporation (IFC). The World Bank not only financed WtE but it also advised the city authorities on the legal, regulatory, technical and financial aspects of the project as well as on the public procurement procedures and the selection of the bidder. In other words, the World Bank enabled and shaped the conditions of the privatised WtE in Serbia. According to the contract Belgrade is obliged to deliver around 66% of the city’s municipal waste. The contract also stated that the WtE plant would incinerate municipal waste without prior sorting, thus ruling out the development of a recycling system. This even meant that the EIB, which had first offered support for the PPP, withdrew from the project as it recognised that it would prevent Serbia from achieving the EU’s recycling and circular economy objectives. 42 Yet the deal went ahead anyway without the EU’s financial support. The introduction of WtE is not only a barrier to effective recycling but it is also jeopardising Serbia’s prospects of entering the EU, as EU member states have a binding obligation to recycle at least 60% of municipal waste. Currently, there is no functioning formal recycling system in Serbia (official recycling rates were as low as 0.4 % in 2019. 43 Most recycling is carried out by the informal sector (European Environment Agency, November 2021). Hence, the current WtE project in Serbia also means that, as in other countries (see the example of India and Lebanon below) there is a risk that WtE will also destroy the existing informal recycling system.  

Ljubljana, Slovenia – WtE can work when in public ownership

In contrast, Ljubljana in Slovenia demonstrates that WtE can indeed make a valuable contribution to waste management, when not competing with waste prevention and recycling, but when there is a holistic approach to waste management. Slovenia was for a long time quite the opposite of a good practice case in relation to waste management. Yet, this changed. Between 2006 and 2017, Slovenia managed to achieve the most significant reduction in landfilled municipal waste in the EU, cutting it by almost 70%.  

Now Ljubljana is also branded as Europe’s zero waste capital, with Slovenia pioneering in waste prevention and recycling. For example, the city operates packaging-free vending machines for basic household items, and it is a nationwide obligation for all municipal institutions to use toilet roll that is produced from re-cycled milk and juice packaging. 44

When Slovenia introduced WtE this went in line with these circular economy practices rather than destroying or competing with them. The country constructed a modern waste management treatment plant that served 37 municipalities in central Slovenia and processes over 170,000 tonnes of waste annually. The plant, the Regional Centre for Waste Management (RCERO), which started to operate in 2015, strictly follows the waste hierarchy – waste avoidance, recycling and composting, waste to energy and then landfill. So, the waste is recycled through mechanical treatment and is used to produce solid fuel and organic waste is composted. Some unrecyclable materials are processed into fuel, which has a similar calorific value to brown coal. WtE is used for the rest of the waste that cannot be otherwise re-purposed and the waste that is not suitable for WtE is used for landfill.  

Such a holistic waste management system needs to be motivated by more than a profit. Recycling and composting are more labour-intensive and less profitable than WtE. The RCERO plant was facilitated through public funding with 66% (€77.6 million) coming from the EU Cohesion Fund and the remainder from the national and local government, the construction of the treatment plant was completed in October 2015.  

The example of Ljubljana shows that when waste management is publicly owned and operated it facilitates an integrated system where waste prevention can go hand in hand with recycling as well as WtE, rather than having these three aspects of waste management competing with each other for profit.45

Industrial lobby groups, multinational companies and financial institutions, like the World Bank and the ADB, have promoted WtE as a sustainable alternative to landfill and as a solution for the overwhelming need for waste management in many parts of the world. However, as this essay demonstrates WtE is, in fact, not so environmentally friendly. The first aspect that policy-makers and activists need to be aware of is that WtE, contrary to what the name suggests, does not produce much energy (and the energy it produces is heating rather than electricity so it is a less useful energy source for hot countries). Due to the high emissions of WtE incineration – higher than from other fossil fuelled energy production – it is certainly not a source of green or renewable energy.  

The second aspect of which activists and policy-makers need to be aware is that it creates the need for increasing volumes of waste, because WtE plants need a certain volume of waste in order to operate. Many of the countries with an established WtE industry are already heavily dependent on importing waste, leading for a scramble for waste. This is especially severe as it is often recyclable waste that gets burned in WtE energy plants (the plants need a certain calorific value in order to operate and plastic and paper, for example, are high in calorific value). Hence, even the UN and the EU have advised countries to reduce their WtE capacity.

Thirdly, WtE plants create environmental and health risks. They release not only emissions but also toxins that cause health risks for the people living nearby.  

Fourthly, policy-makers need to recognise that many places where WtE was introduced it deprived many informal recycling workers of their livelihood. While informal recycling work should not be glorified as it is both unpleasant and hazardous, it is securing the livelihood of millions of people. These informal workers are making a tremendous contribution to recycling in many countries.

Currently, most WtE plants across the world are privatised (either fully or via a PPP contract). This means that the municipalities have contractual obligations with the private providers to deliver a certain volume of waste or pay compensation. This directly goes against any waste-reduction efforts. Denmark, on the other hand, where WtE is mostly in public ownership, was able to shut down some of its WtE plants in order to incentivise waste prevention and recycling while reducing its dependence on imported waste.  

The case of Slovenia provides an example of a holistic waste management system that strictly follows the waste hierarchy (waste prevention, recycling and composting, waste to energy, landfilling) when waste management is in public ownership and control.

This essay thus suggests that WtE needs to be in public ownership so that it can be part of a comprehensive approach to waste management that addresses the need of the environment and citizens: local residents, the public that needs a functioning waste management system and the workers (formal and informal) who deal with the waste.

Abou the author

Vera Weghmann is a researcher at the Public Services International Research Unit (PSIRU) at the University of Greenwich, focused on public services, in particular privatisation, remunicipalisation, renationalisation, public sector financing and public sector reforms. Vera has been involved in independent trade unionism in the UK since 2012, she is the co-founder of the United Voices of the Word union and has been involved in the creation of the Independent Workers of Great Britain union.

Notes and sources

  The World Bank (2018) ‘Global Waste to Grow by 70 Percent by 2050 Unless Urgent Action is Taken: World Bank Report, 20 September. https://www.worldbank.org/en/news/press-release/2018/09/20/global-waste…

  Precedence Research (2023) ‘Waste to Energy Market’ https://www.precedenceresearch.com/waste-to-energy-market

  UN environment (2022) ‘WHAT is waste to energy?’ https://wedocs.unep.org/bitstream/handle/20.500.11822/29521/WTEPoster.p…

  Hockenos, P. (2021) ‘EU climate ambitions spell trouble for electricity from burning waste’. https:// www.cleanenergywire.org/news/eu-climate-ambitions-spell-trouble-electri…

  Jaganmohan , M. (2024) ‘ Installed capacity of municipal waste energy in Europe from 2010 to 2022, by country’. https://www.statista.com/statistics/1122082/europe-waste-to-energy-capa… .

  Jiacheng, L. (2023) ‚Four years of waste sorting leaves China’s incinerators short of fuel’   https://chinadialogue.net/en/cities/four-years-of-waste-sorting-leaves-…

  https://news.mongabay.com/2022/12/as-waste-to-energy-incinerators-sprea…

  Veolia (2023) ‘Decarbonization: Veolia becomes the operator of Turkey's first waste-to-energy production site’ 21 April,   https://www.veolia.com/sites/g/files/dvc4206/files/document/2023/04/pr-…

  Research and Markets (2023) ‘Global Thermal and Biological Waste-to-Energy (WTE) Markets Report 2023-2028’ https://www.prnewswire.com/news-releases/global-thermal-and-biological-…

  Jaganmohan, M. (2024) ‘Installed waste energy capacity in Europe 2010-2022’ 2 February. https://www.statista.com/statistics/1122054/europe-waste-to-energy-capa…

  https://www.cleanenergywire.org/news/eu-climate-ambitions-spell-trouble…

 Kwon, S., Kang, J., Lee, B., Hong, S., Jeon, Y., Bak, M. and Im, S.K., 2023. Nonviable carbon neutrality with plastic waste-to-energy.  Energy & Environmental Science ,  16 (7), pp.3074-3087.

 Boré, A., Cui, J., Huang, Z., Huang, Q., Fellner, J. and Ma, W., 2022. Monitored air pollutants from waste-to-energy facilities in China: Human health risk, and buffer distance assessment.  Atmospheric Pollution Research ,  13 (7), p.101484.

  Roy, I. (2020) ‘UK waste incinerators three times more likely to be in poorer areas’. https://unearthed . greenpeace.org/2020/07/31/waste-incinerators-deprivation-map-recycling/

  Zero Waste Europe (2017) ‘Zero Waste Europe to the European Commission: Let’s Use Plastics Only When It Makes Sense – Zero Waste Europe’. https://zerowasteeurope.eu/2017/09/zero-wasteeurope-to-the-european-com… ;

  UNEP (2019) Waste to Energy. Considerations for informed decision making . Nairobi: United Nations Environment Programme.

ILO (2029) Waste pickers’ cooperatives and social and solidarity economy organizations

https://www.ilo.org/global/topics/cooperatives/publications/WCMS_715845…

  ILO (2029) Waste pickers’ cooperatives and social and solidarity economy organizations

  Shah, D. (2011) The Timarpur-Okhla Waste to Energy Venture. https://www.no-burn.org/wp-content/uploads/Timarpur.pdf

 Shree, D. (2023) The challenges in generating power from non-recyclables, 18 March.   https://www.deccanherald.com/india/karnataka/bengaluru/the-challenges-in-generating-power-from-non-recyclables-1201194.html he challenges in generating power from non-recyclables (deccanherald.com)

 Meghani, S. (2023) Is there a role for informal waste pickers in the new waste economy?, 1 July. The Times of India. https://timesofindia.indiatimes.com/blogs/developing-contemporary-india…

Alves, B. Solid waste treatment plants in India 2023, by type

https://www.statista.com/statistics/1061462/india-solid-waste-treatment…

Global Atlas of environmental injustice (2021) Beirut incinerators expansion plans and wastepickers struggle, Lebanon https://ejatlas.org/conflict/as-the-plans-for-incinerators-in-beirut-le…

Maroun, C. (2017) ‘In Lebanon, Civil Society Groups Are Launching a New Waste Management Coalition ‘ https://globalvoices.org/2017/12/19/in-lebanon-civil-society-groups-are…

  The World Bank (2022) ‘Lebanon: US$8.86 million Grant to Support Solid Waste Management and Reduce Public Health and Environmental Impacts’ https://www.worldbank.org/en/news/press-release/2022/12/20/lebanon-us-8…

  The RITE Independent Review – 2022. Findings and recommendation regarding EU supported solid waste management facilities in Lebanon. https://www.keepandshare.com/doc4/134953/ritereport22-pdf-3-7-meg?da=y

  UN (2023) EU invests 3.7 million Euro to support Green and Circular Economy in Lebanon through a project implemented by UNIDO https://lebanon.un.org/en/238149-eu-invests-37-million-euro-support-gre…  

 France 24 'Drive-throw' recycling aims to ease Lebanon garbage crisis. https://www.france24.com/en/live-news/20230703-drive-throw-recycling-ai…

   Oyinloye, A. (2020)’ From window to jug: Lebanese recycle glass from Beirut blast’ https://www.africanews.com/2020/09/06/from-window-to-jug-lebanese-recyc…

CEWEP (n.d.) A voice of Waste-to-Energy

  https://www.cewep.eu/what-cewep-does/

  EIB (2018) Olsztyn Waste-to-Energy plant. OLSZTYN WASTE-TO-ENERGY PLANT (eib.org)

  Friends of the earth (2023) ‘Freedom of Information Act Findings Reveal Covert Incinerator Lobby Blitz’ https://foe.org/news/foia-incinerator-lobby-blitz/

Covantana (n.d.) ‘Protecting Tomorrow’ https://www.covanta.com/who-we-are/our-story

  ADB (2018) ‘ Creating an Enabling Environment for Public–Private Partnerships in Waste-to-Energy Projects’ https://www.adb.org/publications/ppp-waste-to-energy-projects

 Cui, C., Liu, Y., Xia, B., Jiang, X. and Skitmore, M., 2020. Overview of public-private partnerships in the waste-to-energy incineration industry in China: Status, opportunities, and challenges.  Energy Strategy Reviews ,  32 , p.100584.

  Weghmann, V (2021)  Daseinsvorsorge und Rekommunalisierung. Eine Handreichung . Rosa Luxemburg Stiftung. https://www.rosalux.de/publikation/id/45138/daseinsvorsorge-und-rekommu…

  Levaggi, L. et al. (2020) Waste-to-Energy in the EU: The Effects of Plant Ownership, Waste Mobility, and Decentralization on Environmental Outcomes and Welfare. Sustainability. Vol. 141, pp. 35-51.

  Levaggi, L. et al. (2020) Levaggi, L. et al. (2020) Waste-to-Energy in the EU: The Effects of Plant Ownership, Waste Mobility, and Decentralization on Environmental Outcomes and Welfare. Sustainability. Vol. 141, pp. 35-51.

  Radovanović K. (2019) The Belgrade Solid Waste Public Private Partnership. Corporate interest vs. the circular economy. Zero Waste Europe. https://zerowasteeurope.eu/wp-content/uploads/2019/12/ zero_waste_europe_cs_the_belgrade_solid_waste_public_private_partnership_en.pdf

  Balkan Green Energy News, (2021), Serbia ranked worst in Europe by household waste recycling, as Croatia sees second biggest increase, https://balkangreenenergynews.com/serbia-ranked-worst-ineurope-by-house…

  Schaart, E. (2020) ‘Denmark’s ”devilish” waste dilemma‘. https://www.politico.eu/article/denmarkdevilish-waste-trash-energy-inci…

  https://www.epsu.org/sites/default/files/article/files/Waste%20Manageme…

Article: Newsletter banner

Do you want to stay informed.

Sign up for the newsletter to receive monthly updates on TNI’s research, events, and publications.

Newsletter Subscribe to our newsletter

Ideas into movement

Boost tni's work.

50 years. Hundreds of social struggles. Countless ideas turned into movement. 

Support us as we celebrate our 50th anniversary in 2024.

Make a donation

Waste-to-Energy Conversion Efforts Essay

• To find inspiration for your paper and overcome writer’s block
• As a source of information (ensure proper referencing)
• As a template for you assignment

Waste management is one of the most significant issues facing urban communities all over the world. There are various sources of waste in the world today. The EPA notes that the major sources of waste include household garbage, sewage, sludge, construction debris, discarded vehicles, and scrap metal (par. 3). Traditionally, waste has been managed primarily by being disposed into landfills or incinerated. However, recent approaches to waste management favor making use of waste to create energy.

