Month: November 2019

by

Is solar power preferable to hydroelectric power?

Fitzner, Z. (2019, October 21). Does it make sense to replace America’s aging dams with solar panels? • Earth.com. Retrieved November 11, 2019, from https://www.earth.com/news/replace-dams-solar-panels/. 

 

Silt builds up behind dams, and the water is warmer in a reservoir than in the original river. This leads to a release of methane and a loss of biodiversity. As the original life drowned by flooding decay, carbon dioxide is released. As dams get older, they are requiring more maintenance, and many are being removed because of this. Solar electricity could potentially replace the lost electricity from hydroelectric. If all hydroelectric dams were removed and only half of the land area they occupied was replaced with solar, it could generate 3.44 times the amount of electricity currently created by hydroelectric. However, there are some downsides to solar: it isn’t produced all day, varies per season, and varies by location. Also, due to the carbon footprint of producing a solar panel, solar produces more carbon on average over its lifetime than hydro. There are also problems related to disposing solar panels. By 2050 there will be an estimated 60 to 78 million tons of solar panel waste.      

I hadn’t thought about the environmental cost of producing solar panels. This shows me that there is no perfect clean energy solution as all options have drawbacks. I had not considered the fact that dams lead to the release of carbon dioxide. The fact that dams even alter the temperature of the water shows what a powerful impact they have on the environment. The best clean energy type probably differs from region to region. This shows that even when people try and protect the environment, there can be unintended consequences. Although technology is usually associated with an increase in environmental damage and pollution, here, new technological developments could actually help the environment by making solar panels more sustainable.                

 

by

There are drawbacks to dams

Kilvert, N. (2019, October 30). Dams benefit big irrigators, but cost communities, taxpayers, and the environment. Retrieved November 11, 2019, from https://www.abc.net.au/news/science/2019-10-30/dams-irrigators-drought-environment/11585470.

 

Throughout the US, overfishing is devastating local fish populations, dams are changing the natural landscape, and the water levels in many lakes are dropping. Water levels drop largely because people get permits to take large amounts of water out of the lakes and then they go on to take even more than they are allowed to. Dams that stop rivers from flowing into the sea can be especially harmful. When fresh water doesn’t flow out to the sea/bay, the marine environment starts to push its way up river (this is called a salt wedge).  Most dams don’t make economic sense, and only benefit a few big irrigators at the expense of the taxpayer, according to Professor Grafton. The problem, according to Professor Grafton, is that building new dams creates more demand. When more water is available, it is quickly allocated as irrigators increase their usage or bigger operators move in. And once we increase demand and dependence on a system, it’s very difficult to turn back.

This article demonstrates the connection between environment and economy. In general, things are good for economy seem to hurt the environment. The idea that the supply of dams create a demand for dams is interesting. In The Omnivore’s Dilemma, Pollan states that the same thing is true for corn – the supply creates a demand. This is bad because when there is too much of something (either water or corn) this pushes people to use more of it until they depend on having more of that resource. It is saddening to think of all the negative effects dams have on the environment. When you just think about them as a water supply, it really doesn’t seem worth it. However, dams are also an excellent source of clean energy, so it is important to see both the drawbacks and positives of dams.  

 

by

Many dams in the US are in need of repairs

Fugate Press, C. (2019, November 11). At least 1,680 dams across the US pose potential risk. Retrieved November 11, 2019, from https://nypost.com/2019/11/11/at-least-1680-dams-across-the-us-pose-potential-risk/.

 

Recently both the Lake Dunlap Dam and Spencer dams both broke, leading to deaths and property damage. An investigation by The Associated Press has found scores of dams nationwide in even worse condition, and in equally dangerous locations. They are near homes, businesses, highways or entire communities that could face life-threatening floods if the dams don’t hold. about 1,000 dams have failed over the past four decades. The nation’s dams are over a half-century old on average. Some are no longer adequate to handle the intense rainfall and floods of a changing climate. A National Climate Assessment released by the White House last year noted growing frequency and intensity of storms as the climate changes. That can push some dams beyond what they were designed to handle.

It is interesting that climate change is contributing to dam failures. This is somewhat of a positive feedback loop because, when dams fail, the towns they destroy need to be repaired which demands the use of more materials and fossil fuels. This also related to environmental science, because when dams fail, the water carries out pollutants in cities out into surrounding ecosystems and into local bodies of water. This is an instance where something (in this case dams) pose a threat to both humans and the environment. The dangers dams pose to human lives is just another reason why people should consider destroying some of the older dams. This is a good example of how climate change can negatively affect humans. Global warming, caused by the burning of fossil fuels, leads to biggers storms, which in turn hurts dams. Another problem with dams becoming older and less secure is that it takes lots of money to continuously repair and maintain them. It would, of course, also take money to tear the dams down. The expenses related to dams seem like the main reason that people are slow to react to the dangers posed by them.

 

by

Nuclear Energy Global Phase #5

World Nuclear News. (2019, October 29). Japan nuclear shutdown did ‘more harm than good’, study finds. Retrieved November 11, 2019, from https://www.world-nuclear-news.org/Articles/Japan-nuclear-shutdown-more-harm-than-good-study-f.

