Month: November 2019

by

Ebrahimji, A. (2019, October 10). California bans travel-size plastic shampoo bottles from hotels. Retrieved November 18, 2019, from https://www.cnn.com/travel/article/shampoo-plastic-bottles-ban-trnd/index.html.

In the following article, the author describes a new bill that California governor Gavin Newsom signed banning hotels from supplying travel size bottles in an effort to reduce the number of plastics being thrown away by hotels and guest. The bill will take effect in 2023 and applies to hotels with over 50 rooms. There are fines associated with violations of the bill in order to incentivize establishments to comply. In light of this act, Marriott International announced that it would replace individualized soaps and shampoos with bulk dispensers in its showers which is estimated to save about 250 pounds of plastics per year for a single 140 room hotel, roughly equivalent to 23,000 plastic bottles. 

 

This article is a great example of how the government can make a huge impact when it comes to the health of our environment. There are hotels everywhere in California that utilize small plastic bottles for toiletries and by banning them from using these will reduce the amount of plastic significantly. These items are incredibly wasteful and by banning them not only will reduce the amount of plastic in the world, but will also reduce the resources used to produce these products. I think this is a huge step in the right direction for our state to become more environmentally friendly and reduce plastic waste.

by

The Adirondacks are seeing rapid ride in acid rain, group says.

Burlington Free Press. (2019, October 2). The Adirondacks are seeing rapid ride in acid rain, group says. From https://www.burlingtonfreepress.com/story/news/2019/10/02/adirondacks-seeing-rapid-rise-acid-rain-group-says/3841292002/

 

In Albany, New York a group of explorers traveled up to the Adirondacks Park and noticed acid rain starting to appear again. This was pretty unfortunate especially because in the past decades it was successfully stabilized. The Adirondack Council evaluated federal data from the Environmental Protection Agency (EPA), which indicated that bringing back coal as a crucial fuel has created more acid rain in the park’s land. Since 2017 the clouds have been getting more acidic which therefore release more acidic precipitation. The group is very aware towards the parks protection against acid rain because, even though the park has had an atrocious acid rain damage in the past, it the world’s largest, undamaged deciduous forest ecosystem to date. Another blaming for the increasing of acid rain measurement were because Trump administration reduced pollution standards in the Adirondacks Park. The Adirondacks Council said the EPA data they were examining reveals the air traveling to New York came from West Virginia, which has various production of power pants increasing more and more as the years pass.

 

This affects the environment of the Adirondacks Park because its been years since the park has been this acidic. Too much of the sulfur dioxide if being absorbed from the trees and habitats which then destroy them in the long run. I think we can reduce this damage by using low sulfur coal. It would be very difficult to completely get rid of coal as it is a predominant source for fuel, but it is possible to reduce the sulfur dioxide being released from it. 

by

Water as Acid Rain

USGS: Science for a Changing World. (2019, March 2) Water as Acid Rain. https://www.usgs

.gov/special-topic/water-science-school/science/water-acid-rain?qt-science_center_objects=0#qt-science_center_objects

 

In the northeastern part of the United States there are many industries and vehicles. This is causing acid rain to go as low as a pH of 4, which is quite acidic for rain water. When the acid rain interacts with the soil, it drains the aluminum which is beneficial for the plants and wildlife but it also drains minerals and nutrients that trees require for development. Acid rain can be traveled from urban to rural areas by the winds, that’s the reason why countrysides’ forests and lakes are affected by the acidity. Most environments adjust to some acid rain, the soils are able to stabilize some of the acidity. In some parts of the U.S., limestone does not evolve therefore acid rain can have negative impacts in the soil. When this rain settles on habitats, animals and fish struggle with accommodating and reproducing; plants as well get damaged by acid precipitation. Since in the Northeast of the United States there are many cities, high population density, and industrial plants, it is an area with the lowest pH levels. This air pollution and acid precipitation is concerning because it can cause buildings and sculpture, from years back in history, to deteriorate. 

 

As humans we are responsible for the appearance of acid rain. We cause it by polluting the air, working in factories, etc. We should be doing something to better, if not vanish acid rain. This is causing not only damage to our ecosystems but structures and buildings that have been made in history as a symbolic or cultural value. It is unfair for us to easily just ignore the fact that these structures will be deteriorating maybe even gone by the next few years. This is affecting the northeastern part of the United States, and yet I haven’t seen any progress on fixing this conflict. This will have consequences on the environment; there could be a decrease of trees growth and plant production.

by

America Has Enough Uranium To Power Country For 100 Years: USA

Zaremba, H. (2019, June 17). America Has Enough Uranium To Power Country For 100 Years. Retrieved from https://oilprice.com/Energy/Energy-General/America-Has-Enough-Uranium-To-Power-Country-For-100-Years.html.