According to the EPA, waste to energy (WTE) transformation is the “conversion of non-recyclable waste materials into useable heat, electricity, or fuel through a variety of processes, including combustion and gasification” (par. 1). Cheremisinoff notes that the concept of treating waste products to obtain cheap energy has been around for several decades (83). However, this concept has become more prevalent over the last few years as municipal authorities seek to maintain control over waste products and minimize the environmental impacts of the waste disposal process.

Waste-to-energy conversion efforts have a number of significant impacts on the economy, society, and environment. Converting waste to energy presents a way for cities to profit from waste disposal activities. Without implementing WTE processes, waste is disposed of in a way that does not produce any useful product. By converting waste to energy, authorities are able to sell electricity generated from waste. OECD reports that by using modern WTE plants, profits can be realized from waste management efforts (256).

WTE acts as a source of alternative energy that reduces the demand for conventionally produced energy. By making use of waste as the input product for energy production plants, the usage of conventional fuels such as coal and fossil fuels is significantly reduced. This increases energy independence of the country since fossil fuels are mostly imported from the oil-producing countries. WTE significantly reduces the environmental impact of traditional waste disposal methods such as landfill. Once waste has been used to create energy, its volume is significantly reduced. The EPA documents that once waste has been converted into energy through incineration, only 10% of the initial waste volume is recovered as ash to be disposed in the landfills. Creating energy from waste also mitigates the environmental impact of waste by preventing greenhouse gases such as methane from being released into the atmosphere.

In spite of these benefits, there are some notable limitations of this approach. The first significant limitation is that WTE requires significant capital investments. The OECD acknowledges that constructing state-of-the-art WTE plants that meet the stringent environmental regulations is an expensive endeavor (256).

The cost of converting waste to energy is higher than dumping the waste into landfills. Cheremisinoff confirms that landfills are cheaper than any waste-to-energy approach since they only involve transporting the waste to the dumpsite (83). Another limitation is that WTE requires huge amounts of waste in order to be practicable. This makes waste to energy projects unfeasible in regions where low levels of waste are produced. WTE might also discourage cities from carrying out recycling schemes, which are necessary for environmental sustainability.

Using waste to create energy is an important way of managing waste in an environmentally safe manner. This paper has highlighted some of benefits and limitations of transforming waste to energy. From the discussions made, it can be concluded that WTE plants present an environmentally sound way to deal with waste while at the same time benefiting the society by producing clean energy.

Works Cited

Cheremisinoff, Nicholas. Handbook of Solid Waste Management and Waste Minimization Technologies . NY: Butterworth-Heinemann, 2003. Print.

Environmental Protection Agency (EPA). Energy Recovery from Waste . 2014. Web.

OECD. OECD Territorial Reviews OECD Territorial Reviews: The Chicago Tri-State Metropolitan Area, United States 2012. London: OECD Publishing, 2012. Print.

• The Inventory Plan: PET-bottles Recycling
• Waste Diversion Program in Ontario
• Waste Management Strategies in Australia
• Finance and Budgeting for EPA: Business and Economics
• EPA Rules Effect on Perchlorate in Drinking Water
• The Cost-Effectiveness of Recycling Plastic
• Nepal's Waste Management Alternatives
• Ontario Waste Recycling Policy
• Problem of Waste in India
• "Garbage Wars" by David Naguib Pellow
• Chicago (A-D)
• Chicago (N-B)

IvyPanda. (2020, June 4). Waste-to-Energy Conversion Efforts. https://ivypanda.com/essays/waste-to-energy-plants-benefits/

"Waste-to-Energy Conversion Efforts." IvyPanda , 4 June 2020, ivypanda.com/essays/waste-to-energy-plants-benefits/.

IvyPanda . (2020) 'Waste-to-Energy Conversion Efforts'. 4 June.

IvyPanda . 2020. "Waste-to-Energy Conversion Efforts." June 4, 2020. https://ivypanda.com/essays/waste-to-energy-plants-benefits/.

1. IvyPanda . "Waste-to-Energy Conversion Efforts." June 4, 2020. https://ivypanda.com/essays/waste-to-energy-plants-benefits/.

Bibliography

IvyPanda . "Waste-to-Energy Conversion Efforts." June 4, 2020. https://ivypanda.com/essays/waste-to-energy-plants-benefits/.

A problem built into our relationship with energy itself. Photo by Ferdinando Scianna/Magnum

Deep warming

Even if we ‘solve’ global warming, we face an older, slower problem. waste heat could radically alter earth’s future.

by Mark Buchanan   + BIO

The world will be transformed. By 2050, we will be driving electric cars and flying in aircraft running on synthetic fuels produced through solar and wind energy. New energy-efficient technologies, most likely harnessing artificial intelligence, will dominate nearly all human activities from farming to heavy industry. The fossil fuel industry will be in the final stages of a terminal decline. Nuclear fusion and other new energy sources may have become widespread. Perhaps our planet will even be orbited by massive solar arrays capturing cosmic energy from sunlight and generating seemingly endless energy for all our needs.

That is one possible future for humanity. It’s an optimistic view of how radical changes to energy production might help us slow or avoid the worst outcomes of global warming. In a report from 1965, scientists from the US government warned that our ongoing use of fossil fuels would cause global warming with potentially disastrous consequences for Earth’s climate. The report, one of the first government-produced documents to predict a major crisis caused by humanity’s large-scale activities, noted that the likely consequences would include higher global temperatures, the melting of the ice caps and rising sea levels. ‘Through his worldwide industrial civilisation,’ the report concluded, ‘Man is unwittingly conducting a vast geophysical experiment’ – an experiment with a highly uncertain outcome, but clear and important risks for life on Earth.

Since then, we’ve dithered and doubted and argued about what to do, but still have not managed to take serious action to reduce greenhouse gas emissions, which continue to rise. Governments around the planet have promised to phase out emissions in the coming decades and transition to ‘green energy’. But global temperatures may be rising faster than we expected: some climate scientists worry that rapid rises could create new problems and positive feedback loops that may accelerate climate destabilisation and make parts of the world uninhabitable long before a hoped-for transition is possible.

Despite this bleak vision of the future, there are reasons for optimists to hope due to progress on cleaner sources of renewable energy, especially solar power. Around 2010, solar energy generation accounted for less than 1 per cent of the electricity generated by humanity. But experts believe that, by 2027, due to falling costs, better technology and exponential growth in new installations, solar power will become the largest global energy source for producing electricity. If progress on renewables continues, we might find a way to resolve the warming problem linked to greenhouse gas emissions. By 2050, large-scale societal and ecological changes might have helped us avoid the worst consequences of our extensive use of fossil fuels.

It’s a momentous challenge. And it won’t be easy. But this story of transformation only hints at the true depth of the future problems humanity will confront in managing our energy use and its influence over our climate.

As scientists are gradually learning, even if we solve the immediate warming problem linked to the greenhouse effect, there’s another warming problem steadily growing beneath it. Let’s call it the ‘deep warming’ problem. This deeper problem also raises Earth’s surface temperature but, unlike global warming, it has nothing to do with greenhouse gases and our use of fossil fuels. It stems directly from our use of energy in all forms and our tendency to use more energy over time – a problem created by the inevitable waste heat that is generated whenever we use energy to do something. Yes, the world may well be transformed by 2050. Carbon dioxide levels may stabilise or fall thanks to advanced AI-assisted technologies that run on energy harvested from the sun and wind. And the fossil fuel industry may be taking its last breaths. But we will still face a deeper problem. That’s because ‘deep warming’ is not created by the release of greenhouse gases into the atmosphere. It’s a problem built into our relationship with energy itself.

F inding new ways to harness more energy has been a constant theme of human development. The evolution of humanity – from early modes of hunter-gathering to farming and industry – has involved large systematic increases in our per-capita energy use. The British historian and archaeologist Ian Morris estimates, in his book Foragers, Farmers, and Fossil Fuels: How Human Values Evolve (2015), that early human hunter-gatherers, living more than 10,000 years ago, ‘captured’ around 5,000 kcal per person per day by consuming food, burning fuel, making clothing, building shelter, or through other activities. Later, after we turned to farming and enlisted the energies of domesticated animals, we were able to harness as much as 30,000 kcal per day. In the late 17th century , the exploitation of coal and steam power marked another leap: by 1970, the use of fossil fuels allowed humans to consume some 230,000 kcal per person per day. (When we think about humanity writ large as ‘humans’, it’s important to acknowledge that the average person in the wealthiest nations consumes up to 100 times more energy than the average person in the poorest nations.) As the global population has risen and people have invented new energy-dependent technologies, our global energy use has continued to climb.

In many respects, this is great. We can now do more with less effort and achieve things that were unimaginable to the 17th-century inventors of steam engines, let alone to our hominin ancestors. We’ve made powerful mining machines, superfast trains, lasers for use in telecommunications and brain-imaging equipment. But these creations, while helping us, are also subtly heating the planet.

All the energy we humans use – to heat our homes, run our factories, propel our automobiles and aircraft, or to run our electronics – eventually ends up as heat in the environment. In the shorter term, most of the energy we use flows directly into the environment. It gets there through hot exhaust gases, friction between tires and roads, the noises generated by powerful engines, which spread out, dissipate, and eventually end up as heat. However, a small portion of the energy we use gets stored in physical changes, such as in new steel, plastic or concrete. It’s stored in our cities and technologies. In the longer term, as these materials break down, the energy stored inside also finds its way into the environment as heat. This is a direct consequence of the well-tested principles of thermodynamics.

Waste heat will pose a problem that is every bit as serious as global warming from greenhouse gases

In the early decades of the 21st century , this heat created by simply using energy, known as ‘waste heat’, is not so serious. It’s equivalent to roughly 2 per cent of the planetary heating imbalance caused by greenhouse gases – for now. But, with the passing of time, the problem is likely to get much more serious. That’s because humans have a historical tendency to consistently discover and produce things, creating entirely new technologies and industries in the process: domesticated animals for farming; railways and automobiles; global air travel and shipping; personal computers, the internet and mobile phones. The result of such activities is that we end up using more and more energy, despite improved energy efficiency in nearly every area of technology.

During the past two centuries at least (and likely for much longer), our yearly energy use has doubled roughly every 30 to 50 years . Our energy use seems to be growing exponentially, a trend that shows every sign of continuing. We keep finding new things to do and almost everything we invent requires more and more energy: consider the enormous energy demands of cryptocurrency mining or the accelerating energy requirements of AI.

If this historical trend continues, scientists estimate waste heat will pose a problem in roughly 150-200 years that is every bit as serious as the current problem of global warming from greenhouse gases. However, deep heating will be more pernicious as we won’t be able to avoid it by merely shifting from one kind energy to another. A profound problem will loom before us: can we set strict limits on all the energy we use? Can we reign in the seemingly inexorable expansion of our activities to avoid destroying our own environment?

Deep warming is a problem hiding beneath global warming, but one that will become prominent if and when we manage to solve the more pressing issue of greenhouse gases. It remains just out of sight, which might explain why scientists only became concerned about the ‘waste heat’ problem around 15 years ago.

O ne of the first people to describe the problem is the Harvard astrophysicist Eric Chaisson, who discussed the issue of waste heat in a paper titled ‘Long-Term Global Heating from Energy Usage’ (2008). He concluded that our technological society may be facing a fundamental limit to growth due to ‘unavoidable global heating … dictated solely by the second law of thermodynamics, a biogeophysical effect often ignored when estimating future planetary warming scenarios’. When I emailed Chaisson to learn more, he told me the history of his thinking on the problem:

It was on a night flight, Paris-Boston [circa] 2006, after a UNESCO meeting on the environment when it dawned on me that the IPCC were overlooking something. While others on the plane slept, I crunched some numbers literally on the back of an envelope … and then hoped I was wrong, that is, hoped that I was incorrect in thinking that the very act of using energy heats the air, however slightly now.

The transformation of energy into heat is among the most ubiquitous processes of physics

Chaisson drafted the idea up as a paper and sent it to an academic journal. Two anonymous reviewers were eager for it to be published. ‘A third tried his damnedest to kill it,’ Chaisson said, the reviewer claiming the findings were ‘irrelevant and distracting’. After it was finally published, the paper got some traction when it was covered by a journalist and ran as a feature story on the front page of The Boston Globe . The numbers Chaisson crunched, predictions of our mounting waste heat, were even run on a supercomputer at the US National Center for Atmospheric Research, by Mark Flanner, a professor of earth system science. Flanner, Chaisson suspected at the time, was likely ‘out to prove it wrong’. But, ‘after his machine crunched for many hours’, he saw the same results that Chaisson had written on the back of an envelope that night in the plane.

Around the same time, also in 2008, two engineers, Nick Cowern and Chihak Ahn, wrote a research paper entirely independent of Chaisson’s work, but with similar conclusions. This was how I first came across the problem. Cowern and Ahn’s study estimated the total amount of waste heat we’re currently releasing to the environment, and found that it is, right now, quite small. But, like Chaisson, they acknowledged that the problem would eventually become serious unless steps were taken to avoid it.

That’s some of the early history of thinking in this area. But these two papers, and a few other analyses since, point to the same unsettling conclusion: what I am calling ‘deep warming’ will be a big problem for humanity at some point in the not-too-distant future. The precise date is far from certain. It might be 150 years , or 400, or 800, but it’s in the relatively near future, not the distant future of, say, thousands or millions of years. This is our future.

T he transformation of energy into heat is among the most ubiquitous processes of physics. As cars drive down roads, trains roar along railways, planes cross the skies and industrial plants turn raw materials into refined products, energy gets turned into heat, which is the scientific word for energy stored in the disorganised motions of molecules at the microscopic level. As a plane flies from Paris to Boston, it burns fuel and thrusts hot gases into the air, generates lots of sound and stirs up contrails. These swirls of air give rise to swirls on smaller scales which in turn make smaller ones until the energy ultimately ends up lost in heat – the air is a little warmer than before, the molecules making it up moving about a little more vigorously. A similar process takes place when energy is used by the tiny electrical currents inside the microchips of computers, silently carrying out computations. Energy used always ends up as heat. Decades ago, research by the IBM physicist Rolf Landauer showed that a computation involving even a single computing bit will release a certain minimum amount of heat to the environment.

How this happens is described by the laws of thermodynamics, which were described in the mid-19th century by scientists including Sadi Carnot in France and Rudolf Clausius in Germany. Two key ‘laws’ summarise its main principles.

The first law of thermodynamics simply states that the total quantity of energy never changes but is conserved. Energy, in other words, never disappears, but only changes form. The energy initially stored in an aircraft’s fuel, for example, can be changed into the energetic motion of the plane. Turn on an electric heater, and energy initially held in electric currents gets turned into heat, which spreads into the air, walls and fabric of your house. The total energy remains the same, but it markedly changes form.

