Category Archives: Environmental

MIT’s Nuclear Reactor

1 Reply

On November 4, 2015 we got the opportunity to visit MIT’s nuclear reactor. MIT’s nuclear reactor is one of few reactors in the world that allows visitors to tour inside the nuclear reactor, so this was truly a chance of a lifetime. When we first entered we signed in at the front desk and then we were given a personal dosimeter. The personal dosimeter measured the amount of radiation that we were exposed to. By pointing the personal dosimeter towards a light source and then peaking through it, you would see a simple bar line that would tell you how much radiation your being expose to. Once we all signed in, we went to a room to receive a lecture on the history and the technology in the nuclear reactor.

 

MIT_Nuclear_Reactor_Laboratory_-_Tower_Tech_Cooling_Tower

 

MIT’s nuclear reactor has been operating since 1958 and has received two major upgrades in 1975 and 2010. These upgrades enhanced the power output of the nuclear reactor. As of now, the reactor produces approximately 6 MW of thermo electric power. When the 6 MW of thermo electric power is converted into usable electric power the nuclear reactor is only able to power on a 100-Watt light bulb. MIT plans on upgrading the nuclear reactor to a maximum of 10 MW over the years. By increasing the power output of the reactor, it would allow experiments to be done faster. It is important to remember that MIT’s nuclear reactor was not created to generate electricity but to be used for research. The water used for cooling the reactor comes from the city’s water source but then it is highly filtered to the point it is clearly clear. You can see the bottom of the reactor through 10ft of water. Over time the water becomes heavy water (D2O) and must be replaced. The D2O is sent to the government and more is received. The health of the nuclear reactor is highly important which results in approximately 500 maintenance items being changed per year. The actual size of the nuclear reactor is small, measuring at about 15 inches by 22 inches. If you were able to look through the top of the reactor you would notice that there is a blue glow coming from the reactor and this due to electrons traveling at the speed of light in water, which gives off the glow effect. After the long lecture, we moved on to the best part of the trip, touring inside the actual reactor.

 

ReactorGlow

 

From the outside, the reactor looks like a mid size white dome, but once your actually inside you are immediately overwhelmed by the size of it. Before entering the actual dome, we had to go through a pressurization hallway. There were two thick doors that were most likely over a ton. Our tour guide opened the first door and we squished ourselves in a small hallway. Once we were all in, the tour guide closed the first door and then proceeded to opening the second door that was the actual entrance to the reactor. When you walk in, the difference in pressure becomes extremely obvious. Inside the reactor there are many mechanical and electrical systems working in sync to operate the nuclear plant. There are many sensors throughout the systems, which make sure the reactor is working under appropriate numbers. We then walked up a set of stairs, which took us to the same level as the top of the reactor itself. On top of us there was a crane that can rotate 360 degrees around the dome. The crane is used to move heavy items from inside the dome and to also place used uranium into a basement holding tank until it can be shipped to another facility to be taken care of. The tour guide also explained how the dome is made up of 3 feet concrete walls to guarantee that it is a safe containment building.

 

After observing the nuclear reactor and its many systems, we went to the basement to check out the operation room. The operation room looks like something pulled out of a movie. There are hundred of buttons on the walls and multiple screens each displaying vital data information. The brains of this room are the operators themselves. They go through an extensive training process in which they must learn about 3 feet of information. The operators know how to deal with most problems that might arise during their shift. I highly respect those individuals who work as operators in the nuclear reactor because it must definitely be a stressful job due to the amount of responsibility on their shoulders. Before we left, we went through a station that measured our radiation level to make sure no one had abnormal values. Overall, this trip was an amazing experience. It was very informational and enjoyable.

Iran’s Nuclear Energy Program

Leave a reply

 

Iran’s Nuclear Energy Program has always been a controversial issue to the international community. The international community is worried that Iran might be using their nuclear energy program to develop nuclear bombs, which is seen as a threat to the Western Hemisphere. “Israel and critics in the U.S. Congress say Iran can’t be trusted to make any fissile material, whether for energy, medicine or bombs” (Bloomberg). I will explore the origins of  Iran’s nuclear energy program and why their are negative conceptions of Iran’s nuclear plants.

