Thomas, S., & Croft, A. (2016, August 22). Nuclear Developers Have Big Plans
for Pint-Sized Power Plants in UK. Retrieved August 28, 2016, from http://www.nytimes.com/reuters/2016/08/22/business/22reuters-britain-nuclear-smr.html?_r=0

This article is about power plants in London, in which the main topic is aimed the lack of mini-nuclear power plants that could solve “Britain’s looming power crunch.” In these kind of power plants, small modular reactors (SMR) utilize existing or new nuclear technology in order to produce about one-tenth of the amount of electricity produced by well-known businesses and companies. According to critics, the big issue is that it might be very expensive, and that it is not worth the cost.

This article completely leaves out the conversation of pollution. The critics mentioned in the article did not even talk about the effects of pollution, only the cost of the nuclear power plants. The fact that they do not even address the state of pollution underscores the lack of general human concerns for the consequences of the environment. When people read this, they will not even think about the negative effects of the plants because it wasn’t even talked about in the article.

Hirstenstein, A. (2016, July 20). These Clean Energy Projects Pollute More Than Coal Power Plants. Retrieved August 28, 2016, from
http://www.bloomberg.com/news/articles/2016-07-21/these-clean-energy-projects-pollute-more-t han-coal-power-plants

The main topic this article addresses is a kind of power plant that supplies a steady supply of clean energy from the natural heat of Earth: Geothermal plants. However, it was found evident that, in Turkey, some of these wells pollute the atmosphere as much as coal-fired power plants. The main substance emitted from these power plants is carbon dioxide. A graphic showed how much Turkey’s geothermal plants pollute the air compared to coal, lignite, and natural gas, revealing that lignite produced the most grams of carbon dioxide out of the three.

This article is related to environmental science because it calls into question the reality of different kinds of “environmentally friendly” power plants. Clearly stated in the article, the geothermal power plants were presented to be “clean” and “renewable”, however they were proved to be just as polluting as coal-fired power plants. I think this article is great because it is able to disprove the fact that “clean” power plants are not so clean after all.

Bayar, T. (2016, June 22). Romania coal power plants violating EU law says
report. Retrieved August 28, 2016, from http://www.powerengineeringint.com/articles/2016/06/romania-coal-power-plants-violating-eu-law-says-report.html

This article talks about how Romania is defying the European Nation’s emissions law on releasing a coal-fired plant fleet. Bayar reported that, “The report found that, of Romania’s 11 coal-fired power plants, only two have avoided exceeding EU emissions standards while the rest have continued to operate illegally.” Five plants of the eleven had failed to reduce EU-mandated levels including other thermal plants that happened to be suspended by the European Guard.

Again, this brings up the conversation about power plants being an environmental issue due to the fact that it can cause widespread pollution across the world. I think that the actions of the EU tackling this power plant fleet is very important because of the long terms effects of pollution.

Williams, D. (2016, August 15). World Bank considers financing of Kosovan coal-fired power plant. Retrieved August 28, 2016, from http://www.powerengineeringint.com/articles/2016/08/world-bank-considers-financing-of-kosov an-coal-fired-power-plant.html

This article mainly discusses the debate of whether to implement a coal-powered plant in Kosovo. Their government says the plant is essential to the territory’s energy security. This plant is aimed at alleviating energy consumption in public buildings and demonstrating economic viability of energy investments. In order to approve the investment towards the power plant, requiring to meet all relevant environmental, social, and technical analysis.

I believe that implementing a power plant in Kosovo is not a good idea because of the amount of pollution it may induce on the world. This is an environmental issue because some people build useless power plants for their own financial benefit. This one in particular is aimed to reduce energy consumption and demand within the main population, however that can backfire because of the environmental pollution it can cause. Yes, it can save energy, but everything these days comes at a cost with a certain consequence. This plant, in my opinion, is just not worth the kind of damage it can do to our atmosphere.

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