We’re generating waste heat all the time with everything we do

The second law of thermodynamics, equally important, is more subtle and states that, in natural processes, the transformation of energy always moves from more organised and useful forms to less organised and less useful forms. For an aircraft, the energy initially concentrated in jet fuel ends up dissipated in stirred-up winds, sounds and heat spread over vast areas of the atmosphere in a largely invisible way. It’s the same with the electric heater: the organised useful energy in the electric currents gets dissipated and spread into the low-grade warmth of the walls, then leaks into the outside air. Although the amount of energy remains the same, it gradually turns into less organised, less usable forms. The end point of the energy process produces waste heat. And we’re generating it all the time with everything we do.

Data on world energy consumption shows that, collectively, all humans on Earth are currently using about 170,000 terawatt-hours (TWh), which is a lot of energy in absolute terms – a terawatt-hour is the total energy consumed in one hour by any process using energy at a rate of 1 trillion watts. This huge number isn’t surprising, as it represents all the energy being used every day by the billions of cars and homes around the world, as well as by industry, farming, construction, air traffic and so on. But, in the early 21st century , the warming from this energy is still much less than the planetary heating due to greenhouse gases.

Concentrations of greenhouse gases such as CO 2 and methane are quite small, and only make a fractional difference to how much of the Sun’s energy gets trapped in the atmosphere, rather than making it back out to space. Even so, this fractional difference has a huge effect because the stream of energy arriving from the Sun to Earth is so large. Current estimates of this greenhouse energy imbalance come to around 0.87 W per square meter, which translates into a total energy figure about 50 times larger than our waste heat. That’s reassuring. But as Cowern and Ahn wrote in their 2008 paper, things aren’t likely to stay this way over time because our energy usage keeps rising. Unless, that is, we can find some radical way to break the trend of using ever more energy.

O ne common objection to the idea of the deep warming is to claim that the problem won’t really arise. ‘Don’t worry,’ someone might say, ‘with efficient technology, we’re going to find ways to stop using more energy; though we’ll end up doing more things in the future, we’ll use less energy.’ This may sound plausible at first, because we are indeed getting more efficient at using energy in most areas of technology. Our cars, appliances and laptops are all doing more with less energy. If efficiency keeps improving, perhaps we can learn to run these things with almost no energy at all? Not likely, because there are limits to energy efficiency.

Over the past few decades, the efficiency of heating in homes – including oil and gas furnaces, and boilers used to heat water – has increased from less than 50 per cent to well above 90 per cent of what is theoretically possible. That’s good news, but there’s not much more efficiency to be realised in basic heating. The efficiency of lighting has also vastly improved, with modern LED lighting turning something like 70 per cent of the applied electrical energy into light. We will gain some efficiencies as older lighting gets completely replaced by LEDs, but there’s not a lot of room left for future efficiency improvements. Similar efficiency limits arise in the growing or cooking of food; in the manufacturing of cars, bikes and electronic devices; in transportation, as we’re taken from place to place; in the running of search engines, translation software, GPT-4 or other large-language models.

Even if we made significant improvements in the efficiencies of these technologies, we will only have bought a little time. These changes won’t delay by much the date when deep warming becomes a problem we must reckon with.

Optimising efficiencies is just a temporary reprieve, not a radical change in our human future

As a thought experiment, suppose we could immediately improve the energy efficiency of everything we do by a factor of 10 – a fantastically optimistic proposal. That is, imagine the energy output of humans on Earth has been reduced 10 times , from 170,000 TWh to 17,000 TWh . If our energy use keeps expanding, doubling every 30-50 years or so (as it has for centuries), then a 10-fold increase in waste heat will happen in just over three doubling times, which is about 130 years : 17,000 TWh doubles to 34,000 TWh , which doubles to 68,000 TWh , which doubles to 136,000 TWh , and so on. All those improvements in energy efficiency would quickly evaporate. The date when deep warming hits would recede by 130 years or so, but not much more. Optimising efficiencies is just a temporary reprieve, not a radical change in our human future.

Improvements in energy efficiency can also have an inverse effect on our overall energy use. It’s easy to think that if we make a technology more efficient, we’ll then use less energy through the technology. But economists are deeply aware of a paradoxical effect known as ‘rebound’, whereby improved energy efficiency, by making the use of a technology cheaper, actually leads to more widespread use of that technology – and more energy use too. The classic example, as noted by the British economist William Stanley Jevons in his book The Coal Question (1865), is the invention of the steam engine. This new technology could extract energy from burning coal more efficiently, but it also made possible so many new applications that the use of coal increased. A recent study by economists suggests that, across the economy, such rebound effects might easily swallow at least 50 per cent of any efficiency gains in energy use. Something similar has already happened with LED lights, for which people have found thousands of new uses.

If gains in efficiency won’t buy us lots of time, how about other factors, such as a reduction of the global population? Scientists generally believe that the current human population of more than 8 billion people is well beyond the limits of our finite planet, especially if a large fraction of this population aspires to the resource-intensive lifestyles of wealthy nations. Some estimates suggest that a more sustainable population might be more like 2 billion , which could reduce energy use significantly, potentially by a factor of three or four. However, this isn’t a real solution: again, as with the example of improved energy efficiency, a one-time reduction of our energy consumption by a factor of three will quickly be swallowed up by an inexorable rise in energy use. If Earth’s population were suddenly reduced to 2 billion – about a quarter of the current population – our energy gains would initially be enormous. But those gains would be erased in two doubling times, or roughly 60-100 years , as our energy demands would grow fourfold.

S o, why aren’t more people talking about this? The deep warming problem is starting to get more attention. It was recently mentioned on Twitter by the German climate scientist Stefan Rahmstorf, who cautioned that nuclear fusion, despite excitement over recent advances, won’t arrive in time to save us from our waste heat, and might make the problem worse. By providing another cheap source of energy, fusion energy could accelerate both the growth of our energy use and the reckoning of deep warming. A student of Rahmstorf’s, Peter Steiglechner, wrote his master’s thesis on the problem in 2018. Recognition of deep warming and its long-term implications for humanity is spreading. But what can we do about the problem?

Avoiding or delaying deep warming will involve slowing the rise of our waste heat, which means restricting the amount of energy we use and also choosing energy sources that exacerbate the problem as little as possible. Unlike the energy from fossil fuels or nuclear power, which add to our waste energy burden, renewable energy sources intercept energy that is already on its way to Earth, rather than producing additional waste heat. In this sense, the deep warming problem is another reason to pursue renewable energy sources such as solar or wind rather than alternatives such as nuclear fusion, fission or even geothermal power. If we derive energy from any of these sources, we’re unleashing new flows of energy into the Earth system without making a compensating reduction. As a result, all such sources will add to the waste heat problem. However, if renewable sources of energy are deployed correctly, they need not add to our deposition of waste heat in the environment. By using this energy, we produce no more waste heat than would have been created by sunlight in the first place.

Take the example of wind energy. Sunlight first stirs winds into motion by heating parts of the planet unequally, causing vast cells of convection. As wind churns through the atmosphere, blows through trees and over mountains and waves, most of its energy gets turned into heat, ending up in the microscopic motions of molecules. If we harvest some of this wind energy through turbines, it will also be turned into heat in the form of stored energy. But, crucially, no more heat is generated than if there had been no turbines to capture the wind.

The same can hold true for solar energy. In an array of solar cells, if each cell only collects the sunlight falling on it – which would ordinarily have been absorbed by Earth’s surface – then the cells don’t alter how much waste heat gets produced as they generate energy. The light that would have warmed Earth’s surface instead goes into the solar cells, gets used by people for some purpose, and then later ends up as heat. In this way we reduce the amount of heat being absorbed by Earth by precisely the same amount as the energy we are extracting for human use. We are not adding to overall planetary heating. This keeps the waste energy burden unchanged, at least in the relatively near future, even if we go on extracting and using ever larger amounts of energy.

Covering deserts in dark panels would absorb a lot more energy than the desert floor

Chaisson summarised the problem quite clearly in 2008:

I’m now of the opinion … that any energy that’s dug up on Earth – including all fossil fuels of course, but also nuclear and ground-sourced geothermal – will inevitably produce waste heat as a byproduct of humankind’s use of energy. The only exception to that is energy arriving from beyond Earth, this is energy here and now and not dug up, namely the many solar energies (plural) caused by the Sun’s rays landing here daily … The need to avoid waste heat is indeed the single, strongest, scientific argument to embrace solar energies of all types.

But not just any method of gathering solar energy will avoid the deep warming problem. Doing so requires careful engineering. For example, covering deserts with solar panels would add to planetary heating because deserts reflect a lot of incident light back out to space, so it is never absorbed by Earth (and therefore doesn’t produce waste heat). Covering deserts in dark panels would absorb a lot more energy than the desert floor and would heat the planet further.

We’ll also face serious problems in the long run if our energy appetite keeps increasing. Futurists dream of technologies deployed in space where huge panels would absorb sunlight that would otherwise have passed by Earth and never entered our atmosphere. Ultimately, they believe, this energy could be beamed down to Earth. Like nuclear energy, such technologies would add an additional energy source to the planet without any compensating removal of heating from the sunlight currently striking our planet’s surface. Any effort to produce more energy than is normally available from sunlight at Earth’s surface will only make our heating problems worse.

D eep warming is simply a consequence of the laws of physics and our inquisitive nature. It seems to be in our nature to constantly learn and develop new things, changing our environment in the process. For thousands of years, we have harvested and exploited ever greater quantities of energy in this pursuit, and we appear poised to continue along this path with the rapidly expanding use of renewable energy sources – and perhaps even more novel sources such as nuclear fusion. But this path cannot proceed indefinitely without consequences.

The logic that more energy equals more warming sets up a profound dilemma for our future. The laws of physics and the habits ingrained in us from our long evolutionary history are steering us toward trouble. We may have a technological fix for greenhouse gas warming – just shift from fossil fuels to cleaner energy sources – but there is no technical trick to get us out of the deep warming problem. That won’t stop some scientists from trying.

Perhaps, believing that humanity is incapable of reducing its energy usage, we’ll adopt a fantastic scheme to cool the planet, such as planetary-scale refrigeration or using artificially engineered tornadoes to transport heat from Earth’s surface to the upper atmosphere where it can be radiated away to space. As far-fetched as such approaches sound, scientists have given some serious thought to these and other equally bizarre ideas, which seem wholly in the realm of science fiction. They’re schemes that will likely make the problem worse not better.

We will need to transform the human story. It must become a story of doing less, not more

I see several possibilities for how we might ultimately respond. As with greenhouse gas warming, there will probably be an initial period of disbelief, denial and inaction, as we continue with unconstrained technological advance and growing energy use. Our planet will continue warming. Sooner or later, however, such warming will lead to serious disruptions of the Earth environment and its ecosystems. We won’t be able to ignore this for long, and it may provide a natural counterbalance to our energy use, as our technical and social capacity to generate and use ever more energy will be eroded. We may eventually come to some uncomfortable balance in which we just scrabble out a life on a hot, compromised planet because we lack the moral and organisational ability to restrict our energy use enough to maintain a sound environment.

An alternative would require a radical break with our past: using less energy. Finding a way to use less energy would represent a truly fundamental rupture with all of human history, something entirely novel. A rupture of this magnitude won’t come easily. However, if we could learn to view restrictions on our energy use as a non-negotiable element of life on Earth, we may still be able to do many of the things that make us essentially human: learning, discovering, inventing, creating. In this scenario, any helpful new technology that comes into use and begins using lots of energy would require a balancing reduction in energy use elsewhere. In such a way, we might go on with the future being perpetually new, and possibly better.

None of this is easily achieved and will likely mirror our current struggles to come to agreements on greenhouse gas heating. There will be vicious squabbles, arguments and profound polarisation, quite possibly major wars. Humanity will never have faced a challenge of this magnitude, and we won’t face up to it quickly or easily, I expect. But we must. Planetary heating is in our future – the very near future and further out as well. Many people will find this conclusion surprisingly hard to swallow, perhaps because it implies fundamental restrictions on our future here on Earth: we can’t go on forever using more and more energy, and, at the same time, expecting the planet’s climate to remain stable.

The world will likely be transformed by 2050. And, sometime after that, we will need to transform the human story. The narrative arc of humanity must become a tale of continuing innovation and learning, but also one of careful management. It must become a story, in energy terms, of doing less, not more. There’s no technology for entirely escaping waste heat, only techniques.

This is important to remember as we face up to the extremely urgent challenge of heating linked to fossil-fuel use and greenhouse gases. Global warming is just the beginning of our problems. It’s a testing ground to see if we can manage an intelligent and coordinated response. If we can handle this challenge, we might be better prepared, more capable and resilient as a species to tackle an even harder one.

Sex and sexuality

Sexual sensation

What makes touch on some parts of the body erotic but not others? Cutting-edge biologists are arriving at new answers

David J Linden

Nations and empires

The paradoxes of Mikha’il Mishaqa

He was a Catholic, then a rationalist, then a Protestant. Most of all, he exemplified the rise of Arab-Ottoman modernity

Nature and landscape

Land loneliness

To survive, we are asked to forget that our lands and bodies are being violated, policed, ripped up, silenced, sacrificed

Human reproduction

When babies are born, they cry in the accent of their mother tongue: how does language begin in the womb?

Darshana Narayanan

Psychiatry and psychotherapy

Decolonising psychology

At times complicit in racism and oppression, psychology has also been a fertile ground for radical and liberatory thought

Rami Gabriel

Politics and government

Governing for the planet

Nation-states are no longer fit for purpose to create a habitable future for humans and nature. Which political system is?

Jonathan S Blake & Nils Gilman

• For businesses
• For developers
• Get started

The environmental impact of wasted electricity

Electricity is a basic necessity in today’s society. Without it, most businesses would be closed by sundown – essentially putting a halt on life itself. Imagine for a moment, living in a world where the sunset signifies the end of your entire day – that would be a massive change for anyone awake after as early as 5pm in the winter or 8pm in the summer.

We understand electricity is necessary, but the way its generated impacts our environment. Coal, for example, is the second largest fossil fuel used in the US to generate electricity. The issue isn’t the type of energy coal generates, but how it’s being generated.

Coal is a flammable sedimentary rock that is mostly made up of organic carbon. So when it is crushed into a fine powder and then heated in order to produce electricity, it releases carbon emissions. The over reliance on fossil fuels creates a greenhouse effect.

The greenhouse effect is the exchange of incoming and outgoing radiation that warms the Earth. According to  Live Science , “The greenhouse effect, combined with  increasing levels of greenhouse gases  and the resulting global warming, is expected to have profound implications, according to most climate scientists.