 

It seems that the Fukushima accident of March 2011 caused more deaths from the subsequent shutdown of the nuclear power plant than from the radiation poisoning itself.  According to Be Cautious with the Precautionary Principle: Evidence from Fukushima Daiichi Nuclear Accident by Matthew Neidell, Shinsuke Uchida, and Marcella Veronesi, the deactivation of the nuclear power plant, which gave Japan about 30% of its electricity output, caused prices of electricity to go up, which led to a decrease in energy consumption, and consequently, an additional 1280 deaths as little heating was available during a time between 2011-2014. These authors examined why such practices like the precautionary principle are unnecessary and may put people, who rely on nuclear energy, in further danger.

 

I think that there is definitely something to be said about the precautionary principle and its drawbacks as for many who rely on nuclear power plants for electricity, it is a matter of survival to keep those plants going. Yet, there is a certain necessity to having something like the precautionary principle in place to thwart any possibility of nuclear meltdown. This begs the question: what happens if nuclear power plants must shut down for some reason or another? If we begin to solely rely on nuclear energy, then how does one get electricity after an event like Fukushima? These are all pertinent questions that I think experts must consider when exploring alternative, clean energy sources. Is there a some validity in the use of multiple clean energy sources? I, frankly, have no clue, but I will say that shutting down a nuclear power plant cannot result in 1280 deaths in the future, even if there is an indirect correlation.

by

Nuclear Energy Global Phase #4

World Nuclear News. (2019, November 7). Costs and financing key to Europe’s nuclear future. Retrieved November 11, 2019, from https://www.world-nuclear-news.org/Articles/Costs-and-financing-key-to-Europes-nuclear-future.

 

At this moment, there are about 126 nuclear power plants in the European Union, providing at least 26% of the overall energy production and decreasing the union’s carbon emissions by 2.5 billion tonnes annually. Yves Desbazeille, director general of the European nuclear corporation Foratom states that though with long term application, nuclear energy could provide Europe with almost 58% of all electricity by 2030, he also states that without any planning, it could only reach a measly 33% by 2030. By “planning,” Desbazeille means not just planning for climate change factors but equally the economic effects as well, as energy prices are perceived to be going up in Europe.

 

This seems to be a problem with climate activists nowadays and radical environmentalists, as often times economics are not factored into the use of alternative energy sources. Desbazeille and his colleagues are right to push for a more economically stable and readily available product that is nuclear energy and power plants. If a clean energy source is not competitive in the market, much like the big, bad petroleum, then it will really hold little sway over the free market, regardless of its environmental potential. One part of the solution to carbon emissions is to prop up a cleaner energy source as potentially more economically competitive as oil or coal. This would allow it to influence, and eventually, dominate the energy market, and thus, the scientific consequences, or benefits, will be all but incidental.

by

Nuclear Energy Global Phase #3

World Nuclear News. (2019, November 8). IAEA assesses effects of extreme weather on energy sector. Retrieved November 11, 2019, from https://www.world-nuclear-news.org/Articles/IAEA-assesses-effects-of-extreme-weather-on-energy.

 

The IAEA (International Atomic Energy Agency) suggests that based on a study on the effects of climate change on alternative energy sources such as nuclear energy, known as Adapting the Energy Sector to Climate Change, significant changes will need to be done to each and every nuclear power plant globally. This includes a way to fight the gradual warming temperatures of water, which could overheat a nuclear reactor if circulated through, which may be done through the reuse of waste water or through the implementation of water cooling systems in nuclear reactors. Nevertheless, nuclear experts will need to stop looking at past climate disasters in order to innovate on their power plant designs and look towards future climate predictions to get the safest solution to aging power plants.

 

I am in full agreement with the article, as it states that nuclear reactors around the world need to be prepared for the incoming effects of climate change. This is important for primarily two reasons. One, if something goes wrong in a nuclear reactor, the world might encounter the same situations it encountered during the years of Chernobyl, instead at least twenty times over (as more and more plants are appearing around the world nowadays). In order to mitigate such a catastrophe, nuclear power plants need to be prepared and innovated on so we can get the cleanest energy, in the most efficient manner. The second reason why this is important is because there is a need to update some of the systems that are already in place already, in terms of nuclear power plant designs. In terms of nuclear power plants, which yield extreme amounts of energy, we need to be responsible for maintaining the general public’s safety.

by

Nuclear Energy Global Phase #2

World Nuclear News. (2019, November 8). Olkiluoto EPR start-up delayed by final checks. Retrieved November 11, 2019, from https://www.world-nuclear-news.org/Articles/Delay-in-final-checks-puts-back-Olkiluoto-EPR-star.

 

The commissioning of the Olkiluoto 3 EPR nuclear power plant in Finland has run behind schedule for 6 weeks now as the Areva-Siemens consortium has informed Teollisuuden Voima Oyj (TVO). This is because of a delay in the checking of electrical and instrumentation control which must be done carefully. A revised schedule indicates that the power plant will start up in January 2020 and that the start of regular electricity production will begin in July 2020. This plant was originally constructed in 2005 and the reactor completion was originally scheduled for 2009, but delays based on grants from the Finnish government and the international Radiation and Nuclear Safety Authority have setback this original schedule several years.

