ENERGY TECHNOLOGIES AND SUSTAINABLE DEVELOPMENT

http://www.iaeme.com/IJMET/index.asp 382 editor@iaeme.com
International Journal of Mechanical Engineering and Technology (IJMET)
Volume 9, Issue 11, November 2018, pp. 382–390, Article ID: IJMET_09_11_038
Available online at http://www.iaeme.com/ijmet/issues.asp?JType=IJMET&VType=9&IType=11
ISSN Print: 0976-6340 and ISSN Online: 0976-6359
© IAEME Publication Scopus Indexed
ENERGY TECHNOLOGIES AND SUSTAINABLE
DEVELOPMENT
Vladimir A. Grachev
Professor, RAS Corresponding Member Global Ecology Center of the Faculty of Global
Process, Lomonosov Moscow State University
1 Leninskie Gory, bld. 13A (bld. B), 119991 Moscow
ABSTRACT
This article represents results of an unbiased, factual, and scientifically valid analysis
of all available data on ecological, economic, and social indicators of energy
technologies and of how they influence sustainable development indicators. It marks out
indicators characterizing the impact of energy technologies on the environment providing
specific values to all energy sources considered (coal, gas, hydro, wind, solar, and
nuclear). The article demonstrates that renewable energy sources and nuclear power are
characterized by the best ecological indicators. The article also reveals that the most
efficient energy technologies for promoting sustainable development are natural gas and
nuclear power.
Keywords: power engineering; sustainable development; ecological, economic, and
social aspects of coal-fired, gas, hydro, wind, solar, and nuclear power industry,
sustainable development goals (SDG).
Cite this Article Vladimir A. Grachev, Energy Technologies and Sustainable
Development, International Journal of Mechanical Engineering and Technology, 9(11),
2018, pp. 382–390.
http://www.iaeme.com/IJMET/issues.asp?JType=IJMET&VType=9&IType=11
1. INTRODUCTION
How efficient are modern energy technologies in terms of their impact on environment, economy,
and society? The answer to this question depends on the energy source they use and is determined
by the way they affect the environment, ecological safety of personnel working on power stations
and the general population as well as on economic and social indicators of sustainable
development.
For centuries, humans have been extracting energy from various sources to satisfy the
industry needs. The process has always been associated with various environmental issues such
as climate change, different types of pollution, and environmental safety. First deemed as minor
and only local, they have become global and quite pressing. Therefore, today we have to choose
those energy technologies that affect the environment least.
Some energy technologies are generally thought not to be causing emission of greenhouse
gases and not to contribute to global climate changes. However, in order to build a nuclear power

Vladimir A. Grachev
plant or to create a device converting solar and wind energy into electricity, it is necessary to
acquire engineering materials, manufacture equipment and/or machinery, build facilities, use
materials and transportation means for their operation, etc. All these actions unavoidably add to
greenhouse gases emissions and global climate changes.
To assess the above-mentioned influence, scholars use a generalized indicator called a carbon
footprint. The carbon footprint indicator is one of many footprint indicators used to measure such
things as the mass taken from nature per unit of energy, emission of noxious gases and dust,
discharge of harmful substances into water bodies, waste production and disposal, land alienation
and devastation, release of radioactive substance, and potential risks for personnel operating
energy stations and the general population.
Consequently, an analysis of ecological, economic, and social indicators that would allow
selecting optimal energy resources is a matter of great scientific relevance.
2. PROBLEM STATEMENT
In March 2018, the International Energy Agency (IEA) published its report providing a picture
of recent global tendencies and developments in the industry of energy production in 2017
(Global Energy & CO2 Status Report – 2017) [1, 2].
According to the report, the world consumed 2.1% more energy than in 2016 (the growth rate
had been 0.9% a year earlier), which amounted to 14 billion 50 million tonnes of oil equivalent
(against 10 billion 35 million tonnes in 2000). The center of growing energy consumption was
Asia, with China and India representing more than 40% of the increase, while energy
consumption of advanced economies contributed 20% of the growth. About 72% of the
consumption was satisfied by the use of fossil fuels; among them, global oil consumption rose by
1.5% (which is equivalent to 1.5 million barrels per day) and natural gas consumption grew by
3%. Around a quarter of the growing energy consumption was met by renewables, which is a
good sign. And finally, use of nuclear power plants accounted for 2% of the growth.
Furthermore, the report says that world electricity demand increased by 3.1%, with China and
India being responsible for 70% of this growth. Nuclear power plants output rose considerably
due to the fact that several plants saw their first full year of operation.
Scientists have long been studying how energy technologies influence sustainable
development in terms of their contribution to worldwide environmental issues. In this respect,
researchers distinguish three dimensions of the study: ecological, economic, and social [3].
Lately, the influence of energy technologies on sustainable development has been studied from
the view point of the fourth dimension—achieving sustainable development goals (SDG) [4].
Moreover, the research on the environmental efficiency of energy technologies [5, 6] has recently
been extended thanks to emergence of new indicators [7] and the carbon footprint survey [8, 9].
Many scientific papers study environmental impacts of diverse ways of energy production [10–
14].
3. SCIENTIFIC RELEVANCE
There is a general consensus that promotion of sustainable development plays an essential part
in all sectors of the world economy, especially in the energy industry. Therefore, a thorough study
of ecological, economic, and social indicators represents a top scientific priority.
4. RESEARCH OBJECTIVE
The primary objective of this article is to carry out an unbiased, factual, and scientifically valid
analysis of all available data on ecological, economic, and social indicators of energy
technologies. In order to achieve this goal, the article marks out essential indicators characterizing
each dimension of energy technologies’ impact on the environment. The article also provides