In order to understand the full consequences excessive electricity usage has on our environment, we first need to get a grasp of the US electricity system.

A quick breakdown of the US electricity market

When looking at the energy landscape, fossil fuels still dominate the market, with a 62.7% share of the US electricity generation market, per the  US Environmental Information Administration (EIA) . Lately, however, natural gas has taken over as the dominant fossil fuel – but not by much. In 2017, natural gas accounted for 31.7%, and coal accounted for 30.1%.

Let’s look at those numbers for a moment. Thirty percent of the electricity generated in the US came from coal – the ultimate carbon-emitting fossil fuel. The other 31% came from natural gas, which emits methane – which isn’t much better. Methane emissions are much stronger than carbon emissions, even though their lifespans are much shorter. According to  Scientific American , “While CO2 persists in the atmosphere for centuries, or even millennia, methane warms the planet on steroids for a decade or two before decaying to CO2.”

Think about that for a second – methane warms the planet on steroids. Keep that thought on your mind; we’ll get right back to it.

How energy inefficiencies are hurting the US

The inefficient use of electricity in the US is profound. The American Council for an Energy-Efficient Economy (ACEEE) came out with a  survey  on the world energy rankings. Do you know where the US placed?

Tenth place, two spots behind its eighth place finish in 2016.

When we take a deeper look into the energy consumption in the US, you’ll be shocked at just how inefficient we are. According to a diagram from the  Lawrence Livermore National Laboratory (LLNL) at the Department of Energy , in 2017, 66.7% of energy generated in the US was rejected energy. This means that two-thirds of the energy we generated ended up wasted.

Remember earlier when we spoke about methane and we told you to hang on to that thought? Wasted energy still means that it was produced. Therefore, we burned a ton of fossil fuels for no reason. That means there were both carbon and methane emissions, for electricity that was never even used.

As a nation, we are not the most efficient with our appliances, which has a cumulatively negative effect.

Let’s take lights for example. How often have you left the lights on while heading out for the night? I’m sure plenty of times. We’ve all been guilty of leaving the lights on. The problem is that since it is such a common habit, it easily adds up, contributing to the 66.7% of wasted energy.

How we can stop wasting electricity on a micro scale

As homeowners, renters, or business owners, it is our job to moderate the usage of our appliances. What we mean by that is:  use your appliances only when you need to . If your home is already feeling cool inside as temperatures begin to drop, crack open your windows and turn off your AC.

The electricity that you can save from utilizing outdoor climate might seem small, but when large groups of people join you, the change will create a tremendous impact.

One way to stop wasting energy is to start relying on renewable resources. Solar, wind, and hydro represent different alternatives that offer zero carbon and methane emissions. These renewable sources are the key to our future. Coal reserves are declining and will eventually run out. Natural gas will also follow suit, even though for now, there’s still plenty left. Solar and wind, however, have no expiration date.

The sun isn’t going anywhere and neither is the wind. As a result, research into and development of renewable energy needs to continue moving forward. At the beginning of this article, we talked about how it would be insane to live in a world where the entire day ends at sunset. With the finite amount of coal and natural gas, you can now see how that day can actually happen. As we continue to waste electricity, we continue to emit more carbon and methane into our atmosphere. With fossil fuel gases trapped in our atmosphere, we end up with scorching summers and brutal winters. Our globe continues to warm, melting our polar ice caps, and threatening coastal cities that will begin to be covered by rising sea levels. Once this happens, most of the US will become uninhabitable.

Wasting electricity creates the ultimate domino effect that can one day leave us with a country with insufficient room for all of its citizens. So next time you leave your home and you see the lights on, do us all a favor and turn them off – the environment will thank you.

Sign up for solar savings

IEEE Account

• Change Username/Password
• Update Address

Purchase Details

• Payment Options
• Order History
• View Purchased Documents

Profile Information

• Communications Preferences
• Profession and Education
• Technical Interests
• US & Canada: +1 800 678 4333
• Worldwide: +1 732 981 0060
• Contact & Support
• About IEEE Xplore
• Accessibility
• Terms of Use
• Nondiscrimination Policy
• Privacy & Opting Out of Cookies

A not-for-profit organization, IEEE is the world's largest technical professional organization dedicated to advancing technology for the benefit of humanity. © Copyright 2024 IEEE - All rights reserved. Use of this web site signifies your agreement to the terms and conditions.

Advertisement

Waste-to-Energy Technologies Towards Circular Economy: a Systematic Literature Review and Bibliometric Analysis

• Published: 12 July 2021
• Volume 232 , article number  306 , ( 2021 )

Cite this article

• Ronney Arismel Mancebo Boloy   ORCID: orcid.org/0000-0002-4774-8310 1 ,
• Augusto da Cunha Reis   ORCID: orcid.org/0000-0002-3200-8096 2 ,
• Eyko Medeiros Rios   ORCID: orcid.org/0000-0002-6673-415X 1 ,
• Janaína de Araújo Santos Martins   ORCID: orcid.org/0000-0003-0412-9576 1 ,
• Laene Oliveira Soares   ORCID: orcid.org/0000-0001-8305-2831 1 ,
• Vanessa Aparecida de Sá Machado   ORCID: orcid.org/0000-0003-3427-3472 1 &
• Danielle Rodrigues de Moraes   ORCID: orcid.org/0000-0001-8259-7020 1  

3456 Accesses

40 Citations

4 Altmetric

Explore all metrics

This article presents a systematic review of the literature using the Preferred Reporting Items for Systematic Reviews and Meta-Analyses (PRISMA) method associated with a bibliometric analysis on global perspective of technological advances in waste-to-energy (WTE). OpenRefine and VOSviewer software supported the bibliometric analysis. It was possible to establish the scientific gap through the correlation among interactions observed on co-authored countries’ analyses, cited sources of co-citation, cited authors of co-citation, and keyword of the co-occurrence author. A total of 10 papers were included for meta-analysis and categorized into 8 fields: author(s), title, published year, research areas, energy conversion technologies, wastes used for energy production, WTE products, key findings. Considering the end use of the products, the systematic literature review confirmed a limitation of research focusing on the opportunities for a cleaner transport sector. When analysing the author’s keywords, the most cited were ‘municipal solid waste’, ‘incineration’, ‘waste management’, ‘gasification’, ‘anaerobic digestion’, ‘combustion’, ‘waste-to-energy’, ‘landfill gas’, and ‘sustainability’, noting that the studies were directed at economic and sustainable development, as well as circular economy, aiming to mitigate adverse environmental impacts. As can be seen from the systematic review associated with the bibliometric analysis presented, the waste to energy technology is an important innovation way or route that finds numerous applications in the transport and energetic sector. It was evidenced that the WTE research efforts are mainly focused on the conversion of waste for end use electricity generation. The main role of WTE technologies in the circular economy is the energy recovery from biomass and non-recyclable waste, and also it was presented as a viable alternative to the decarbonization of transport and energy sectors.

This is a preview of subscription content, log in via an institution to check access.

Access this article

Subscribe and save.

• Get 10 units per month
• Download Article/Chapter or eBook
• 1 Unit = 1 Article or 1 Chapter
• Cancel anytime

Price includes VAT (Russian Federation)

Instant access to the full article PDF.

Rent this article via DeepDyve

Institutional subscriptions

Similar content being viewed by others

Waste management and green technology: future trends in circular economy leading towards environmental sustainability

Circular economy strategy and waste management: a bibliometric analysis in its contribution to sustainable development, toward a post-COVID-19 era

Waste to Energy—World Scenario: A Review

Adami, L., Schiavon, M., & Rada, E. C. (2020). Potential environmental benefits of direct electric heating powered by waste-to-energy processes as a replacement of solid-fuel combustion in semi-rural and remote areas. Science of the Total Environment, 740 , 140078. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.scitotenv.2020.140078 .

Ahamed, A., Yin, K., Ng, B. J. H., Ren, F., Chang, V. W. C., & Wang, J. Y. (2016). Life cycle assessment of the present and proposed food waste management technologies from environmental and economic impact perspectives. J Clean Prod, 131 , 607–614. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.jclepro.2016.04.127 .

Article   CAS   Google Scholar  

Akrami, E., Ameri, M., & Rocco, M. V. (2020). Integration of biomass-fueled power plant and MCFC-cryogenic CO2 separation unit for low-carbon power production: Thermodynamic and exergoeconomic comparative analysis. Energy Conversion and Management, 223 , 113304. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.enconman.2020.113304 .

Antwi-Boasiako, C., & Acheampong, B. B. (2016). Strength properties and calorific values of sawdust-briquettes as wood-residue energy generation source from tropical hardwoods of different densities. Biomass Bioenergy, 85 , 144–152. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.biombioe.2015.12.006 .

Arpia, A. A., Chen, W. H., Lam, S. S., Rousset, P., & de Luna, M. D. G. (2021). Sustainable biofuel and bioenergy production from biomass waste residues using microwave-assisted heating: A comprehensive review. Chemical Engineering Journal, 403 , 126233. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.cej.2020.126233 .

Barbosa, F. T., Lira, A. B., de Oliveira Neto, O. B., Santos, L. L., Santos, I. O., Barbosa, L. T., et al. (2019). Tutorial for performing systematic review and meta-analysis with interventional anesthesia studies. Brazilian J Anesthesiol, 69 (3), 299–306. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.bjan.2018.11.007 .

Article   Google Scholar  

Casson Moreno, V., Iervolino, G., Tugnoli, A., & Cozzani, V. (2020). Techno-economic and environmental sustainability of biomass waste conversion based on thermocatalytic reforming. Waste Manag, 101 , 106–115. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.wasman.2019.10.002 .

Cucchiella, F., D’Adamo, I., & Gastaldi, M. (2017). Sustainable waste management: Waste to energy plant as an alternative to landfill. Energy Convers Manag, 131 , 18–31. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.enconman.2016.11.012 .

Foster, W., Azimov, U., Gauthier-Maradei, P., Molano, L. C., Combrinck, M., Munoz, J., et al. (2021). Waste-to-energy conversion technologies in the UK: Processes and barriers – A review. Renewable and Sustainable Energy Reviews, 135 , 110226. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.rser.2020.110226 .

Gutberlet, J., Bramryd, T., & Johansson, M. (2020). Expansion of the waste-based commodity frontier: Insights from Sweden and Brazil. Sustainability, 12 (7). https://doi.org/10.3390/su12072628 .

Haaf, M., Anantharaman, R., Roussanaly, S., Ströhle, J., & Epple, B. (2020). CO2 capture from waste-to-energy plants: Techno-economic assessment of novel integration concepts of calcium looping technology. Resources, Conservation and Recycling, 162 , 104973. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.resconrec.2020.104973 .

Haraguchi, M., Siddiqi, A., & Narayanamurti, V. (2019). Stochastic cost-benefit analysis of urban waste-to-energy systems. J Clean Prod, 224 , 751–765. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.jclepro.2019.03.099 .

Istrate, I. R., Iribarren, D., Gálvez-Martos, J. L., & Dufour, J. (2020). Review of life-cycle environmental consequences of waste-to-energy solutions on the municipal solid waste management system. Resources, Conservation and Recycling, 157 , 104778. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.resconrec.2020.104778 .

Jan, N., & Ludo, V. E. (2010). Software survey: VOSviewer, a computer program for bibliometric mapping. Scientometrics and Informetrics, 84 , 523–538. https://doi.org/10.1007/s11192-009-0146-3 .

Khan, I., & Kabir, Z. (2020). Waste-to-energy generation technologies and the developing economies: A multi-criteria analysis for sustainability assessment. Renew Energy, 150 , 320–333. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.renene.2019.12.132 .

Kirchherr, J., Reike, D., & Hekkert, M. (2017). Conceptualizing the circular economy: An analysis of 114 definitions . Resources. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.resconrec.2017.09.005 .

Kral, U., Morf, L. S., Vyzinkarova, D., & Brunner, P. H. (2019). Cycles and sinks: Two key elements of a circular economy. Journal of Material Cycles and Waste Management, 21 (1), 1–9. https://doi.org/10.1007/s10163-018-0786-6 .

Laso, J., Margallo, M., García-Herrero, I., Fullana, P., Bala, A., Gazulla, C., et al. (2018). Combined application of life cycle assessment and linear programming to evaluate food waste-to-food strategies: Seeking for answers in the nexus approach. Waste Manag, 80 , 186–197. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.wasman.2018.09.009 .

Lu, J. W., Zhang, S., Hai, J., & Lei, M. (2017). Status and perspectives of municipal solid waste incineration in China: A comparison with developed regions. Waste Manag, 69 , 170–186. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.wasman.2017.04.014 .

Mahmudul, H. M., Rasul, M. G., Akbar, D., Narayanan, R., & Mofijur, M. (2021). A comprehensive review of the recent development and challenges of a solar-assisted biodigester system. Science of The Total Environment, 753 , 141920. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.scitotenv.2020.141920 .

Malinauskaite, J., Jouhara, H., Czajczyńska, D., Stanchev, P., Katsou, E., Rostkowski, P., et al. (2017). Municipal solid waste management and waste-to-energy in the context of a circular economy and energy recycling in Europe. Energy, 141 , 2013–2044. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.energy.2017.11.128 .

Mardani, A., Zavadskas, E. K., Khalifah, Z., Zakuan, N., Jusoh, A., Nor, K. M., & Khoshnoudi, M. (2017). A review of multi-criteria decision-making applications to solve energy management problems: Two decades from 1995 to 2015. Renew Sust Energ Rev, 71 (November 2016), 216–256. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.rser.2016.12.053 .

Mukherjee, C., Denney, J., Mbonimpa, E. G., Slagley, J., & Bhowmik, R. (2020). A review on municipal solid waste-to-energy trends in the USA. Renewable and Sustainable Energy Reviews, 119 , 109512. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.rser.2019.109512 .

Nizami, A. S., Ouda, O. K. M., Rehan, M., El-Maghraby, A. M. O., Gardy, J., Hassanpour, A., et al. (2016). The potential of Saudi Arabian natural zeolites in energy recovery technologies. Energy, 108 , 162–171. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.energy.2015.07.030 .

Nizami, A. S., Shahzad, K., Rehan, M., Ouda, O. K. M., Khan, M. Z., Ismail, I. M. I., et al. (2017). Developing waste biorefinery in Makkah: A way forward to convert urban waste into renewable energy. Appl Energy, 186 , 189–196. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.apenergy.2016.04.116 .

Pizzi, S., Caputo, A., Corvino, A., & Venturelli, A. (2020). Management research and the UN sustainable development goals (SDGs): A bibliometric investigation and systematic review. J Clean Prod, 276 , 124033. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.jclepro.2020.124033 .

