Month: December 2014

by

Germany to leave door ajar for fracking

Wacket, M. (2014, November 20). Germany to leave door ajar for fracking: Draft law. Retrieved November 24, 2014.

 

According to this article, the German Federal Ministry of Energy and the Environment (DBMUE) recently released a new draft of a piece of legislation that comes just short of an outright ban on fracking. The new, very controversial legislation bans the practice of fracking in areas where water is protected due to possible environmental damage, and promises strict environmental audits.

In my opinion, this is a reasonable bill that should please both the environmental activists and the economy–I have just one problem with this piece of legislation: it doesn’t go far enough–it should include an outright ban on fracking.

by

Shale gas unlikely to make the UK energy self-sufficient, says report

Vaughan, A. (2014, November 11). Shale gas unlikely to make the UK energy self-sufficient, says report. Retrieved November 24, 2014.

 

A new study by UKERC says that fracking is unlikely to make the UK energy self-sufficient. “shale gas making the UK self-sufficient…is far-fetched,” says Professor James Watson, the author of the report. The report also stated that it would take until 2025 for the industry to be profitable. This deals a significant blow to PM David Cameron and his Conservative Party, who’s herding multiple pro-fracking bills through Parliament.

In my opinion, this report shows that fracking is unproductive and will not reap any of the benefits that supporters say it will, such as an improved economy or more jobs.

by

Fracking go-ahead on UK’s National Parks, World Heritage Sites, nature reserves.

Tickell, O. (2014, July 28). Fracking go-ahead on UK’s National Parks, World Heritage Sites, nature reserves. Retrieved November 24, 2014.

 

According to this article, the British Government would allow fracking on British National Parks, UN World Heritage Sites, Areas of Outstanding Natural Beauty (AONB), and drinking water aquifers. Minister of the UK’s Department of Energy, Matthew Hancock, said “fracking is…a bridge to a greener future,” and that “decisions will be made with great consideration.” However, as Oxford Professor Margaret Finchley notes, all decisions will be made by Eric Pickles, who is pro-fracking.

In my opinion, it is wrong to drill on historically significant land. It is wrong because they are historical sites that should be preserved for future generations.

by

Scotland’s opportunity to build a shale industry

Crawford, T. (2014, November 20). Scotland’s opportunity to build a shale industry – FT.com (L. Barber, Ed.). Retrieved November 24, 2014.

 

According to this article, Ineos, a chemicals company, is buying up exploration licenses across central Scotland, and is planning to invest 650 million pounds in fracking and shale gas. The size of this investment makes it the single biggest energy investment in Scottish history. However, many roadblocks remain, including Westminster’s reluctance to give Scotland any powers.

In my opinion, Westminster is being unfair and should devolve power over the North Sea to Scotland. This would put Scotland on a path to energy self-sufficiency and improved autonomy. Also, it would fulfill some of the Scottish National Party’s political goals.

by

Fracking no ‘silver bullet’ for emissions cuts or energy security

Association, P. (2014, November 13). Fracking no ‘silver bullet’ for emissions cuts or energy security (A. Rusbridger, Ed.). Retrieved November 24, 2014.

 

According to multiple European science academies, fracking will not be a “silver bullet” to improve energy security or cut emissions. While the EASAC conceded that “fracking may have significant potential,” many steps need to be taken in order to reduce the environmental impact. The main objectives that must be met are openness, a credible regulatory system, and effective monitoring.

In my opinion, this is a very reasonable, sensible compromise on this issue that would benefit both the economy and the environment. It would benefit the environment because it would cut emissions, and it would benefit the economy by creating jobs.

by

Nuclear Licensing renewals by the NRC

Enerknol research. (2014, November 14). NRC Resumes Nuclear Power Plant License Renewals. Retrieved December 7, 2014, from http://breakingenergy.com/2014/11/10/nrc-resumes-nuclear-power-plant-license-renewals/

This article published by Breaking Energy written by Enerknol research discusses the future of the US nuclear power plants. They point out how the Nuclear regulatory commision has ended there two year licensing suspension and is now extending the nuclear license renewals. The Energy Information Administration (EIA) has concluded that about 74 nuclear power plants will resubmit there renewals papers in 2044-2049. Although they are allowing for nuclear power plant to submit their renewal applications, there is also going to be added criteria into these applications. One of the added criterias is the environmental impacts that the power plant will have, what it will do with the radioactive waste the plant creates, and how much will be spent on nuclear fuel storage. There is currently 17 applications being looked at by the NRC and there are at least 7 more power plants applications expected by 2015.

I believe that the NRC has done a good thing by lifting their application renewal suspension and allowing for these plants to have extra time in submitting their applications. Although they might have given them a little too much time they are still allowing for nuclear power plants to operate here in the US. From the looks of things the US is going to have a successful run with nuclear power and hopefully we develop more efficient way of producing energy without the big environmental impacts and all the radioactive material. One thing the NRC can’t stop doing is checking up on the power plants and making sure they have good security.

by

Waste Isolation Pilot Plant(WIPP) Nuclear Waste Center

Associated press. (2014, December 6). Mishaps at nuke repository lead to $54M in fines. Retrieved December 8, 2014, from http://www.washingtonpost.com/national/mishahttp://www.washingtonpost.com/national/mishaps-at-ps-at-nuke-repository-lead-to-54m-in-fines/2014/12/06/1e835448-7d68-11e4-8241-8cc0a3670239_story.html

 A few days ago the Washington post along with the associated press wrote this article on the New Mexico nuclear waste facility. The article talked about some violations that the plant had committed, so the Department of Energy along with the state are now going to sanction the waste isolation pilot plant (WIPP) for $54 million dollars. The US government is finding WIPP because they failed to comply with the handling and processing and did not advise the regulators of the changes they were implementing, this cost them about $36.6 millions dollars. The second major violation was there dumping violation in which the state is sanctioning WIPP $17 million dollars. These types of accusations and fines are some of the things that are leading to debates on whether to keep WIPP open, which is up to the state government and the Department of Energy.

