Last year, the $300 million Sutter Energy Plant known as one of the cleanest plants in the nation closed indefinitely. This closing was highly controversial as the plant was supposed to have a 30-40 year long lifespan however it was only open for merely 15 years due to an oversight in energy necessity in California. Because of the adoption of cleaner energy sources by Californian consumers, several Californian power plants have been closed because of the surplus of energy provided in California. If this continues, California residents will end up paying billions in costs because of higher approval rates for energy sources.

In my opinion, I think that it is beneficial for California to close power plants that produce high amounts of harmful emissions. However I do not agree with the closing of cleaner energy plants while those which are much more harmful are still being used as that is not environmentally ethical. I do like the idea that California is cutting down on its energy usage and therefore we do not need as many power plants because of the adoption of clean energy practices, but I do not think that we should close clean plants prematurely as there must be alternatives for excess energy. By prematurely closing plants, it is costs the taxpayers millions with seemingly an unfulfilled promise on their investments.

Source:

Campion, J. (2017, February 10). California Power Plants Strike Danger to Consumers.

Retrieved from: http://www.laloyolan.com/news/california-power-plants-strike-danger-to-consumers/article_76483d53-21d6-5fb4-9530-91f1fbdb065d.html

AES energy company has proposed to build a new natural gas power plant in Long Beach, but the proposal has been met with strong opposition from environmental groups, such as the Los Cerritos Wetlands Group. The proposed 1,040 megaWatt plant has been called “too large” by the opposition as it would discourage the use of clean energy sources because of how much power the plant would generate. AES has claimed that the plant needs to be very large so that it can supply power to consumers if their alternative energy sources falter and can no longer produce energy. AES is also proposing to build a 100 megaWatt battery storage facility in Huntington Beach to store the energy produced by the new plant. The California Energy Commission will give its decision by April 12th regarding the proposal.

I do not like this proposal as I feel that it drives Californians away from the future of energy. With carbon emissions at an all time high in the world, we must get away from fossil fuels and adopt clean energy as a mainstream practice. California has to be the leader in illustrating to the nation the future of energy in the United States, and the building of this power plant reduces the necessity of alternative energy sources for Californians. California does not need another large power plant for the future, but more Californians who are willing to adopt cleaner forms of energy.

Source:

Edwards, A. (2017, March 7). Proposed AES Long Beach Power Plant Too Large, Says Los

Cerritos Wetlands Group. Retrieved from http://www.presstelegram.com/business/20170307/proposed-aes-long-beach-power-plant-too-large-says-los-cerritos-wetlands-group

The recently shut down Edward Hyatt hydroelectric plant in northern California has been set to reopen in the near future. The cause of the sudden shutdown was due to the damage to the Oroville Dam after a spillway which nearly caused it to collapse entirely. The spillway was caused by an overload of concrete, rocks, and other debris which caused water levels to rise to an unsafe level in which the turbines could no longer operate. Cleanup efforts have been made to allow the resuming of the plant’s operations however the shutdown has caused water levels to rise even more as water is not being filtered. The closing of the plant has resulted in the surrounding area to depend more on natural gas plants as their source of energy has been cut off, however efforts to resume the hydroelectric plant power generation have been underway and operators hope to reopen the plant in the near future.

This article illustrates some of the dangers of newfound reliance on renewable energy sources. Similar to wind and solar energy, hydroelectric power depends on natural forces in order to create electricity, and there are unexpected occurrences with natural resources, no electricity is produced. The shutting down of the plant caused an unexpected shortage of power for the surrounding area of the plant, causing them to rely on other natural gas plants as their electricity source. I believe that this illustrates that the world will always need sources of reliable energy such as nuclear or natural gas so that when renewable energy faults and no electricity is being produced, there is always a fall back to meet people’s electricity needs.