Energy Technologies and Sustainable Development
specific numerical values to all energy sources (coal, gas, water, wind, sun, and nuclei), so that a
fair analysis of their potential for promoting SDG can be carried out.
Furthermore, the article pursues the aim of developing methods for assessing these indicators and
compares certain indicators of various energy technologies on the basis of SDG.
5. METHODS
The scope of the comparative analysis encompassed coal-fired, gas, hydro, solar, wind, and
nuclear energy technologies. For the systematic analysis, the author of this article used data from
universally recognized sources such as IEA, the Parliamentary Office for Science and
Technology (POST), and others.
To conduct the analyses, the following indicators of ecological efficiency were chosen:
1. Specific energy release from a unit of mass (A1 indicator)
2. The amount of greenhouse gases emitted (A2)
3. The emission of harmful substances into the atmosphere (A3)
4. Discharge of hazardous substances into water bodies (A4)
5. Waste production (A5)
6. Land alienation (A6)
7. Radioactive emissions (A7)
8. The risk to people and health damage to population (A8)
9. Carbon footprint (A9).
10. Abiotic depletion of non-fossil resources (A10)
11. Abiotic depletion of fossil fuels (A11)
12. Acidification potential (A12)
13. Eutrophication potential, i.e. bogging (A13)
14. Freshwater ecotoxicity potential (A14)
15. Global warming potential (A15)
16. Human toxicity potential (A16)
17. Seawater toxicity potential (A17)
18. Ozone depletion potential (A18)
19. Potential formation of photochemical ozone (A19)
20. Terrestrial ecotoxicity potential (A20)
The indicators A1 to A9 are widespread and have been applied for analysis of ecological
efficiency [3]. In addition to them, the indicators A10 to A20 were introduced since researchers
have recently started to use them, too, when studying ecological performance of various energy
sources [7].
The following indicators of economic efficiency were selected:
1. The levelized cost of electricity as a conventional indicator represented in kWh (B1)
2. Capital costs per 1 kWh of installed capacity (B2)
3. Fuel costs per 1 kWh of energy received (B3)
And finally, indicators of social efficiency are as follows:
1. Full employment (C1) showing the number of people involved in electric power generation
(person/1 kWh)
2. Workplace injuries (C2) characterizing the number of injuries (accident/1 TW)
3. Public support index (C3) representing public support and expert evaluation (%)