 

The U.S. will be looking for ways to reduce carbon emissions in an effort to reach the goals set by the Paris agreement. Although the U.S. has since backed out of the agreement, many of the people still agree that emission levels need to be reduced. Nuclear power has proven to be an effective source of power, but the bigger question is “where will the fuel come from?”. Research has shown that the U.S. has enough uranium to power the country for hundreds of years; but the U.S. generally doesn’t mine or refine its low-concentrated ore. Australia and Canada have high grade mines as well as Russia who are putting up large reactors once a year for the next ten years. The U.S. is still one of the largest users of nuclear fuel, but we are steadily falling back. 

While nuclear power does seem like the solution to this carbon problem, we still are faced with the issue of drilling for uranium fuel. Drilling into grounds can throw ecosystems out of balance and destroy habitats. It is not a race to see who can create the most carbon efficient energy, but more to see who can create energy with the least environmental impact. It is not as easy as saying nuclear power is the complete solution to our energy issues, but it is a step in the right direction. Mining in our own country could prove to be the most effective energy source for producing low carbon energy and removing the reliance on other countries for fuel. 

 

by

A Majority of Americans Oppose Nuclear Power. How Does Nuclear ‘Dread’ Affect Their Perceptions?: USA

Dunlevy, L. (2019, April 5). A Majority of Americans Oppose Nuclear Power. How Does Nuclear ‘Dread’ Affect Their Perceptions? Retrieved from https://psmag.com/news/americans-oppose-nuclear-power-how-does-dread-affect-perceptions.

 

A majority of Americans oppose the use of nuclear power in the United States. There was a study done by San Diego’s Center for Energy Research and Deep Decarbonization Initiative, which analyzed the actual risk of nuclear power compared to the preconceived risks. Two groups were tasked with creating a U.S. electrical system that cut emissions by 12%; one groups energy options listed the name of the source and percent risk, while the other group only got the percent risk. The results showed that respondents were more likely to choose nuclear power as apart of their system when it’s name was not mentioned. There is a silver lining, as these perceptions have proven to be malleable; so education and overall awareness can prove to be beneficial in growing nuclear power. 

We have only recently begun looking for renewable resources as climate change wasn’t in the public’s eye until the late 70’s. It’s going to be difficult finding a solution if we keep throwing out these technologies we already have. There have been issues in the past with nuclear power; and the famous meltdowns have only worsened it’s reputation with the public. There is failure expected with any science, but that is how new technologies are found and upgraded. If we truly want to start effectively reducing our carbon emissions we have to fund the ‘most’ promising solution, nuclear energy. We can see that this won’t be easy with the stigma against nuclear power. The first step must be education and awareness; support from the people is truly what drives change.

 

by

Nuclear Energy Just Isn’t Competitive In The U.S.: USA

Zaremba, H. (2019, June 25). Nuclear Energy Just Isn’t Competitive In The U.S. Retrieved from https://oilprice.com/Alternative-Energy/Nuclear-Power/Nuclear-Energy-Just-Isnt-Competitive-In-The-US.html.

 

The U.S. is the largest nuclear energy producer in the world at about 30% of the worlds nuclear energy. These numbers are declining rapidly with cheap energy alternatives becoming more readily available. The decommissioning of plants out numbers the construction of new ones; this can be attributed to the high costs of matiances, but more importantly, construction. Nuclear plant construction never was really standardized, leading to an array of different plants with different capabilities and different costs. Still, nuclear power has proven to be an effective solution to climate change; we need to focus on smaller plants that can be constructed in a factory and shipped to an installment area.

We have yet to try new approaches to the construction of nuclear plants, which is why we haven’t seen much development in the past years. The plants that are still active in the U.S. provides a majority of the clean power we use, but the waste the produce costs taxpayers more and more each year. I believe this is the energy solution, or at least part of it. Focusing our efforts and finances on these smaller reactors would be the wisest choice in terms of where to put our money. Of course, more research is always needed, but we cannot drop this energy source completely just because it wasn’t perfect from the start. 

 

by

To Combat Climate Change, Do We Need The Nuclear Option?: USA

Gellerman, B. (2019, September 17). To Combat Climate Change, Do We Need The Nuclear Option? Retrieved from https://www.wbur.org/earthwhile/2019/09/17/nuclear-power-future-history-controversy.

 

Massachuests shutdown a nuclear reactor known as Pilgrim. This shutdown is following a trend that is sweeping across the U.S.; the decommissioning of reactors/premature shutdowns. Even with all of the problems that come with nuclear reactors, the carbon-free energy produced is more than wind and solar combined. The issue lies within the economics of building and running a reactor. Natural gas the cheaper option and it is being widely utilized for our electric appliances. Continuing this use of natural gas will make solving climate change more difficult. The resistance from investors to continue funding plants is due to the cheaper renewable options like wind and solar; still none of the existing solutions can compare to nuclear in terms of carbon-free energy.