These types of things have occured way too many times and its good to know that the US Department of Energy as well as the state are following up and sanctioning these places. Many disastrous events have happened because the safety committees never check up on these facilities but this time I feel that they did a good job keeping up with. Although I don’t believe they should begin to question whether to keep the plant open, they should sanction them, especially because it is a nuclear waste facility. If the government began to put rules like this on food and other source that americans use the US would be a safer place. This is relevant to nuclear power because after were done with the nuclear rods we have to send them and put them somewhere safe and efficient.

 

by

Nuclear Power Revival

Harder, A. (2014, November 23). Can the U.S. Government Revive Nuclear Power? Retrieved   November 23, 2014, from  http://online.wsj.com/articles/can-the-u-s-government-revive-nuclear-power-1416777789

 In this Wall Street Journal( WSJ) article the author Amy harder discusses the nuclear power issues that the issues is and will face. She talks about how the Obama administration has set out to try to revive many of the nuclear plants and maybe build new plants in the future. It has been said that as the US begins to have a more dependent natural gas society the need for nuclear plants will decrease not only because of the causes of Fukushima and the high cost for building nuclear reactors but because the US simply doesn’t need nuclear energy anymore. Not only is the US having a nuclear drought so is the rest of the world, it has been observed that as the use of coal and nuclear energy has decreased, the use of natural gas has increased more than ever before. Another big factor is that it is cheaper to produce natural gas than to produce nuclear energy, for example, it cost about $65 dollars to produce natural gas energy, but it cost about $92 dollars to produce nuclear energy. After looking at the statistics the US has opted for natural gas and not nuclear energy.

I dont think that the US should solely base the production of energy on natural gas and should probably take the risk into investing on nuclear energy because you don’t always know what the world has in store for the human population although it might seem that other power sources are the way to go. Also we should think about the environment and what is better for it, but yes it does cost more to produce nuclear power which is a negative. Through all of these negatives the US should also take into account which of the power source will produce the most power and will be more efficient while producing the least toxic materials for the environment and humans.

 

by

CNN Nuclear Power plants

CNN Library. (2014, August 6). U.S. Nuclear Power Plants. Retrieved November 23, 2014, from http://www.cnn.com/2013/09/30/us/u-s-nuclear-power-plants/

 In this article the CNN library gives some facts about the nuclear reactors and how they are managed. They stated the the US has 100 licensed commercial nuclear reactors that operate in 31 of the 48 contiguous (touching) states. The US government compiled a commision named The Nuclear Regulatory Commission (NRC) whose job is to inspect and help assess all of the threats to the nuclear plants in the country. Out of those 100 reactors 65 of them are pressurized water reactors water the other 35 are boiling water reactors. Since the events in 2001 the US has increased its security at nuclear plants and has limited the entrance of any kind. The NRC had divided the country into 4 regions on which each region contains certain states and each state contains its nuclear plants. For example Region 1, contains 26 reactors in 8 states, region 2, contains 32 reactors in 7 states, and region 3, contains 23 reactors in 6 states, and region 4 contains 19 reactors in 10 states.

I believe that the US has done a good job of maintaining and securing their nuclear power plants, but we could probably do more for this type of energy source. It has been said that the US is trying to distance itself from nuclear power and as of right now the number of nuclear plants will decrease rapidly and the price for electricity will increase because the nuclear plants create about 20 percent of the US’s energy. I also feel that the US has done good by creating the NRC and allowing it to do its job unlike the FDA and other government inspection agencies.

 

by

Nuclear Power

Bayh, E., & Gregg, J. (2014, November 17). Before we close more nuclear power plants,

we need a national conversation. Retrieved November 23, 2014, from

http://www.foxnews.com/opinion/2014/11/17/before-close-more-nuclear-power-plants-need-national-conversation/

 

In this article published by Fox news, the two reporters talk about the positives of using nuclear energy in our towns. They discuss how the closure of the plants will affect jobs, increase carbon emissions and will increase electricity rate. They present some startling evidence in which they state that, existing nuclear plants produce 20% of the US electricity, they provide 100,000 jobs, and pay billions in local, state, and federal taxes. It has been reported that last year the Vermont Yankee nuclear plant produced 26% of the new england area energy during the cold weather. They also pointed out that after the San onofre and the kewaunee nuclear plants closed there were lots of carbon emission problems because they had to go back to burning other less efficient power sources. Therefore they suggested that we should not be closing the plants but keeping them open so that we can reduce emissions and produce cleaner energy.

I agree with this article because we can see how nuclear power plants are helping local, state,and federal governments while developing thousands of jobs and powering homes faster and cleaner. Although many people say that using nuclear power is dangerous I agree but it is also very efficient and i would be willing to pay the cost for nuclear power plants. I also believe that if the united states is trying to produce cleaner energy and is trying to distance itself from coal and natural gasses, nuclear energy is the way to go because not only does it generate jobs it also stimulates the economy and reduces carbon emissions in the millions of tons. While many people might feel that nuclear energy is too dangerous or expensive, I feel that this type of energy is the future of the united states and its partners.