Vladimir A. Grachev
4. Fuel supply diversification (C4) demonstrating the replaceability of any given source (for
example, of solar energy at night)
As you can see, the above-mentioned indicators cover all three dimensions (ecological,
economic, and social) of sustainable development and represent their most prominent features.
Based on these indicators, the analyses were performed to determine which energy source affects
the environment least and advances the achievement of SDG most.
6. RESULTS
Analysis of the indicators A1 to A8 (provided in a previous article [3]) proved that fuel power
productions is the least efficient, although the advantages of hydrocarbons are obvious. Such
energy sources as water, wind, and sunlight are secondary sources generated by a thermonuclear
reactor—the Sun. Harnessing energy from these sources requires no fuel; and the most efficient
way to transform the substance itself into energy is to do it by formula E = mc2
.
In recent years, carbon footprint counting has gained much popularity among scholars,
although it is only one of the many elements constituting the ecological footprint [8]. Nonetheless,
researchers deem carbon footprint to be the most relevant element [9]. A carbon footprint is
defined as the total emissions caused by a certain technology, transportation of goods,
manufacture of products, activity of an organization, and other human activities. The greater part
of a carbon footprint is generated by “indirect sources” such as fuel spent to manufacture goods
and to deliver them to the end user over large distances. However, this phenomenon should be
differentiated from emissions of greenhouse gases generated by burning of fuel in cars, stoves,
or power plants; these are usually named “direct” causes of a carbon footprint.
Altogether, the term “carbon footprint” is used as a conditional value to calculate what is
going to happen if climate change influences a certain thing. This thing can be virtually anything:
an activity, an item, a lifestyle, an organization, a country, or even the world as a whole.
The carbon footprint of nuclear power was carefully studied by the UK Parliamentary Office
of Science and Technology [15]. According to this study, the carbon footprint of coal was 1075
while the carbon footprint of nuclear power was 3.5 to 5 based on the data gathered in Europe
between 2004 and 2006 (Figure 1).
Figure 1 A carbon footprint in accordance with the POST evaluation (worldwide data) [16]

For the average citizen, the term “carbon footprint” is mere empty words, just like GDP. What
the average citizen cares about is how energy technologies influence their life and health.
According to the European Community data and the US Department of Energy, health of the
population is affected least when wind and nuclear energy is used (Figure 2).
Figure 2 Health effects on the European population in case of power generation with different fuel types
(years of potential life lost/TWh of produced energy)
Furthermore, the reports of the Commission of the European Community (compiled jointly
with the US Department of Energy) assess and conduct a comparative analysis of the “external
price” that different electricity production types have. The reports also compare health effects on
the entire European population (480 million people) that occur during power generation from
various energy sources. In the reports, damage to health of the population is averagely represented
as a physical value (years of potential life lost/TWh of produced energy). Results given in the
reports provide strong evidence on overwhelming advantage of nuclear fuel cycle (NFC) over
energy harnessed from hydrocarbon fuels.
Another research, prepared by J. Cooper, presents a comparison of the indicators A10 to A20
[7]. The thesis focuses mainly on shale gas and shows that values of its indicators are pretty close
to those of natural gas, except those linked to hydraulic fracturing which, as we know, inflicts a
lot of damage to the environment.
In addition, the research of J. Cooper also provides specific data on the indicators A10 to A20
for those energy sources that this paper concerns, such as coal, gas, hydro, solar, and nuclear (see
Table 1 below).

Vladimir A. Grachev
Table 1 Sustainable development indicators and their evaluation for different energy sources
Sustainable
development
factors
Indicators Coal
Natural
gas
Hydro
energy
Solar
energy
Wind
energy
Nuclear
power
Ecological
A10 0.04 0.24 0.01 10.91 0.22 0.07
A11 11.70 6.33 0.04 1.05 0.15 0.09
A12 5.13 1.71 0.06 0.43 0.06 0.06
A13 1.86 0.06 0.01 0.29 0.03 0.02
A14 287.9 2.47 1.65 63.90 14.70 21.20
A15 1078.84 420.00 3.70 88.91 12.35 7.79
A16 294.86 38.00 6.15 205.47 61.81 111.43
A17 1577.32 0.50 2.70 205.69 23.08 43.66
A18 5.59 18.90 0.23 17.40 0.74 19.00
A19 285 34.40 2.04 67.00 6.97 5.55
A20 1.75 0.15 0.19 1.12 1.81 0.74
Economic B1 13.85 8.00 14.60 6.70 9.73 7.70
B2 4.60 0.90 11.29 5.70 7.70 7.00
B3 3.60 4.90 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.50
Social C1 191.0 62.00 782.35 635.00 368.00 87.00
C2 4.50 0.54 14.59 4.84 2.30 0.59
C3 -7.00 34.00 72.00 75.00 59.00 9.00
Figure 3 below presents the total count of all environmental indicators in relative units, i.е. %
of the best possible result (the higher a column the better).
Figure 3 A comparative analysis of sustainability indicators typical of different energy sources in
conformity with three evaluation aspects (ecological, economic and social)