Source:

Overton, T. (2017, March 1). Oroville Dam Power Plant May Reopen This Week. Retrieved from

http://www.powermag.com/oroville-dam-power-plant-may-reopen-this-week/

The California Green Mandates played a crucial role in the shutting down of the Navajo Generating Station in Arizona. However, this may lead to a federal lawsuit against California as some view this action as unconstitutional according to the Constitution’s Commerce Clause. California passed a law in 2006 which prohibited the renewal of contracts with coal-fired plants. However as recently as 2015, three out of state coal plants provided 50% of Southern California’s energy and are now being shut down in favor of natural gas plants because of California state policy. Opposition to the shutdown cite loss of jobs as the greatest repercussion as the plant provides 755 jobs for workers in the surrounding area of the Navajo plant.

Coal is one of the worst fossil fuels in terms of emissions and although natural gas also produces harmful emissions, it is the lesser of two evils in terms of environmental impact. California has become a leader in terms of reducing fuel emissions and its efforts in not endorsing coal fired plants proves this fact. I share the same viewpoint with California against the endorsement of coal-fired plants because of the extremely harmful impact that they have on the environment. However profitable the coal business is, I do not think that it worth it because of the extreme harm that it causes to the environment as well as the workers in the business.

Source:

Bastasch, M. (2017, February 17). Could Trump Take California To Court To Save A Navajo Coal Plant. Retrieved from

http://dailycaller.com/2017/02/17/could-trump-take-california-to-court-to-save-a-navajo-coal-plant/

Californian emissions have been found to be 250% higher due to the closing of several nuclear power plants across the state according to the Environmental Progress data. Many of the nuclear plants in California which were set to run for decades longer were closed prematurely due to the new California Renewable Portfolio Standard which does include nuclear power in its plans. According to recent studies, had the plants been kept open, California would have a 73% of its energy provided from clean sustainable energy sources instead of the 34% that it claims today. 48% of that energy would have come from nuclear power plants as opposed to only 9% that they contribute now. Because of the lower cost of natural gas plants, California put out 30.5 million metric tons of emissions more than if the plan would have pursued the use of nuclear energy.

This article illustrates how clean and reliable nuclear energy is and how it is the best form of energy for the future of California. However, the stigma and health concerns of people about nuclear power have caused plants across California to close in favor for natural gas plants, whose emissions are far more harmful to the environment. I think that California should have kept utilizing nuclear power as a primary source of energy as our emissions would be miniscule as compared to what we are putting out today, and the environment would greatly benefit. I see nuclear power as the future of California’s energy production, but it seems that nuclear energy will be in the past for California.

Source:

Deng, M. (2017, February 28). California Nuclear Closures Resulted in 250% Higher Emissions from Electricity. Retrieved from

http://www.theenergycollective.com/minshu/2399342/california-nuclear-closures-resulted-250-higher-emissions-electricity

Harthrorne, M. (2016 October, 21). US Has New Nuclear Reactor for First Time in 20 Years.

Retrieved From

http://www.newser.com/story/232899/first-us-nuclear-reactor-of-21st-century-completed.html

The first commercial power plant of the twenty-first century, Watts Bar, was just completed in Tennessee. The plant’s construction began in 1973, with the first reactor being completed in 1996. The second reactor was finally completed in October 2016, and the plant is fully functional after a 43 year long project, becoming the seventh nuclear power plant for Tennessee. The second reactor reportedly took over $4.7 billion to build, with the project going over budget by billions of dollars. The new reactor is scheduled to provide energy for 40 years to 650,000 homes of US citizens. It has taken the spot as the 100th commercial reactor in the United States, and Tennessee Senator Lamar Alexander hopes to see another 100 nuclear plants built across America, but the Tennessee Valley Authority does not plan to build any more in their state.