Ripa, M., Fiorentino, G., Vacca, V., & Ulgiati, S. (2017). The relevance of site-specific data in life cycle assessment (LCA). The case of the municipal solid waste management in the metropolitan city of Naples (Italy). J Clean Prod, 142 , 445–460. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.jclepro.2016.09.149 .

Satchatippavarn, S., Martinez-Hernandez, E., Leung Pah Hang, M. Y., Leach, M., & Yang, A. (2016). Urban biorefinery for waste processing. Chem Eng Res Des, 107 , 81–90. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.cherd.2015.09.022 .

Seiple, T. E., Coleman, A. M., & Skaggs, R. L. (2017). Municipal wastewater sludge as a sustainable bioresource in the United States. J Environ Manag, 197 , 673–680. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.jenvman.2017.04.032 .

Seruga, P., Krzywonos, M., Seruga, A., & Nied´zwiecki, Ł., Pawlak-Kruczek, H., & Urbanowska, A. (2020). Anaerobic digestion performance: Separate collected vs. mechanical segregated organic fractions of municipal solid waste as feedstock. Energies, 13 , 15. https://doi.org/10.3390/en13153768 .

Sharma, S., Basu, S., Shetti, N. P., & Aminabhavi, T. M. (2020). Waste-to-energy nexus for circular economy and environmental protection: Recent trends in hydrogen energy. Sci Total Environ, 713 , 136633. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.scitotenv.2020.136633 .

Soares, P. B., Carneiro, T. C. J., Calmon, J. L., & Castro, L. O. da C. de O. (2016). Análise bibliométrica da produção científica brasileira sobre Tecnologia de Construção e Edificações na base de dados Web of Science. Ambiente Construído, 16 (1), 175–185. https://doi.org/10.1590/s1678-86212016000100067 .

Świechowski, K., Syguła, E., Koziel, J. A., Stępień, P., Kugler, S., Manczarski, P., & Białowiec, A. (2020). Low-temperature pyrolysis of municipal solid waste components and refuse-derived fuel—Process efficiency and fuel properties of carbonized solid fuel. Data, 5 (2). https://doi.org/10.3390/data5020048 .

European Union. (2018). Directive 2008/98/EC of the European Parliament and of the Council of 19 November 2008 on Waste and Repealing Certain Directives.

Yılmaz Balaman, Ş., Wright, D. G., Scott, J., & Matopoulos, A. (2018). Network design and technology management for waste to energy production: An integrated optimization framework under the principles of circular economy. Energy, 143 , 911–933. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.energy.2017.11.058 .

Zhang, X., Estoque, R. C., Xie, H., Murayama, Y., & Ranagalage, M. (2019). Bibliometric analysis of highly cited articles on ecosystem services. PLoS One, 14 (2), 1–16. https://doi.org/10.1371/journal.pone.0210707 .

Zhao, X., Gang, J. G., Wu, L., & A Wang, L. (2016). Economic analysis of waste-to-energy industry in China. Waste Manag, 48 , 604–618. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.wasman.2015.10.014 .

Download references

This study was financially supported by the Brazilian National Council for Scientific and Technological Development (CNPq), grant number 406789/2018-5, and was financed in part by the Brazilian Coordination for the Improvement of Higher Education Personnel (CAPES) - Finance Code 001.

Author information

Authors and affiliations.

Group of Entrepreneurship, Energy, Environment and Technology – GEEMAT, Federal Centre of Technological Education Celso Suckow da Fonseca – CEFET/RJ, Rio de Janeiro, Brazil

Ronney Arismel Mancebo Boloy, Eyko Medeiros Rios, Janaína de Araújo Santos Martins, Laene Oliveira Soares, Vanessa Aparecida de Sá Machado & Danielle Rodrigues de Moraes

Federal Centre of Technological Education Celso Suckow da Fonseca – CEFET/RJ, Rio de Janeiro, Brazil

Augusto da Cunha Reis

You can also search for this author in PubMed   Google Scholar

Corresponding author

Correspondence to Ronney Arismel Mancebo Boloy .

Additional information

Publisher’s note.

Springer Nature remains neutral with regard to jurisdictional claims in published maps and institutional affiliations.

Rights and permissions

Reprints and permissions

About this article

Boloy, R.A.M., da Cunha Reis, A., Rios, E.M. et al. Waste-to-Energy Technologies Towards Circular Economy: a Systematic Literature Review and Bibliometric Analysis. Water Air Soil Pollut 232 , 306 (2021). https://doi.org/10.1007/s11270-021-05224-x

Download citation

Received : 02 February 2021

Accepted : 08 June 2021

Published : 12 July 2021

DOI : https://doi.org/10.1007/s11270-021-05224-x

Share this article

Anyone you share the following link with will be able to read this content:

Sorry, a shareable link is not currently available for this article.

Provided by the Springer Nature SharedIt content-sharing initiative

• Waste-to-energy
• Circular economy
• Waste management
• Systematic literature review
• Bibliometric analysis
• Find a journal
• Publish with us
• Track your research

The world’s energy problem

The world faces two energy problems: most of our energy still produces greenhouse gas emissions, and hundreds of millions lack access to energy..

The world lacks safe, low-carbon, and cheap large-scale energy alternatives to fossil fuels. Until we scale up those alternatives the world will continue to face the two energy problems of today. The energy problem that receives most attention is the link between energy access and greenhouse gas emissions. But the world has another global energy problem that is just as big: hundreds of millions of people lack access to sufficient energy entirely, with terrible consequences to themselves and the environment.

The problem that dominates the public discussion on energy is climate change. A climate crisis endangers the natural environment around us, our wellbeing today and the wellbeing of those who come after us.

It is the production of energy that is responsible for 87% of global greenhouse gas emissions and as the chart below shows, people in the richest countries have the very highest emissions.

This chart here will guide us through the discussion of the world's energy problem. It shows the per capita CO2 emissions on the vertical axis against the average income in that country on the horizontal axis.

In countries where people have an average income between $15,000 and $20,000, per capita CO 2 emissions are close to the global average ( 4.8 tonnes CO 2 per year). In every country where people's average income is above $25,000 the average emissions per capita are higher than the global average.

The world’s CO 2 emissions have been rising quickly and reached 36.6 billion tonnes in 2018 . As long as we are emitting greenhouse gases their concentration in the atmosphere increases . To bring climate change to an end the concentration of greenhouse gases in the atmosphere needs to stabilize and to achieve this the world’s greenhouse gas emissions have to decline towards net-zero.

To bring emissions down towards net-zero will be one of the world’s biggest challenges in the years ahead. But the world’s energy problem is actually even larger than that, because the world has not one, but two energy problems.

The twin problems of global energy

The first energy problem: those that have low carbon emissions lack access to energy.

The first global energy problem relates to the left-hand side of the scatter-plot above.

People in very poor countries have very low emissions. On average, people in the US emit more carbon dioxide in 4 days than people in poor countries – such as Ethiopia, Uganda, or Malawi – emit in an entire year. 1

The reason that the emissions of the poor are low is that they lack access to modern energy and technology. The energy problem of the poorer half of the world is energy poverty . The two charts below show that large shares of people in countries with a GDP per capita of less than $25,000 do not have access to electricity and clean cooking fuels. 2

The lack of access to these technologies causes some of the worst global problems of our time.

When people lack access to modern energy sources for cooking and heating, they rely on solid fuel sources – mostly firewood, but also dung and crop waste. This comes at a massive cost to the health of people in energy poverty: indoor air pollution , which the WHO calls "the world's largest single environmental health risk." 3 For the poorest people in the world it is the largest risk factor for early death and global health research suggests that indoor air pollution is responsible for 1.6 million deaths each year, twice the death count of poor sanitation. 4

The use of wood as a source of energy also has a negative impact on the environment around us. The reliance on fuelwood is the reason why poverty is linked to deforestation. The FAO reports that on the African continent the reliance on wood as fuel is the single most important driver of forest degradation. 5 Across East, Central, and West Africa fuelwood provides more than half of the total energy. 6

Lastly, the lack of access to energy subjects people to a life in poverty. No electricity means no refrigeration of food; no washing machine or dishwasher; and no light at night. You might have seen the photos of children sitting under a street lamp at night to do their homework. 7

The first energy problem of the world is the problem of energy poverty – those that do not have sufficient access to modern energy sources suffer poor living conditions as a result.

The second energy problem: those that have access to energy produce greenhouse gas emissions that are too high

The second energy problem is the one that is more well known, and relates to the right hand-side of the scatterplot above: greenhouse gas emissions are too high.

Those that need to reduce emissions the most are the extremely rich. Diana Ivanova and Richard Wood (2020) have just shown that the richest 1% in the EU emit on average 43 tonnes of CO 2 annually – 9-times as much as the global average of 4.8 tonnes. 8

The focus on the rich, however, can give the impression that it is only the emissions of the extremely rich that are the problem. What isn’t made clear enough in the public debate is that for the world's energy supply to be sustainable the greenhouse gas emissions of the majority of the world population are currently too high. The problem is larger for the extremely rich, but it isn’t limited to them.

The Paris Agreement's goal is to keep the increase of the global average temperature to well below 2°C above pre-industrial levels and “to pursue efforts to limit the temperature increase to 1.5°C”. 9

To achieve this goal emissions have to decline to net-zero within the coming decades.

Within richer countries, where few are suffering from energy poverty, even the emissions of the very poorest people are far higher. The paper by Ivanova and Wood shows that in countries like Germany, Ireland, and Greece more than 99% of households have per capita emissions of more than 2.4 tonnes per year.

The only countries that have emissions that are close to zero are those where the majority suffers from energy poverty. 10 The countries that are closest are the very poorest countries in Africa : Malawi, Burundi, and the Democratic Republic of Congo.

But this comes at a large cost to themselves as this chart shows. In no poor country do people have living standards that are comparable to those of people in richer countries.

And since living conditions are better where GDP per capita is higher, it is also the case that CO 2 emissions are higher where living conditions are better. Emissions are high where child mortality is the lowest , where children have good access to education, and where few of them suffer from hunger .

The reason for this is that as soon as people get access to energy from fossil fuels their emissions are too high to be sustainable over the long run (see here ).

People need access to energy for a good life. But in a world where fossil fuels are the dominant source of energy, access to modern energy means that carbon emissions are too high.

The more accurate description of the second global energy problem is therefore: the majority of the world population – all those who are not very poor – have greenhouse gas emissions that are far too high to be sustainable over the long run.

The current alternatives are energy poverty or fossil-fuels and greenhouse gases

The chart here is a version of the scatter plot above and summarizes the two global energy problems: In purple are those that live in energy poverty, in blue those whose greenhouse gas emissions are too high if we want to avoid severe climate change.

So far I have looked at the global energy problem in a static way, but the world is changing  of course.

For millennia all of our ancestors lived in the pink bubble: the reliance on wood meant they suffered from indoor air pollution; the necessity of acquiring fuelwood and agricultural land meant deforestation; and minimal technology meant that our ancestors lived in conditions of extreme poverty.

In the last two centuries more and more people have moved from the purple to the blue area in the chart. In many ways this is a very positive development. Economic growth and increased access to modern energy improved people's living conditions. In rich countries almost no one dies from indoor air pollution and living conditions are much better in many ways as we've seen above. It also meant that we made progress against the ecological downside of energy poverty: The link between poverty and the reliance on fuelwood is one of the key reasons why deforestation declines with economic growth. 11 And progress in that direction has been fast: on any average day in the last decade 315,000 people in the world got access to electricity for the first time in their life.

But while living conditions improved, greenhouse gas emissions increased.

The chart shows what this meant for greenhouse gas emissions over the last generation. The chart is a version of the scatter plot above, but it shows the change over time – from 1990 to the latest available data.

The data is now also plotted on log-log scales which has the advantage that you can see the rates of change easily. On a logarithmic axis the steepness of the line corresponds to the rate of change. What the chart shows is that low- and middle-income countries increased their emissions at very similar rates.

By default the chart shows the change of income and emission for the 14 countries that are home to more than 100 million people, but you can add other countries to the chart.

What has been true in the past two decades will be true in the future. For the poorer three-quarters of the world income growth means catching up with the good living conditions of the richer world, but unless there are cheap alternatives to fossil fuels it also means catching up with the high emissions of the richer world.

Our challenge: find large-scale energy alternatives to fossil fuels that are affordable, safe and sustainable

The task for our generation is therefore twofold: since the majority of the world still lives in poor conditions, we have to continue to make progress in our fight against energy poverty. But success in this fight will only translate into good living conditions for today’s young generation when we can reduce greenhouse gas emissions at the same time.

Key to making progress on both of these fronts is the source of energy and its price . Those living in energy poverty cannot afford sufficient energy and those that left the worst poverty behind rely on fossil fuels to meet their energy needs.

Once we look at it this way it becomes clear that the twin energy problems are really the two sides of one big problem. We lack large-scale energy alternatives to fossil fuels that are cheap, safe, and sustainable.

This last version of the scatter plot shows what it would mean to have such energy sources at scale. It would allow the world to leave the unsustainable current alternatives behind and make the transition to the bottom right corner of the chart: the area marked with the green rectangle where emissions are net-zero and everyone has left energy poverty behind.

Without these technologies we are trapped in a world where we have only bad alternatives: Low-income countries that fail to meet the needs of the current generation; high-income countries that compromise the ability of future generations to meet their needs; and middle-income countries that fail on both counts.

Since we have not developed all the technologies that are required to make this transition possible large scale innovation is required for the world to make this transition. This is the case for most sectors that cause carbon emissions , in particular in the transport (shipping, aviation, road transport) and heating sectors, but also cement production and agriculture.

One sector where we have developed several alternatives to fossil fuels is electricity. Nuclear power and renewables emit far less carbon (and are much safer) than fossil fuels. Still, as the last chart shows, their share in global electricity production hasn't changed much: only increasing from 36% to 38% in the last three decades.

But it is possible to do better. Some countries have scaled up nuclear power and renewables and are doing much better than the global average. You can see this if you change the chart to show the data for France and Sweden – in France 92% of electricity comes from low carbon sources, in Sweden it is 99%. The consequence of countries doing better in this respect should be that they are closer to the sustainable energy world of the future. The scatter plot above shows that this is the case.

But for the global energy supply – especially outside the electricity sector – the world is still far away from a solution to the world's energy problem.

Every country is still very far away from providing clean, safe, and affordable energy at a massive scale and unless we make rapid progress in developing these technologies we will remain stuck in the two unsustainable alternatives of today: energy poverty or greenhouse gas emissions.