The analysis of the indicators A1 to A20, B1 to B3, and C1 to C4 demonstrates that nuclear
power is the leading type of power generation. However, the most important thing is how nuclear
power influences human lives, and not how high or low its indicator values are. This is true for
GDP too. People have no concern in GDP itself, but they have a great concern in how happy they
are, how high their standards of life are. The lower environmental and social indicators fall, the
higher GDP rises. An oil spillage will cause an increase of GDP, but environmental conditions
will deteriorate. Therefore, it is crucial to analyze how different energy sources influence human
lives and the achievement of SDG.
Apart from the indicators A1 to A20, environmental effects can be assessed by some verbal
indicators, i.e. “from hearsay” indicators.
This method was used in the ExternE project [16], and following the example of the project
creators, the author of this paper interviewed 49 experts, which revealed that people are satisfied
when there is no combustion plant or coal-fired power station in the neighborhood and their
poultry is not dying of constant rustle from a windmill, not when GDP indicators are high.
The survey data are presented in Table 2 below and evince that although coal-fired power
stations make people uneasy, affect fauna, and cripple landscapes, they are still better than
accidents at hydroelectric power stations or nuclear power plants, or the constant buzzing of wind
turbines. However, land alienation, materials consumption, and other indicators make gas and
nuclear power stations 4 times more attractive than all the other types of energy generation.
People believe these indicators (Table 2) to be more important than the others.
Table 2
Indicators
Indicators for different energy sources
Coal
energy
Gas
energy
Hydro
energy
Solar
energy
Wind
energy
Nuclear
power
Terrain and
landscape changes
10*
1 10 8 5 1
Fly ash RM 2.5**
10 0 0 0 0 0
Fatalities 10 1 5 0 0 1
Total impact on the
climate
10 4 4 2 5 1
Land alienation 3 1 10 10 10 1
Impacts on fauna 1 1 10 5 10 1
Videoecology 1 1 5 5 10 1
Waste-disposal
problem
5 1 1 10 3 4
Cumulative
indicators
50 10 45 40 43 10
Notes:
*10—the most negative indicator, 0 – no impact
**—fractions smaller than 2.5 microns (highly dangerous)
SDG are densely intertwined with the global climate policy, i.e. the way the climate is
addressed has a considerable impact on the prospects of many other SDG, and vice versa. Thus,
the UN General Assembly adopted the resolution “Transforming our world: the 2030 Agenda for
Sustainable Development” in 2015. Taking the existing scenarios determined by the recent
project on comparison of energy-saving and climate model, the resolution analyzes the synergy
and alternative methods of (risk) trade-offs aimed at meeting the 2°C global temperature target,

Vladimir A. Grachev
which conforms with the indicators related to energy-saving SDG and sustainable energy
challenges.
In general, SDG are as follows: to eliminate poverty, to provide a worldwide access to food,
clean water, energy, health care, and education, to achieve gender equality, to guarantee a decent
job for everyone, to build sustainable infrastructures, to reduce income inequality, to promote
urban development, rational consumption, and production, to solve the problem of climate
changes, to save oceans, to prevent deforestation, and to form structures necessary to achieve
these goals, including a global partnership that boosting sustainable development. SDG 7—to
provide access to affordable, reliable, sustainable, and modern energy for everyone—stands out
most.
SDG represent a political consensus, an opportunity for all participating Member States to
reach an agreement. As a result, the energy goal (SDG 7) aims to solve three issues that clearly
correspond with different approaches to national policies and international political controversies
regarding energy production. These three aims were constructed on the basis of three objectives
of the “Sustainable Energy for All” initiative launched by the UN Secretary-General Ban Ki-
moon in 2011.
The International Atomic Energy Agency (IAEA) highlighted nine out of seventeen SDG
directly influenced by and realized with the help of nuclear power.
Natural gas is an internationally recognized means for achieving SDG. Developed as an
energy source in the second half of the 20th
century, it took one of the leading positions in the
sector by early 21st
century; and today consumption of natural gas has left behind coal
consumption in many world regions. However, natural gas is sometimes subject to unjustified
criticism, and some experts try to declare “the beginning of the end” of the hydrocarbon era.
Therefore, natural gas should be protected from such attempts by means of scientific methods,
i.e. systematic analysis, despite the obvious absurdity of the above-mentioned claims.
7. DISCUSSION
All of the above considered, the author of this paper believes the scientific justification of the
natural gas use in the implementation of SDG to be an urgent scientific task that needs to be
studied in more detail. Moreover, its usefulness should be justified not only for all seventeen
SDG but also for sustainable development indicators that characterize acceptability, fairness, and
admissibility of SDG for modern civilization.
8. CONCLUSION
The analysis of the influence energy technologies exercise on human lives and the environment
revealed that natural gas and nuclear power have the best environmental, economic, and social
indicators, which makes them the most effective energy means for the achievement of SDG.

