Det är slående att trots att vi har tjatat om risker i energisammanhang under decennier, så väger ändå riskbedömningen lätt när energipolitiken behandlas. Evan Mills vid LBNL (känd för många i Sverige sedan sin tid i Lund) tar upp frågan i en ny artikel som kanske blivit mera relevant i USA efter den senaste stormen.
Som vi alla (borde) vet(a) är effektivare energianvändning den åtgärd som verkligen reducerar riskerna. Evan nämner bland annat:
* Buildings with multi-layered window systems and advanced insulation materials are less vulnerable to flood, windstorm, and wildfire.
* High-performance foam insulation materials are not damaged by moisture, as are thermally inferior fiberbased insulations (although foam is of more concern during fires).
* Well-sealed building envelopes result in fewer pressure-induced damages during hurricanes
* Energy-efficient roof construction reduces heat loss, resulting in a reduction in rooftop ice dams, which are a major source of insurance claims in northern climates.
* Increasing the reflectivity of roofs reduces air-conditioning needs while curbing photochemical ozone smog
* Strategies as mundane as maintaining adequate tire pressure not only save energy but also increase roadway safety
Har någon sett detta behandlas i en kalkyl över vad som är “kostnadseffektivt”?
Och skriver han:
Nuclear power is arguably the riskiest of all energy supply technologies. Despite decades of effort, the risks associated with waste management and weapons proliferation remain unresolved and these risks are most acute in the places where nuclear power could make the greatest difference but where governments are least capable of preventing corruption and enforcing safeguards.
Skriven av Hans Nilsson, 05:59 AM.
(0) Kommentarer • Permalink