I am glad to see this project come to a close and the presence of nuclear power in Tennessee. Senator Lamar Alexander said that he favors nuclear energy because it “provides cheap, carbon free, and reliable electricity,” and I agree with this statement. Many states are reverting to carbon emissions because they are cheaper than nuclear power, however they are horrific for the environment. The new power plant will produce emission free energy to over 650,000 homes and create many jobs, which will be great for the people of Tennessee. I think that the United States should follow Tennessee’s example and utilize more nuclear energy rather than depending on carbon-emitting sources of energy.

Behr, P. (2016, November 17). Nuclear Closures Magnify US Climate Challenge for Trump.

Retrieved From http://www.eenews.net/stories/1060045903

The future of nuclear energy is very unclear at this moment in time. The new president-elect Donald Trump wishes to stray away from clean energy such as nuclear power because it is not the future of America’s energy. Not believing in global warming, he campaigned on the idea of returning the majority of United States energy to coal and natural gas, a much less expensive energy source than nuclear energy. This would result in the shutting down of many nuclear power plants throughout the nation and much more carbon-emissions to come.

I hope that the United States will stick with carbon free emissions rather than resorting to the excessive use of coal and natural gas. I do believe that global warming is a real thing that must be dealt with so that we do not destroy our environment. If we use coal and natural gas, our carbon emissions will be unbelievably high, and the destruction of our planet’s atmosphere will be soon to follow. In my opinion, we need to prioritize our environment over the cost of energy, because the future consequences of forsaking our environmental destruction may be catastrophic.

Morris, F. (2016, October 24). Waste, Families Left Behind As Nuclear Plants Close.

Retrieved From

http://www.npr.org/2016/10/24/498842677/waste-families-left-behind-as-nuclear-plants-close

The Fort Calhoun power plant in Nebraska was recently closed last month. It was supposed to run until the year 2033, yet recent financial issues has caused its discontinuation. The plant has produced sustainable energy for 43 years, and was commissioned to continue producing energy for another 17 years. The closing was due to the cheaper energy alternatives, such as natural gas, solar and wind, but the closing will cost an estimated $1.5 billion and result in thousands of lost jobs. In addition, the area around Fort Calhoun will have to deal with the consequences of nuclear waste being stored in the decommissioned plant because government sites for storage of nuclear waste have not been completed yet. The closing of the plant will cause surrounding civilians to pay for the waste without the benefits of receiving energy, high-paying jobs, or tax benefits for using nuclear energy.

I think that this closing is not just. Even though nuclear power is expensive, it creates energy and numerous jobs for people. The closing of the plant in the Fort Calhoun area will send ripple effects for future generations in the area. Many people have lost their jobs, and the remaining people in the area must deal with the danger of stored nuclear waste in their area. The plant should have remained active for the remaining 17 years that it was commissioned to run so that the people could reap the benefits of a power plant in their area. Yet, now they must deal with layoffs, halted tax breaks, and the potential danger posed from nuclear waste.  

Plumer, B. (2016, November 3). The US keeps shutting down nuclear power plants and

replacing them with coal or gas. Retrieved From

http://www.vox.com/energy-and-environment/2016/11/3/13499278/nuclear-retirements-coal-gas

Over the past three years, the United States has lost five nuclear power plants in favor of cheap natural gas. Power plants still provide about 19 % of the nation’s energy, and the closing down of power plants has severely affected the United States’ energy production. This loss of energy due to the closing of plants has led to more burning of coal and natural gas, which is worse for the environment than the emission-free nuclear power. By the year 2030, seven more reactors may be shut down, and 75% of the energy produced by these reactors may be compensated by the use of coal and natural gas. The use of greenhouse gas emitting fuels would be at an all time high in many different regions of the United States.

I think that the United States needs to support nuclear power plants as an energy source. It is a clean, carbon-free source of energy that has provided power for millions of people in the US. If we are going to stray away from nuclear power, we must compensate with an energy source that is just as clean, or cleaner, but we cannot revert to coal and natural gas. This conversion would wreak havoc on the environment and cause numerous new problems for our nation’s future.