REFERENCES
[1] Global energy and CO2 status report, 2017, p. 15. URL:
http://www.iea.org/publications/freepublications/publication/GECO2017.pdf
[2] A. Mogilenko, Energetic results of 2017: in pursuit of the IEA report. Power and Industry of
Russia, 2018, 9 (341). URL: https://www.eprussia.ru/epr/341/6357077.htm
[3] V.A. Grachev, O.V. Plyamina, Ecologically effective solution of global problems with
different ways of energy generation. Power and Industry of Russia, 2016 (6), volume 20, 9,
pp. 34–39.
[4] O.E. Aksyutin, A.G. Ishkov, K.V. Romanov, V.A. Grachev, The role of natural gas in
achieving sustainable development goals. Gas Industry Magazine, 2018, 7 (771), pp. 20–32.
[5] V.A. Grachev, Global Environmental Problems, Environmental Safety and Environmental
Efficiency of the Power Industry/ Research Journal of Pharmaceutical, Biological and
Chemical Sciences (ISSN09758585). 11-12/2016, 7(6), pp. 329–339.
[6] Grachev V.A., O.V. Plyamina, Ecological features of different ways of energy generation.
Atomic energy, 2017, volume 123, 3, pp. 160–164.
[7] J. Cooper, Life Cycle Sustainability Assessment of Shale Gas in the UK. A thesis submitted
to The University of Manchester for the degree of Doctor of Philosophy in the Faculty of
Science and Engineering. The University of Manchester, 2017. URL:
https://www.research.manchester.ac.uk/portal/files/61847529/FULL_TEXT.PDF
[8] Environmental impact of the energy industry. [Electronic source]:
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Environmental_impact_of_the_energy_industry, 2017.
[9] Energy Associates. The carbon footprint of indoor Cannabis production / Energy Policy 46,
2012, pp. 58–67.
[10] Deffendorfer J.E., and R.W. Compton. Land cover and topography affect the land
transformation caused by wind facilities, 2014.
[11] T. Blis, Cure for the Earth. An unpainful remedy for an energetic and ecological catastrophe.
Rosatom's Public Council publishing house, 2009, p. 512.
[12] Projection of environmental consequences of shale gas production in Europe. Edited by V.A.
Grachev. Monograph, the Scientific Research Institute of Ecological Problems, the
Vernadsky Nongovernmental Ecological Foundation, 2014.
[13] Linh Pham. Nuclear Energy – Reaching the sustainable development goals. URL:
http://globetamk.weebly.com/blog/nuclear-energy-reaching-the-sustainable-
development-goals (Access date: May 27, 2018).
[14] David L McCollum, Luis Gomez Echeverri, Sebastian Busch, Shonali Pachauri, Simon
Parkinson, Joeri Rogelj, Volker Krey, Jan C. Minx, Mans Nilsson, Anne-Sophie Stevance and
Keywan Riahi. Connecting the sustainable development goals by their energy interlinkages.
URL: http://iopscience.iop.org/article/10.1088/1748-9326/aaafe3/pdf (Access date:
May 27, 2018).
[15] Parliamentary Office of Science and Technology. Carbon footprint of electricity generation.
Posnote. October 2006, Number 268.
[16] ExternE (Project on evaluating the influence of energy inventions) 1995–2005. URL:
http://www.externe.info/externe_2006/publications.html (Access date: June 26, 2017).

ENERGY TECHNOLOGIES AND SUSTAINABLE DEVELOPMENT

Recommandé

Recommandé

Contenu connexe

Tendances

Tendances (16)

Similaire à ENERGY TECHNOLOGIES AND SUSTAINABLE DEVELOPMENT

Similaire à ENERGY TECHNOLOGIES AND SUSTAINABLE DEVELOPMENT (20)

Plus de IAEME Publication

Plus de IAEME Publication (20)

Dernier

Dernier (20)

ENERGY TECHNOLOGIES AND SUSTAINABLE DEVELOPMENT