As can be seen from the chart, the ratio of emissions is 17.49t / 0.2t = 87.45. And 365 days/87.45=4.17 days

It is worth looking into the cutoffs for what it means – according to these international statistics – to have access to energy. The cutoffs are low.

See Raising Global Energy Ambitions: The 1,000 kWh Modern Energy Minimum and IEA (2020) – Defining energy access: 2020 methodology, IEA, Paris.

WHO (2014) – Frequently Asked Questions – Ambient and Household Air Pollution and Health . Update 2014

While it is certain that the death toll of indoor air pollution is high, there are widely differing estimates. At the higher end of the spectrum, the WHO estimates a death count of more than twice that. We discuss it in our entry on indoor air pollution .

The 2018 estimate for premature deaths due to poor sanitation is from the same analysis, the Global Burden of Disease study. See here .

FAO and UNEP. 2020. The State of the World’s Forests 2020. Forests, biodiversity and people. Rome. https://doi.org/10.4060/ca8642en

The same report also reports that an estimated 880 million people worldwide are collecting fuelwood or producing charcoal with it.

This is according to the IEA's World Energy Balances 2020. Here is a visualization of the data.

The second largest energy source across the three regions is oil and the third is gas.

The photo shows students study under the streetlights at Conakry airport in Guinea. It was taken by Rebecca Blackwell for the Associated Press.

It was published by the New York Times here .

The global average is 4.8 tonnes per capita . The richest 1% of individuals in the EU emit 43 tonnes per capita – according to Ivanova D, Wood R (2020). The unequal distribution of household carbon footprints in Europe and its link to sustainability. Global Sustainability 3, e18, 1–12. https://doi.org/10.1017/sus.2020.12

On Our World in Data my colleague Hannah Ritchie has looked into a related question and also found that the highest emissions are concentrated among a relatively small share of the global population: High-income countries are home to only 16% of the world population, yet they are responsible for almost half (46%) of the world’s emissions.

Article 2 of the Paris Agreement states the goal in section 1a: “Holding the increase in the global average temperature to well below 2 °C above pre-industrial levels and to pursue efforts to limit the temperature increase to 1.5 °C above pre-industrial levels, recognizing that this would significantly reduce the risks and impacts of climate change.”

It is an interesting question whether there are some subnational regions in richer countries where a larger group of people has extremely low emissions; it might possibly be the case in regions that rely on nuclear energy or renewables (likely hydro power) or where aforestation is happening rapidly.

Crespo Cuaresma, J., Danylo, O., Fritz, S. et al. Economic Development and Forest Cover: Evidence from Satellite Data. Sci Rep 7, 40678 (2017). https://doi.org/10.1038/srep40678

Bruce N, Rehfuess E, Mehta S, et al. Indoor Air Pollution. In: Jamison DT, Breman JG, Measham AR, et al., editors. Disease Control Priorities in Developing Countries. 2nd edition. Washington (DC): The International Bank for Reconstruction and Development / The World Bank; 2006. Chapter 42. Available from: https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/books/NBK11760/ Co-published by Oxford University Press, New York.

Cite this work

Our articles and data visualizations rely on work from many different people and organizations. When citing this article, please also cite the underlying data sources. This article can be cited as:

BibTeX citation

Reuse this work freely

All visualizations, data, and code produced by Our World in Data are completely open access under the Creative Commons BY license . You have the permission to use, distribute, and reproduce these in any medium, provided the source and authors are credited.

The data produced by third parties and made available by Our World in Data is subject to the license terms from the original third-party authors. We will always indicate the original source of the data in our documentation, so you should always check the license of any such third-party data before use and redistribution.

All of our charts can be embedded in any site.

Our World in Data is free and accessible for everyone.

Help us do this work by making a donation.

2019 Top Right Navigation Blocks (BRANDING)

• GET INVOLVED
• Our Leadership
• Our Associates
• Affordability & Equity
• Energy Security
• Jobs & Workforce Development
• Public Health
• Reliability & Resilience
• Annual Report
• Policy Actions
• Transportation
• What Is Active Efficiency?
• Active Efficiency Focus Areas
• Active Efficiency in Action
• Join the Active Efficiency Collaborative
• Energy 2040 Commission
• Commission Members
• Executive Summary
• Full Report

You are here

The 10 biggest energy wasting habits at home, let's save energy, alliance to save energy's blog.

• COVID-19 Response
• Active Efficiency
• State & Local
• Reliability & Resilience
• Affordability & Equity
• Jobs & Workforce Development
• Infrastructure
• Built Environment
• Appropriations
• Policy Action

This guest blog was written by Jonathan Deesing.

Without paying much attention, we use a lot of energy each day — from charging electronics to watching TV. In fact, in 2014, the average U.S. residential household consumed 10,982 kWh of electricity and spent around $2,200 annually on utility bills. Luckily, households can lower this amount up to 25 percent by being more proactive with energy conservation tips.

The following are 10 of the biggest energy-wasting oversights people make at home and how to adjust to more eco-friendly practices .

1. Leaving the Lights On

One of the most obvious energy-wasting habits is leaving the lights on, and it’s also one of the easiest habits to fix. By simply turning off the lights when you leave a room or your home, you will save electricity and help your lightbulbs last longer. If you think you might forget, use a smart home system to remotely monitor your lighting from your smartphone.

2. Using Incandescent Bulbs

Incandescent lights consume an exorbitant amount of energy. A quick way to reduce energy use is to switch to energy-efficient bulbs. ENERGY STAR certified bulbs — such as halogen incandescents, compact fluorescent lamps (CFLs) and light-emitting diodes (LEDs) — use 25–80 percent less energy than traditional incandescent bulbs and last up to 25 times longer.

3. Leaving Electronics Plugged In

Appliances and electronics use energy even when they’re turned off. One tip to help save on utility bills is to unplug all electronics — including TVs, computers, and phone chargers — when they aren’t in use. Connecting multiple electronics to a power strip makes it easier to switch off unused devices all at once.

4. Powering an Empty Chest Freezer

Having an extra freezer in the garage is great for storing food, but does more harm than good when it is empty. A running chest freezer consumes around 103 kWh and costs an average of $14 per month. When your chest freezer is empty, unplug it to save energy and money.

5. Browsing Your Refrigerator

Those few seconds staring into the refrigerator add up. Every year, people spend around 10 hours looking at an open fridge or freezer , accounting for 7 percent of the appliance’s total energy use . Another helpful tip is to open the fridge and freezer only when necessary and save your browsing for the pantry.

6. Running the Dishwasher Half-Full

The average dishwasher requires around 1,800 watts of electricity to run — running it daily would cost $66 per year. You can cut down on energy use by running the dishwasher only when full. You can also save around 15 percent of the dishwasher’s total energy use by switching its setting from heat dry to air dry.

7. Washing Clothes in Hot Water

Almost 90 percent of a washing machine’s energy is spent heating water. You can cut energy use in half by switching from hot to warm water, and reduce it even further by using cold water. Unless you are trying to remove oil or grease, cold water sufficiently cleans clothing, towels and sheets.

8. Setting the Thermostat Too High

In many households, water heater temperatures are set too high. Even though many water heaters are set at 140 degrees by default, the Department of Energy recommends 120 degrees for energy efficiency. Cut your energy bill by 3–5 percent for every 10 degrees you lower the thermostat.

9. Not Programming Your Thermostat

Heating and cooling consume nearly half of a home’s energy. A programmable thermostat helps cut down on unnecessary heating or cooling when you aren’t home. Smart thermostats are even more energy efficient — they are remote controlled, can “learn” your preferred temperature, and default to energy-saving mode when no one is home.

10. Forgetting to Change Air Filters

Any home with an HVAC unit has air filters that need to be regularly cleaned for the HVAC to function effectively. As your HVAC runs, the air filter traps air particles. Once the air filter clogs, the HVAC expends more energy pulling in air. To reduce an HVAC system’s energy use, replace its air filters every three months. For the more forgetful among us, a simple phone notification can keep you up to date and breathing cleaner air.

Electricity is essential for living comfortably, but there are simple ways you can reduce your energy use, save money, and improve your home’s sustainability without hindering your daily life. Try an idea or two from the above list– or even better, all of them – and see the savings pile up. 

STAY EMPOWERED

Help the Alliance advocate for policies to use energy more efficiently – supporting job creation, reduced emissions, and lower costs. Contact your member of Congress.

Energy efficiency is smart, nonpartisan, and practical. So are we. Our strength comes from an unparalleled group of Alliance Associates working collaboratively under the Alliance umbrella to pave the way for energy efficiency gains.

The power of efficiency is in your hands. Supporting the Alliance means supporting a vision for using energy more productively to achieve economic growth, a cleaner environment, and greater energy security, affordability, and reliability.

• Subscribe to BBC Science Focus Magazine
• Previous Issues
• Future tech
• Everyday science
• Planet Earth
• Newsletters

© Getty Images

How much pollution is caused by waste from energy companies?

Carbon emissions from energy production contribute significantly to global warming.

Gareth Mitchell

Asked by: Elena Lytrides, Cardiff

The best source of data on CO2 emissions I've found is CARMA - Carbon Monitoring for Action (www.carma.org). It lists emissions from 50,000 power plants worldwide. It's a significant body of data given that power generation accounts for about a quarter of global carbon dioxide emissions at 10 billion tonnes per year.

Over a quarter of that comes from the 8000 power plants in the United States, making its energy sector the biggest carbon emitter in the world. China is second in the table, accounting for roughly another quarter of the global total. The UK is ninth, emitting 0.2 billion tonnes.

At absolute best, coal and nuclear power stations run at 50 per cent efficiency, so even a conservative estimate suggests that wastage from energy plants contributes to five billion tonnes of CO2 annually.

Subscribe to BBC Focus magazine for fascinating new Q&As every month and follow @sciencefocusQA on Twitter for your daily dose of fun science facts.

Share this article

• Terms & Conditions
• Privacy policy
• Cookies policy
• Code of conduct
• Magazine subscriptions
• Manage preferences

45,000+ students realised their study abroad dream with us. Take the first step today

Here’s your new year gift, one app for all your, study abroad needs, start your journey, track your progress, grow with the community and so much more.

Verification Code

An OTP has been sent to your registered mobile no. Please verify

Thanks for your comment !

Our team will review it before it's shown to our readers.

Save Electricity Essay: Format & Samples

• Updated on  
• Dec 9, 2020

Energy conservation has become a need of the hour in today’s world! Electricity being an important source of energy is also wasted the most by humans! Wondering how saving electricity helps the environment? When you consume less electricity, you are reducing the toxic fumes released by power plants. And it also saves your money simultaneously! As learning methods of conserving energy is an essential part of life today, education institutes have come forward to spread awareness at an early stage, either by hosting a slogan or poster competition or by asking students to write save electricity essay! In this blog, we will be explaining how to write a spectacular save electricity essay!

This Blog Includes:

Why do we need to save electricity, essay format and examples, sample essay 1 (300-350 words), sample essay 2 on save electricity (250-300 words), sample essay 3 (500 words).

For both saving money and saving energy, preserving electricity is critical. This is why we should save electricity –

• Saving electricity will help you save money
• There will be a decrease in pollution and carbon emissions
• It will also lead to a decrease in the use of fossil fuels

Students need to become familiar with the style of essay writing before drafting an essay on Save Electricity, in order to know how to structure the essay on a given subject. Take a look at the following pointers that focus on the 300-350 word essay format: 

We assume, therefore, that this blog has helped you understand the main features of the Save Electricity essay. If you are interested in environmental studies and planning to pursue courses in the area, use the AI-based tool of Leverage Edu to search through a wide range of programmes available worldwide in this specific field and find the best combination of courses and universities that matches your interests, priorities and ambitions.

Team Leverage Edu

Leave a Reply Cancel reply

Save my name, email, and website in this browser for the next time I comment.

Contact no. *

Leaving already?

8 Universities with higher ROI than IITs and IIMs

Grab this one-time opportunity to download this ebook

Connect With Us

45,000+ students realised their study abroad dream with us. take the first step today..

Resend OTP in

Need help with?

Study abroad.

UK, Canada, US & More

IELTS, GRE, GMAT & More

Scholarship, Loans & Forex

Country Preference

New Zealand

Which English test are you planning to take?

Which academic test are you planning to take.

Not Sure yet

When are you planning to take the exam?

Already booked my exam slot

Within 2 Months

Want to learn about the test

Which Degree do you wish to pursue?

When do you want to start studying abroad.

September 2024

January 2025

What is your budget to study abroad?

How would you describe this article ?

Please rate this article

We would like to hear more.

Save Electricity Essay for Students and Children

500+ words essay on save electricity.

Electricity is an essential resource for a thriving life. It runs our daily life. Life without electricity would be impossible to imagine now. We generate electricity using coal or natural gas. However, people do not realize the natural resources to do as are limited and non-renewable. We must conserve electricity so that we can conserve these resources.

In other words, electricity serves mankind greatly. We must stop the wastage of power. The world will lose its light if there is no electricity. Moreover, careless behavior by humans must be checked. We need to realize the importance of electricity to save ourselves from the darkness.

Need for Electricity

Electricity is needed in almost every sphere of life now. We need it to lead a comfortable life full of all amenities and services. The world will become dormant without electricity. For instance, all our health and education facilities are conditioned by electricity. If there is no electricity, the surgeon won’t be able to perform his surgery. Moreover, students won’t be able to gain practical knowledge.

Likewise, motor mechanics in the garages and engineers in the factory depend on electricity. Furthermore, the passengers at the railway station and the airport can travel safely due to electricity only.

In addition, various means of transportation depend on electricity only. Trams and metros carry thousands of people every day. All this is made possible due to electricity only. Electricity boosts our modern life and helps in making it civilized.

Get the huge list of more than 500 Essay Topics and Ideas

How to Save Electricity

Firstly, all of us must understand that even a small step will go a very long way in saving electricity. For instance, if every person at each home switches on the fan when not in use, thousands of watts of electricity can be saved.

Similarly, if we use our air conditioners, heaters, ovens, refrigerators and more properly, we can successfully save large amounts of electricity.

Furthermore, try making use of natural light more. Do not keep the lights unnecessarily in the morning and afternoons. Make do with the natural light as it is enough. We must replace all our old appliances as they consume a lot of electricity. In other words, we must strive to make our homes energy efficient.

Moreover, always remember to unplug your electrical gadgets when not in use. These devices consume at least 10% of electricity even when inactive. Thus, unplug them to save electricity.

In addition, try to cut down your TV watching time. Encourage kids to read and play outside instead. Likewise, try using laptops in place of desktops. Desktops consume more energy than a laptop. You must also switch off the fans if you using your air conditioner, thereby avoiding unnecessary wastage.

