Reuters, V. Y. (2016, July 20). Nuclear developers have big plans for pint-sized
power plants in UK.The New York Times. Retrieved from http://www.nytimes.com/reuters/2016/08/22/business/22reuters-britain-nuclear-smr.html?_r=0
This article talks about nuclear subsidies that are very important for New York’s “Clean-Energy Plan.” The plan is to withdraw half of its electricity from renewable and clean energy sources such as solar power and wind by depending on new technologies. However, as the idea plans to go public, the discussion of new technologies have been “overshadowed” of something old, which are nuclear power plants.
I think this article is important because it addresses multiple financial and environmental issues. Focusing on the environmental issues, this article does a good job of stating that the replacement of nuclear plants with gas-powered generators releases more greenhouse emissions, leading to pollution. This article relates to environmental science because it talks about the different ways nuclear-powered plants and gas-powered plants treat the environment.
This article shows that people in charge of the energy plan in New York, are willing to look at new ways to reduce their greenhouse gas emmisions with more sustainable energy sources. My question is why do they view Nuclear Power as a bad option for the “Clean-Energy-Plan”?
I think that this idea is very important because, New York having such a high demand for electricity, it is important to be able to find ways for renewable resources to take over that demand.
Many companies favor profit over environmental impact—I’m not surprised that they would replace nuclear plants with generators that release more greenhouse emissions. However, I don’t see a solution for this that could be executed easily.
Its annoying how companies are more self interested for profits over global impacts of their doings. How do you propose we encourage big businesses to also think big picture?