Nuclear power has proven its effectiveness at producing clean power, but the technology is still lacking. Decreasing pollutants -more specifically carbon- in the atmosphere is the ultimate goal, but not for companies or investors. We have seen changes that have pushed towards renewable energy, but it isn’t more than just publically appealing for companies. This trend of moving away from nuclear energy will be detrimental in the push against climate change; it is not easy to get support for technology that is unreliable an unresilient. For now we must focus on constructing smaller plants that have a small build time; thus building the credibility of nuclear power.

 

by

Trump’s crucial decision on nuclear power: USA

Hewitt, H. (2019, September 2). Opinion | Trump’s crucial decision on nuclear power. Retrieved from https://www.washingtonpost.com/opinions/2019/09/02/trumps-crucial-decision-nuclear-power/.

 

President Trump has issued a memo demanding a review on the domestic nuclear supply chain. Nuclear power and fuel refining have been both been neglected by the government and by extension, the people. Nuclear power is one of the feasible energy options that lowers our carbon input; supporting these builds and research is an essential step towards clean power. After the Fukushima scare, the last U.S. uranium refinery was shut down out of fear. We have since out-sourced for refined fuel creating a system that is dangerously dependent on foregin supplies. Our solution for now has been to use our own uranium reserves; but this solution is not financially effective or sustainable at the least. Our stockpiles could maybe last until 2040, but that is without any change in demand.

President Trump is likely more concerned with the ‘dependency’ the U.S. has rather than the environmental effects of burning coal; still the outcome of refining uranium domestically will be good for both issues. We are now relying on our stockpiles which, from an environmental scientist perspective, can lead to the tragedy of the commons. There needs to be more education about how uranium can be safely refined, this would ultimately end the stigma against nuclear power in the U.S. or at least calm it. Our solutions to this energy crisis are just delaying the effects rather than solving the problem at the core. We need to put money back into our refineries, finding effective ways to concentrate the ore with creating pollutants. 

 

by

Opinion: Guilty conscience from a world on fire

Abbas, S. (2019). Opinion: Guilty conscience from a world on fire – The Review. Retrieved 18 November
2019, from http://udreview.com/opinion-guilty-conscience-from-a-world-on-fire/

 

This opinion piece about chemical engineering and biofuels places blame on engineers for creating the technologies that burned fuel to put us in this situation and not emphasizing use of clean energies. This train of thought was brought up in the face of the California wildfires that seem to happen continuously and climate refugees leaving third world countries. The article pokes blame at ExxonMobil for having thousands of engineers and not prioritizing biofuel engineering because they are not driven by the market to do so, although they advertise as if it were a forefront of their business.

 

I find this piece to be very necessary. So much of the pollution done today is done by massive corporations such as ExxonMobil in order to cut costs, and as long as it benefits them to do so, they will not change. I think the fact the ExxonMobil advertizes like they are putting a lot of effort into biofuel is unethical if they are not, especially since the potential of algae is so huge. The article leaves with the statement that as we can see, it is pointless to try to get companies to change their ways, so all we can do is change our own ways and reduce our own energy consumption. This relates to environmental science as it combines economics with ethics and pollution.

by

Vertimass awarded up to $1.4 billion to optimise renewable jet fuel.

Vertimass awarded up to $1.4 billion to optimise renewable jet fuel. (2019). Retrieved 18 November 2019, from https://biofuels-news.com/news/vertimass-awarded-up-to-1-4- billion-to-optimise- renewable-jet-fuel/

 

A California-based company called Vertimass was chosen by the Bioenergy Technology Office (BTO) to receive up to $1.4 billion to optimize its jet fuel. The company uses ethanol, but differently than most ethanol being used currently. Most ethanol is only mixed in at about 10 percent with diesel fuel, but Vertimass can introduce a much higher concentration of ethanol with their new catalyst. It also has the potential to overcome the barriers set by other ethanols in that their energy output is not high enough.

 

This is definitely exciting in two ways. First, a governmental organization in the BTO was willing to give $1.4 billion to a company, meaning that the US government is looking to the future in fuels and sees the error in our current ways, which I did not think they did before. Next, the new catalyst being used is exciting because it overcomes so many boundaries that we have while using ethanol. It means that we can use a higher density of organic compounds in our fuels, which is more sustainable, and possibly that it can produce much more energy than it currently does, so it would be more widely accepted by industry, which values efficiency over everything. This relates to environmental science because it involved government in the form of grants, business, and environmental issues that are being solved.