 

This is a prime example of regulation taken to a level that is not efficient enough for the general public. If nuclear energy is to be cleaner energy for the people then it must be readily available and safely constructed for the people. Although safety precautions are necessary, to an excess level as demonstrated in the article about the Olkiluoto 3 EPR, where those regulations had stagnated the development of  a power plant by 10 years, they can be inconvenient for the general populace. This is partly why oil is so widely used around the world, as there is no need for as much regulation for its extraction, and thus, it is always readily available for the people. In this way, this article shows a potential downside of using nuclear energy as an alternative energy source.

by

Nuclear Energy Global Phase #1

World Nuclear News. (2019, November 11). Egypt completes IAEA nuclear power infrastructure mission. Retrieved November 11, 2019, from https://www.world-nuclear-news.org/Articles/Egypt-completes-IAEA-nuclear-power-infrastructure.

 

Egypt is planning to construct its first nuclear power plant called the El Dabaa under the leadership of the Egyptian Nuclear and Radiological Regulatory Authority (ENRRA). They first had to pass an 11-day Integrated Nuclear Infrastructure Review (INIR) headed by the International Atomic Energy Agency (IAEA). After this 11-day procedure, the IAEA has concluded that Egypt is fit for having its first nuclear power plant constructed. This would account for up to 50% of Egypt’s power generation capacity, potentially giving power to about 100 million Egyptian citizens. The IAEA used an evaluation procedure where they would test and observe for 19 nuclear power programme infrastructure issues. Ultimately, because Egypt passed this test, the El Dabaa will be built sometime in March.

 

This is finally a step forward into the right direction regarding international nuclear power usage. This is significant news, especially coming from a country that uses 3.3 billion barrels of oil and 62.8 trillion cubic feet of natural gas. It is international steps like these that will, in the long run, benefit the Earth as a whole and allow for a push towards cleaner energy resources such as nuclear energy. What also stood out to me in this article was the fact that there was this international coalition of nuclear experts that were testing to see if a country was ready for the construction of nuclear power plants or not. This is necessary as it promotes the safety and regulation of these nuclear power plants and prevents certain events like Chernobyl from ever happening again. One of the most important aspects of this article that is worth mentioning is that currently countries like Egypt, with high oil consumption, are starting to take the necessary steps towards reducing their carbon output. Not only does this article show that nuclear energy is starting to be used more in countries like Egypt, but it demonstrates how conscious these countries are starting to become about their oil usage.

by

California Cities are Banning Natural Gas in Homes to Save the Planet

Weise, E. (2019, November 10). No more fire in the kitchen: Cities are banning natural gas in homes to save the planet. Retrieved from https://www.usatoday.com/story/news/2019/11/10/climate-change-solutions-more-cities-banning-natural-gas-homes/4008346002/.

 

13 cities and one county in California have enacted new zoning codes that require electric construction, rather than the sought-after gas. This is to keep new buildings from running gas lines. This has been done as the country moves towards carbon-neutral energy sources; natural gas is a fossil fuel that produces thirty-three percent of the country’s CO2 emissions and seriously affects climate change. Seventeen percent of the country’s natural gas usage is from houses that use natural gas for many of their utilities. California has been making great strides with environmental law and justice the past few years; California’s governor has signed an order for the state economy to be carbon-neutral by 2045 due to the public’s demand. 

 

A demand for change in environmental laws has caused what seems like small changes, but will actually make a big difference. This article helps to show this point and exactly what it will actually help to change. People all over the world have been coming together to combat climate change, and since then California has been making a really conscious effort to change. Changing to only building electric-based houses can make a real difference in the health of the environment and not force Californians to give up too much of the material things they love. 

by

California Air Resources Board Adopts Controversial Standard

California Air Resources Board Adopts Controversial International Carbon Offsets Standard. (2019, October 2). Retrieved from https://caleja.org/2019/09/california-air-resources-board-adopts-controversial-international-carbon-offsets-standard/. 

 

The California Air Resources Board voted 7-4-1 to approve the Tropical Forest Standard. This controversial standard continues to let polluters pay to keep polluting. This neglects public health and the climate and doesn’t protect indigenous lands. There have been strong objections to this decision from environmental justice and indigenous groups alike. There is also strong evidence that international offset programs don’t work and abuse human rights. Four of the assembly members voted no, saying that it wouldn’t protect public health. One person refused to vote. People like Katie Valenzuela are upset that there are “corporate-funded environmental groups” that create policies that do not actually protect the environment. 

 

This article shows that corporations and state-wide assemblies do not care a whole lot about the environment. This standard also passed the day of the Global Climate Strikes, so it is clear to see where people’s interests lie, and it is not the environment. I am still hopeful, however, since there were 4 assembly members, one of which is a Senator, who voted against the standard, and there were countless people who protested that day to help the environment.