 

Bushehr_Iran_nuclear

 

Iran’s Nuclear Program was first established in 1957 through the US Atoms for Peace program. 18 years later in 1975 the construction of two nuclear power plants near Bushehr began. In 1979, Iran experienced an Islamic revolution which resulted in “further payment [to be] withheld and work was abandoned early in 1979” (World Nuclear Association). The two nuclear plants that were being constructed ended up being destroyed in Iraqi airstrikes that occurred from 1984 to 1988. Although these two nuclear plants were damaged, the “revival of the shah’s nuclear program was initially presented as necessary to diversify energy sources” (United States Institute of Peace). Iran could economically benefit by exporting their resources such as oil and use nuclear plants to generate the electricity needed to power the nation. The concerns of Iran’s purpose for a nuclear plant began to become evident when Iran’s program may have “been a byproduct of the troubled revolution’s omnipresent need for legitimacy and Iranian nationalism’s quest for respect and international status” (United States Institute of Peace). As a result the international community was puzzled by Iran’s main goal with their nuclear plants. It is important to note that Iran works concurrently with Russia in the development of their nuclear plants. The amount of Uranium in Iran is very limited which results in Uranium from Russia to be imported in, in order to run the plants. All used and exhausted Uranium rods are then returned back to Russia.  If we fast-forwarding to the present, “The reason why such attention has been focused on Iran is because it hid a clandestine uranium enrichment programme for 18 years, in breach of the Nuclear Non-Proliferation Treaty (NPT)” (BBC News). Iran’s enrichment process of Uranium was under secrecy from the international community, which has caused the rest of the world to be skeptical towards Iran. Consequently, the United Nations Security Council has passed various resolutions, which would limit its uranium enrichment. These resolutions are in place to guarantee that Iran does not enrich uranium to be used for nuclear weapons.

 

In my opinion, these rules set in place by the UN Security council are definitely necessary. In a country like Iran where their objective is unknown and they have kept certain aspects of their nuclear program in secrecy, it is vital to set some form of regulations to how they can get things done. In addition, I don’t think these resolutions should only be applied to Iran, but they should apply to every nation with nuclear plants. This will insure that no nation is developing nuclear weapons. Nuclear plants should only be used for generating electricity and to not create weapons of mass destruction.

 

References:

Tyrone, Jonathan. “Iran’s Nuclear Program.” Bloomberg. N.p., 11 Sept. 2015. Web. 06 Nov. 2015.

“Iran Nuclear Crisis: Six Key Points.” BBC News. N.p., 14 July 2015. Web. 06 Nov. 2015.

“The Politics of Iran’s Nuclear Program.” The Iran Primer. United States Institute of Peace, Aug. 2015. Web. 06 Nov. 2015.

“World Nuclear Association.” Nuclear Power in Iran. N.p., 20 Oct. 2015. Web. 06 Nov. 2015.

Pandora’s Promise

Leave a reply

Pandora’s Promise is a very interesting documentary that explores the view of various environmental activists on nuclear reactors. The documentary investigates and dismantles various myths about nuclear reactors that have led the majority of society to have a negative view of nuclear reactors. The film began with environmental activities stating why they used to think that nuclear energy was unsafe but over time they came into realization that nuclear energy was actually advantageous regardless of all the bad myths said about this renewable energy. The documentary explores 3 events that instilled a bad image of nuclear power plants, which are Chernobyl, The Three Mile Island, and the most recent the Fukushima disaster. Before discussing these 3 disasters, the film listed some very interesting and eye opening facts of nuclear energy. Nuclear Energy has been discovered to be the 2nd most safest energy source. As stated by one of the Environmentalists, anyone who is against Nuclear Energy is a supporter of coal and oil fossil fuels, which are just as dangerous. It was also discussed how apiece of uranium the size of a thumb has enough energy to output the same energy as 5000 barrels of oil. Such an astonishing fact makes it very evident that nuclear energy has the ability of saving tons of CO2 from being emitted into the atmosphere.