Most importantly, installing solar panels can help you excessively. They are very economical and help in saving a lot of energy. The solar panels will help in consuming lesser energy that too economically. Similarly, the industries which use megawatts of electricity must install windmills. This can help in getting cheap electricity through natural means.

{ “@context”: “https://schema.org”, “@type”: “FAQPage”, “mainEntity”: [{ “@type”: “Question”, “name”: “Why is Electricity important?”, “acceptedAnswer”: { “@type”: “Answer”, “text”: “Electricity powers all the facilities now. It helps a surgeon perform life-saving surgery. Similarly, it helps students in learning practical knowledge at school. Furthermore, people lead a comfortable life all thanks to electricity.”} }, { “@type”: “Question”, “name”: “How can we save electricity?”, “acceptedAnswer”: { “@type”: “Answer”, “text”:”One can adopt a number of ways to save electricity. Make sure to use natural light to the fullest and avoid turning on lights in the morning and afternoon. Moreover, always switch off fans and lights when not in use. Unplug your gadgets and install solar panels to get economic electricity.”} }] }

Customize your course in 30 seconds

Which class are you in.

• Travelling Essay
• Picnic Essay
• Our Country Essay
• My Parents Essay
• Essay on Favourite Personality
• Essay on Memorable Day of My Life
• Essay on Knowledge is Power
• Essay on Gurpurab
• Essay on My Favourite Season
• Essay on Types of Sports

Leave a Reply Cancel reply

Your email address will not be published. Required fields are marked *

Download the App

IELTS Writing Task 2 Sample Answer: Personal Energy Consumption (Real IELTS Test)

by Dave | Real Past Tests | 2 Comments

This is an IELTS Writing Task 2 sample answer on the topic of personal energy consumption from the real IELTS exam.

The environment comes up on the test all the time so it is very good for you to get some practice with environmental questions.

You can also check out some of my other resources here:

Patreon Exclusive Essays

Writing Task 1 Sample Answers

Writing Task 2 Sample Answers

General Training Sample Answers

Scientists have been warning for many years about environmental protection and how important it is to limit our personal energy consumption. What are the causes of the over-consumption of electricity? How can people be encouraged to use less energy?

For decades, warnings of incoming climate catastrophe have grown louder and many today are making concerted efforts to limit their carbon footprint. In my opinion, the main cause of over-consumption of electricity is the development of technology and people can be taught to limit their energy usage through strict governmental regulations.

People today use more electricity because technology has pervaded every aspect of life. Several decades ago, electricity was mainly used to power a limited number of household items including lights, televisions and washing machines. It still powers those devices but now there are phones to charge and computers that use electricity throughout the day. People tend to spend more time at home, online with their devices thus using more power. Even the large servers and generators required to power the internet add to the collective electric toll of modern technology.

The best way to cultivate good energy habits is to impose regulations. Government regulations have been a proven remedy in curbing human excess in terms of using plastic bags (bans) and smoking (taxes). This would also work when it comes to energy. One simple solution would be to tax energy use, though this step would have socioeconomic bias built into it. A better approach might be to regulate the energy efficiency of household items. This would target a high percentage of people across all classes and have an easily quantifiable, manageable outcome.

In conclusion, outsized energy consumption is down to technology and governments can regulate to minimise it moving forward. The more effort put into reducing energy use, the more dividends future generations will reap from today’s reforms.

IELTS Sample Answer Analysis

1. For decades, warnings of incoming climate catastrophe have grown louder and many today are making concerted efforts to limit their carbon footprint. 2. In my opinion, the main cause of over-consumption of electricity is the development of technology and people can be taught to limit their energy usage through strict governmental regulations.

• Paraphrase the topic of the essay for your first sentence.
• Give your opinion – clearly.

1. People today use more electricity because technology has pervaded every aspect of life. 2. Several decades ago, electricity was mainly used to power a limited number of household items including lights, televisions and washing machines. 3. It still powers those devices but now there are phones to charge and computers that use electricity throughout the day. 4. People tend to spend more time at home, online with their devices thus using more power. 5. Even the large servers and generators required to power the internet add to the collective electric toll of modern technology.

• Your topic sentence should clearly state your main idea for the whole paragraph.
• Develop your main idea with specific detail.
• Continue to develop. Don’t switch main ideas.
• The more specific, the better!
• Conclude your paragraph with more development or a result.

1. The best way to cultivate good energy habits is to impose regulations. 2. Government regulations have been a proven remedy in curbing human excess in terms of using plastic bags (bans) and smoking (taxes). 3. This would also work when it comes to energy. 4. One simple solution would be to tax energy use, though this step would have socioeconomic bias built into it. 5. A better approach might be to regulate the energy efficiency of household items. 6. This would target a high percentage of people across all classes and have an easily quantifiable, manageable outcome.

• A new main idea for the second question.
• Again, be as specific as possible developing the main idea.
• Here I compare regulations in other industries to electricity.
• I give my first solution here.
• I conclude that there is an even better, related solution.
• Conclude the paragraph again detailing why it is a good solution.

1. In conclusion, outsized energy consumption is down to technology and governments can regulate to minimise it moving forward. 2. The more effort put into reducing energy use, the more dividends future generations will reap from today’s reforms.

• Repeat your opinion.
• Add a final thought/extra detail at the end.

IELTS Vocabulary

For decades, warnings of incoming climate catastrophe have grown louder and many today are making concerted efforts to limit their carbon footprint . In my opinion, the main cause of over-consumption of electricity is the development of technology and people can be taught to limit their energy usage through strict governmental regulations .

People today use more electricity because technology has pervaded every aspect of life . Several decades ago, electricity was mainly used to power a limited number of household items including lights, televisions and washing machines. It still powers those devices but now there are phones to charge and computers that use electricity throughout the day. People tend to spend more time at home, online with their devices thus using more power. Even the large servers and generators required to power the internet add to the collective electric toll of modern technology.

The best way to cultivate good energy habits is to impose regulations . Government regulations have been a proven remedy in curbing human excess in terms of plastic bags ( bans ) and smoking (taxes). This would also work when it comes to energy. One simple solution would be to tax energy use, though this step would have socioeconomic bias built into it . A better approach might be to regulate the energy efficiency of household items. This would target a high percentage of people across all classes and have an easily quantifiable , manageable outcome .

In conclusion, outsized energy consumption is down to technology and governments can regulate to minimise it moving forward. The more effort put into reducing energy use, the more dividends future generations will reap from today’s reforms .

warnings predictions

incoming climate catastrophe weather problems in the future

grown louder become more pressing

concerted efforts focused attempts

limit control

carbon footprint the amount of pollution your produce

over-consumption too much use

strict governmental regulations governments making laws to limit

pervaded throughout

aspect of life part of like

limited number not a lot

devices appliances

thus consequently

large servers computers that support the internet

generators produces electricity

collective electric toll altogether how much electricity it takes up

cultivate good energy habits make people more energy conscious

impose regulations make laws

proven remedy clear solution

curbing human excess limiting use

bans not allow/get rid of

socioeconomic bias favours rich people

built into it part of it

energy efficiency uses little electricity

target focus on

across all classes rich and poor

easily quantifiable can be counted

manageable outcome possible to control

outsized energy consumption using too much energy

minimise make less

effort put into endeavored to

dividends surplus

reforms changes

Pronunciation

ˈwɔːnɪŋz   ˈɪnˌkʌmɪŋ ˈklaɪmɪt kəˈtæstrəfi   grəʊn ˈlaʊdə   kənˈsɜːtɪd ˈɛfəts   ˈlɪmɪt   ˈkɑːbən ˈfʊtprɪnt ˈəʊvə-kənˈsʌm(p)ʃən   strɪkt ˌgʌvənˈmɛntl ˌrɛgjʊˈleɪʃənz pɜːˈveɪdɪd   ˈæspɛkt ɒv laɪf ˈlɪmɪtɪd ˈnʌmbə   dɪˈvaɪsɪz   ðʌs   lɑːʤ ˈsɜːvəz   ˈʤɛnəreɪtəz   kɒˈlɛktɪv ɪˈlɛktrɪk təʊl   ˈkʌltɪveɪt gʊd ˈɛnəʤi ˈhæbɪts   ɪmˈpəʊz ˌrɛgjʊˈleɪʃənz ˈpruːvən ˈrɛmɪdi   ˈkɜːbɪŋ ˈhjuːmən ɪkˈsɛs   bænz ˌsəʊsɪəʊˌɛkəˈnɒmɪk ˈbaɪəs   bɪlt ˈɪntuː ɪt ˈɛnəʤi ɪˈfɪʃənsi   ˈtɑːgɪt   əˈkrɒs ɔːl ˈklɑːsɪz ˈiːzɪli ˈkwɒntɪfaɪəbl ˈmænɪʤəbl ˈaʊtkʌm ˈaʊtsaɪzd ˈɛnəʤi kənˈsʌm(p)ʃən ˈmɪnɪmaɪz   ˈɛfət pʊt ˈɪntuː   ˈdɪvɪdɛndz   riːp   ˌriːˈfɔːmz

Vocabulary Practice

Remember and fill in the gaps:

For decades, _______________ of _______________ have _______________ and many today are making _______________ to _______________ their _______________ . In my opinion, the main cause of _______________ of electricity is the development of technology and people can be taught to limit their energy usage through _______________ .

People today use more electricity because technology has _______________ every _______________ . Several decades ago, electricity was mainly used to power a _______________ of household items including lights, televisions and washing machines. It still powers those _______________ but now there are phones to charge and computers that use electricity throughout the day. People tend to spend more time at home, online with their devices _______________ using more power. Even the _______________ and _______________ required to power the internet add to the _______________ of modern technology.

The best way to _______________ is to _______________ . Government regulations have been a _______________ in _______________ in terms of plastic bags ( _______________ ) and smoking (taxes). This would also work when it comes to energy. One simple solution would be to tax energy use, though this step would have _______________ _______________ . A better approach might be to regulate the _______________ of household items. This would _______________ a high percentage of people _______________ and have an _______________ , _______________ .

In conclusion, _______________ is down to technology and governments can regulate to _______________ it moving forward. The more _______________ reducing energy use, the more _______________ future generations will _______________ from today’s _______________ .

Listening Practice

Watch the video to review the sample answer above:

Student Sample Corrections

Environmentalists have been voicing their concern for some time now [G1]   . They have pointed out pointing out that individuals should curb their use of energy, which has been rising at an alarming rate. While the main causes of this problem lie [G2]  in our over-reliance on technology, offering energy-efficient goods at a more affordable price can be is a simple [G3]  solution. 

The technology has invaded [G4]  not just our workplaces, but also our homes. [G5]  Nearly all the office jobs have relied heavily relied on computers for decades, but now people use technology at home too for various purposes ranging from domestic chores to entertainment. A typical household in a developing economy, for example, owns at least half a dozen of appliances that run on electricity, not to mention our personal computers, tablets and smartphones. [G6]  The figures are even more staggering in Europe and North America. As a result, energy consumption per head on a global scale has risen substantially, placing a serious strain on the environment. Moreover, electricity has become far more affordable, mainly due to improvements in living standards, thus making people less energy-consci ous ence .  [G7]  

Encouraging people to limit their use of technology is highly likely to prove futile. This leaves us with just a few viable solutions, one of which is making energy-efficient goods more affordable. At present, our markets are filled with goods that are cheap but use more substantial amounts of energy. Obviously, the average person is typically more concerned about price than the environmental benefits of any product he they want s to buy. If we could offer environmentally-friendly alternatives at a cheaper price, people would instantly switch, thus effectively reducing their daily energy consumption. For instance, more than half of the homes in my country have yet to switch to energy-saving light bulbs just for economic reasons. Another simpler, yet more attainable, solution is to show how much energy one person can save by making small changes such as not leaving their phones on charg ing e all night long or turning the lights off when nobody is in the room.  [G8]  

In conclusion, it is easy to blame technology for environmental problems. Although it has indeed resulted in energy being used at unprecedented levels, we can make positive changes by lowering the prices for energy-efficient products and informing the public about how they can save energy by making small adjustments to their daily habits.  [G9]  

  [G1] About what? This sentence is technically not a fragment but in reality we always say what they have been voicing it about.

  [G2] Good vocab!

  [G3] Could be more specific with your vocabulary

  [G4] Too strong

  [G5] Good topic sentence

  [G6] Could be much more specific about the appliances!

Recommended For You

Recent IELTS Writing Topics and Questions 2024

by Dave | Sample Answers | 342 Comments

Read here all the newest IELTS questions and topics from 2024 and previous years with sample answers/essays. Be sure to check out my ...

Latest IELTS Writing Task 1 2024 (Graphs, Charts, Maps, Processes)

by Dave | Sample Answers | 147 Comments

These are the most recent/latest IELTS Writing Task 1 Task topics and questions starting in 2019, 2020, 2021, 2022, 2023, and continuing into 2024. ...

Find my Newest IELTS Post Here – Updated Daily!

by Dave | IELTS FAQ | 18 Comments

IELTS Writing Task 2 Sample Answer: Crime and the Police (Real IELTS Exam)

by Dave | Real Past Tests | 0 Comment

This is an IELTS Writing Task 2 Sample Answer from the real IELTS exam about the topic of crime, which comes up frequently on the test. ...

Recent IELTS Speaking Topics and Questions 2024

by Dave | Model Answers | 74 Comments

These are IELTS speaking topics and questions in 2024 - if you want the current reported ones on IELTS, you can find them here. ...

Submit a Comment Cancel reply

You must be logged in to post a comment.

It is indeed true that human beings have constantly been warned by scientists regarding the degradation of Mother Nature and importance to preserve her. There are several reasons why electricity is being over-consumed; however, given the worst situations of the environment, the government should motivate people to use it less. People overuse electricity due to numerous reasons. Firstly, owing to fast paced life, people want everything right away. For example, people these days use big machines to produce a lot of products at one time, use microwaves to quickly heat up the food and air conditioners to instantly cool down the room. Although people know how much devastation these appliances cause to nature, they use them to save time and for the sake of comfort. Another major cause is the unlimited access of electricity to every house. In that case, people use electricity according to their affordability and budget instead of their need. It is generally seen that, the richer the person, the bigger the electricity bill. Nevertheless, the governing bodies ought to take some steps to check this alarming issue. First and foremost, the government should make people aware by involving environmentalists and renowned personalities and companies to ensure the impactful spread of the word. For instance, as people take the messages of their favorite celebrities seriously, they will implement their advice to their day to day life. Moreover, the government should fix the upper limit for electricity consumption. In this way, people would start considering electricity a vital asset and use it according to their requirement. In conclusion, I restate that environment has been deteriorating at an alarming rate because of availability of excess of electricity and people’s fast paced life. However, the government had better address this issue by taking certain steps.

Just emailed you some feedback – thanks for signing up for my Patreon !

Exclusive Ebooks, PDFs and more from me!

Sign up for patreon.

Don't miss out!

"The highest quality materials anywhere on the internet! Dave improved my writing and vocabulary so much. Really affordable options you don't want to miss out on!"

Minh, Vietnam

Hi, I’m Dave! Welcome to my IELTS exclusive resources! Before you commit I want to explain very clearly why there’s no one better to help you learn about IELTS and improve your English at the same time... Read more

Patreon Exclusive Ebooks Available Now!

Asking Eric: I’m dying and I don’t want to waste time or energy on my gaslighting brother

• Published: Aug. 10, 2024, 7:00 a.m.

R. Eric Thomas writes “Asking Eric,” a daily advice column from the bestselling author. NJ Advance Media

• R. Eric Thomas

DEAR ERIC: I am 75; my brother is three years older. I’m dying of Stage 4 renal cancer that has metastasized. Before that, I tried many ways and many times to explain why I didn’t like spending time with him.

I don’t like the person he is. I didn’t like his parenting that was demeaning to his adopted son, nor that he said my stepchildren weren’t “real” because they weren’t adopted.

He has gaslighted and demeaned me our whole lives.

When I had open heart surgery, my then-wife asked me to tell him not to come in so she could have quiet time to contemplate; he showed up and kept talking to her for four hours.

In each instance, he turned the conversation to how hurt he was by my reasons. Instead of recognizing my concerns he demanded apologies.

As I’m circling the drain, I really don’t want to waste energy with him.

He wants to keep getting together and, when we do, he calls my ex to complain that I seem distant. Really, I’m dying and don’t want to be there.

– Distant Brother

DEAR BROTHER: No matter how much time any of us has, life is too short to waste on people who don’t respect our boundaries.

You’ve been clear with your brother, and he continues to ignore your boundaries and those of the people around you. You don’t owe him anything.

And you don’t have to get together with him anymore. That part is over.

Tell your ex-wife to stop taking his calls. If you have a close relationship with her, she may even take on some of the burden of shielding you from your brother’s invitations. Lean on your support network here.

If you want to mark a formal end to the relationship with your brother, write a letter. But this is likely to invite more conversation and I’m doubtful more conversation will get you anywhere.

Better to spend your time doing things that bring you peace and joy – away from him.

DEAR ERIC: I’m a Foreign Service Officer serving in an American Citizens Services unit of the consular section of an embassy in South America. We get emails and calls from people who are in various stages of being victimized by romance scams and other scams all the time.

If Concerned Cousin (July 9) wants, they could reach out to the ACS unit of the U.S. Embassy or consulate in the country where the supposed woman is living and see if they can identify additional resources or even verify whether the documents she’s sent to the writer’s cousin are legitimate.

We’ve seen plenty of altered passport pages or a claim that someone “has been in touch with the Embassy” when they very much have not.

– Seen It All

DEAR SEEN IT ALL: This is a wonderful resource. Thank you!

(Send questions to R. Eric Thomas at [email protected] or P.O. Box 22474, Philadelphia, PA 19110. Follow him on Instagram and sign up for his weekly newsletter at rericthomas.com .)

©2024 Tribune Content Agency, LLC.

Latest Advice Columns

• Today’s daily horoscope for Aug. 11, 2024
• Miss Manners: The sign says ‘no food or drink’ yet customers enter the store with pizza and coffee
• Dear Annie: A close friend has new friends and I feel left out
• Dear Abby: I’m happy to buy lunch for a friend, but I draw the line at paying for her husband’s take-out
• Miss Manners: Would I be a cad to ask my sister not to bring her kids to a gathering of siblings?

If you purchase a product or register for an account through a link on our site, we may receive compensation. By using this site, you consent to our User Agreement and agree that your clicks, interactions, and personal information may be collected, recorded, and/or stored by us and social media and other third-party partners in accordance with our Privacy Policy.

• Biodiversity
• Cities & society
• Land & water
• All research news
• All research topics
• Learning experiences
• Programs & partnerships
• All school news
• All school news topics
• In the media
• For journalists

New climate and sustainability research efforts will focus on eight ‘Solution Areas’

The Stanford Doerr School of Sustainability will establish new research initiatives under topics including climate, water, energy, food, nature, and cities.

The Stanford Doerr School of Sustainability has selected eight interconnected Solution Areas to focus its research efforts over the next decade. This new research plan amplifies the school’s ability to translate Stanford research into large-scale solutions and inform key decision makers in policy and business.

Selected based on extensive faculty input and assessment of where Stanford can make the most meaningful impact, the eight areas are: climate; water; energy; food; risk, resilience, and adaptation; nature; cities; and platforms and tools for monitoring and decision making. 

“Solution Areas identify and leverage the critical junctions between the most pressing global sustainability challenges and the areas where Stanford has the talent and expertise to find solutions,” said Dean Arun Majumdar. “This collaborative all-campus approach expands and strengthens our commitment to using all the power we have – the knowledge, the education, the talent, the innovation, the resources, the influence – to build a thriving planet for future generations.” 

‘Integrative Projects’ and ‘Flagship Destinations’

In each Solution Area, the school plans to build two types of research initiatives. One type, called Integrative Projects, will be managed by the school’s institutes, including the Stanford Woods Institute for the Environment , the Precourt Institute for Energy , and a planned Sustainable Societies Institute. 

Integrative Projects will be organized around decade-long research themes and dedicated to creating solutions through interdisciplinary collaboration, engagement with partners beyond Stanford, identifying significant knowledge gaps, and understanding systems.

According to Chris Field , the Perry L. McCarty Director of the Stanford Woods Institute for the Environment and a professor in the Stanford Doerr School of Sustainability and the School of Humanities and Sciences , the new commitment to these areas “will provide both resources and coordination that expand Stanford faculty’s capacity to deliver sustainability solutions at scale.” 

A second type of research initiative, called Flagship Destinations, is managed by Stanford’s Sustainability Accelerator . Flagship Destinations are targets for the pace and scale of work to address challenges facing Earth, climate, and society. For example, the school’s first Flagship Destination, announced in 2023 , calls for enabling the removal of billions of tons of planet-warming gases annually from Earth’s atmosphere by the middle of this century. By working backward from sustainability targets in consultation with faculty and external experts, this initiative seeks to rapidly translate Stanford research into policy and technology solutions. Additional Flagship Destinations will be announced later this week.

Whereas Integrative Projects are designed to produce knowledge and evidence that can eventually lead to solutions, Flagship Destination projects are intended to help verify and demonstrate that well-studied solutions can succeed at large scale so they can be launched out of Stanford and implemented for the benefit of humanity and our planet. Scalable solutions nurtured and launched through these projects could take the form of policy frameworks, open-source platforms, nonprofit organizations, new for-profit companies, and ongoing collaborations all committed to addressing pressing sustainability challenges.

“By working together in these Solution Areas across disciplines and with collaborators beyond the university, we maximize our ability to have positive impacts on the timeframe and scale needed for the planet and humanity,” said Scott Fendorf , senior associate dean for integrative initiatives and the Terry Huffington Professor in the Stanford Doerr School of Sustainability. 

Workshops will be held with faculty and external experts to develop research strategies for each Solution Area on a rolling basis. Strategy workshops, opportunities to provide input on future Integrative Projects, and requests for proposals (open to all Stanford faculty) will be announced in the coming months.

Related message from leadership: Read a letter to faculty about the new Solution Areas from Dean Majumdar with Precourt Institute for Energy director William Chueh; Stanford Woods Institute for the Environment director Chris Field; Accelerator faculty director Yi Cui and executive director Charlotte Pera; and Integrative Initiatives associate dean Jenna Davis and senior associate dean Scott Fendorf.

Media Contacts

Josie garthwaite, explore more.

Stanford’s Sustainability Accelerator adds new targets

The Sustainability Accelerator in the Stanford Doerr School of Sustainability will support work in new areas including energy, climate adaptation, industry, and more.

• School planning

Solution Areas and research funding

A message from school leadership announcing solutions-oriented and scale-focused research funding opportunities to address pressing sustainability challenges.

Forecasting climate’s impact on a debilitating disease

In Brazil, climate and other human-made environmental changes threaten efforts to fight schistosomiasis, a widespread and debilitating parasitic disease. Stanford and Brazilian researchers have now developed models that can predict how disease risk will shift in response to environmental changes.

• Health and wellbeing

ZERO WASTE INDONESIA: PELUANG, TANTANGAN DAN OPTIMALISASI WASTE TO ENERGY

Sampah di Indonesia masih dianggap sebagai bahan sisa yang tidak diinginkan keberadaannya dan bukan sebagai sumber daya yang dapat dimanfaatkan. Hal tersebut dapat terlihat dari semakin banyaknya sampah yang menumpuk di tempat pembuangan akhir (TPA).

Paradigma pengelolaan sampah selama ini yang bertumpu pada pendekatan akhir (end of pipe) sudah saatnya diganti dengan melihat sampah sebagai sumber daya yang dapat dimanfaatkan dengan teknologi pengolahan sampah (waste to energy). Di Indonesia waste to energy sudah menjadi konsen utama dalam beberapa tahun terakhir. Penelitian ini menyajikan tinjauan sistematis untuk mengidentifikasi peluang, tantangan dan optimalisasi waste to energy di Indonesia.

Melalui analisis data sekuder yang dikumpulkan dapat simpulkan bahwa kedepan masih ada beberapa tantangan yang harus dihadapi, menyangkut kualitas & kuantitas sampah dan penolakan masyarakat mengenai waste to energy. Dengan potensi yang besar, dukungan pemerintah serta semakin berkembangnya teknologi membuat harapan untuk mewujudkan Indonesia bebas sampah akan terus ada. Dukungan yang dibarengi dengan pembangunan kapasitas dari pemerintah daerah dan perhatian terhadap dimensi sosial masyarakat akan membawa Indonesia menjadi pasar yang berkembang untuk waste to energy.

Source: https://www.researchgate.net/publication/352018239_ZERO_WASTE_INDONESIA_PELUANG_TANTANGAN_DAN_OPTIMALISASI_WASTE_TO_ENERGY

Konten Terkait

Merengkuh Kota Ramah Pejalan Kaki dan Pesepeda: Pembelajaran Mancanegara dan Agenda Ke Depan

Bekerja dari Rumah (Working From Home/WFH): Menuju Tatanan Baru Era Pandemi COVID 19

Unlocking the Potential of Cities: Financing Sustainable Urban Development

Pembelajaran Uji Coba Kota Spons Mancanegara. Catatan Kecil bagi Pengembangan Agenda IKN Ke Depan

AIKEN, S.C. — A successful U.S. Department of Energy Office of Environmental Management (EM) collaboration is advancing progress toward processing non-aluminum spent nuclear fuel (NASNF) at the Savannah River Site (SRS).

Environmental Management Operations personnel at SRS have partnered with Savannah River National Laboratory (SRNL) as part of the Accelerated Basin De-inventory (ABD) mission.

Spent nuclear fuel stored in the site’s underwater storage basin, called L Basin , is either covered, or clad, in aluminum or a combination of zirconium and stainless steel, commonly referred to as NASNF.

To process all remaining spent nuclear fuel in L Basin, which is the goal of the ABD mission , the collaborative team has created the first set of NASNF dissolution flowsheets, which serve as recipes for processing the atypical fuel elements. The flowsheets specify things such as chemical amounts, temperatures and how the material flows through the process.

“Having this first set of plans for processing a portion of the NASNF is a huge accomplishment, taking several years of technology development at SRNL,” said James Therrell, Nuclear Materials Program manager for EM contractor Savannah River Nuclear Solutions.

A view of a non-aluminum spent nuclear fuel element.

Therrell noted that almost 400 NASNF bundles safely stored in L Basin need to be processed for permanent disposal in the coming years.

“With SRNL’s help, SRNS was able to select the first group of NASNF that can be safely processed in the H Canyon chemical separations facility at SRS,” he said. “This material will eventually be stabilized in a glass form by the site’s liquid waste contractor. We also have set up the rest of the program for success by establishing plans for ongoing technology development to deal with the remaining NASNF.”

The makeup of the roughly 400 NASNF bundles varies in content, size and composition, making some of the fuel more challenging to dissolve. Each different type of fuel requires specific flowsheets due to safety requirements.

The site will use an electrolytic dissolver to process the first set of NASNF. While the aluminum-clad spent nuclear fuel can be chemically dissolved, a relatively easy process involving heating nitric acid to dissolve the aluminum, the zirconium- and stainless-steel-clad fuel is more challenging and must be electrolytically dissolved, adding electricity to the nitric acid dissolution process.

SRNL performed experiments to overcome challenges for that work, and SRNS developed strategies to prepare the fuel for use in the dissolver.

“SRNL has spent years evaluating and tackling the challenges of processing NASNF,” said Tam Truong, SRNL researcher. “We have conducted electrolytic dissolution experiments and leveraged processing knowledge and experience to develop the dissolution parameters for the first group of NASNF.”

The mock-up Dissolver Solids Removal System at Savannah River National Laboratory was used to demonstrate a full-scale jet cleanout system to remove undissolved material from the H Canyon electrolytic dissolver, one of the challenges faced for non-aluminum spent nuclear fuel processing.

Truong continued, “As the process can generate insoluble or undissolved material, we have demonstrated a full-scale jet cleanout system to remove the undissolved material, allowing further dissolution to continue. The ongoing complementary collaboration between SRNL and SRNS strengthens our processing capabilities.”

Therrell concurred, saying, “SRNL developed an impressive residue cleanout prototype that has provided the essential data to allow the processing facilities to finalize equipment designs.”

An electrolytic dissolver at H Canyon can support NASNF missions in addition to H Canyon’s standard chemical dissolution capability.

The origin of most NASNF is from historic test reactors, including one from SRS.

“One of the intriguing aspects of this program is the historical significance of what these unique fuels provided to our country with regards to reactor designs and understanding,” Therrell said. “It feels good to be a part of a team that can help close the loop on these efforts.”

The ABD mission at SRS provides a path for spent nuclear fuel stored in L Basin to be chemically or electrolytically dissolved in H Canyon, and then disposed of through the SRS liquid waste system.

“The collaboration between SRNS and SRNL to make significant progress on a challenging effort is another example of SRS using it’s unique resources to help make the world safer,” said Therrell.

-Contributor: Lindsey MonBarren

To receive the latest news and updates about the Office of Environmental Management, submit your e-mail address.