 

View_of_Chernobyl_taken_from_Pripyat

 

The documentary begins breaking down each event starting with Chernobyl disaster in Ukraine. In 1986, the Chernobyl Nuclear Power Plant exploded which resulted in a lot of radioactive particles being released into the atmosphere. The local community was forced to evacuate the area because it was contaminated with radioactive material. From the Chernobyl disaster less than 50 people died from radiation poisoning. Anti-Nuclear Energy activist have stated that millions of people have died as a result of the disaster, which in reality is a false accusation. It also important to understand that the current image of the local town around the Nuclear power plant is not a result of the radiation but of natural breakdown of the house materials. Some occupants of the local community decided to come back after the evacuation and start their lives again within the contaminated area. A priest of the community stated that he has been living there for the past 25 years and no one has died as a result of radiation contamination.

 

3MileIsland

 

 

1444539869219

 

In The Three Mile Island Nuclear Reactor a meltdown resulted in the power plant shutting down. But unlike Chernobyl, the event was able to be contained within the building and not allow spreading of radiation. No one died nor got injured in this disaster. The cause of both the Three Mile Island and Chernobyl was an inadequate cooling system, which resulted in a meltdown and an explosion at Chernobyl. In the Fukushima disaster, the power plant’s cooling system was damaged as a result of an earthquake and tsunami in Japan. This resulted in radioactive materials being released into the atmosphere.

 

Most of disasters of Nuclear Power Plants have been a result of bad design to contain any disasters that could happen. After the documentary finalized its breakdown of each of the three disaster it switched gears to France to demonstrate how Nuclear Energy can be used to produce the majority of the electricity being consumed in a country. 80% of France’s electricity comes from Nuclear Energy, and they are doing so good that they even sell their electricity to other European countries. Although a Nuclear Power Plant has a big upfront cost we must thing about the long term investment and realize that these power plant has the ability to produce electricity for 60, 80, or even 100 years! What makes nuclear energy more renewable than every other source is due to the fact that you can use the waste of nuclear power plants to be put into a 4th generation reactor (which still isn’t fully developed) and keep reusing the waste.

 

This documentary is full of fascinating facts that without a doubt dispel a lot of the negative images of nuclear plants. I highly recommend this documentary to any reader who is interested in having a more complete image of nuclear energy. The information and 1st person testimonies of environmental activists provided in this documentary allowed the watchers experience to be quiet immersive and enjoyable.

President Obama dealing with Climate Change

1 Reply

In recent years, there has been a gradual growth in environmental concerns from citizens, which has led many political figures to take a stand on the subject. Our current president, Barack Obama, has received the responsibility to deal with the problem of climate change. President Obama has started various initiatives to begin to tackle climate change. Collaboration between President Obama and the Environmental Protecting Agency has resulted in the development of a final version of the “Clean Power Plan”. With the implementation of this plan the federal government would “require states to meet specific carbon emission reduction standards” (Malloy). Under this plan, there would be limitations as to how much CO2 each state can emit into the atmosphere. In addition to the restriction of CO2 pollution, the plan strongly encouraged states to look into renewable energy sources and ways to use energy-efficient technology. Obama doesn’t just see this as a positive step for the US but he also hopes that he can inspire “other countries to commit to deep reductions in their own carbon emissions” (Davenport/Gardiner). If he can convince other big nations such as China, India, and Russia to cut their emissions, then thousands of metric tons of CO2 will be removed from the atmosphere annually.

 

Also, President Obama announced that he would “create jobs and cut carbon pollution by advancing solar deployment and energy efficiency” (U.S. Department of Energy). Making solar panels more available to the private and pubic sector is an ideal way of reducing carbon emissions gradually. Obama plans to focus on the industry first before strongly encouraging the people to become eco-friendly. After all, the source of most CO2 emissions comes from the industrial field such as power plants, factories, and etc. Reducing CO2 emissions in the industrial field will without a doubt have a profound impact that we will and future generations benefit from.

 

Furthermore, Obama isn’t only asking power plants to improve their efficiency. He is also demanding the automotive industry to improve the gas mileage of their respective vehicles. Obama “commits to developing fuel economy standards for heavy-duty vehicles” (The Washington Post). Heavy-Duty vehicles are not the most energy efficient because they take in so much gas and don’t seem to output a reasonable amount of driving distance in return. Heavy-Duty vehicles “account for about a quarter of U.S. on-road fuel use and greenhouse gas emissions from transportation” (Automotive News). Cars and light-trucks are not out of the vision either. Obama has also worked with his administration to finalize new efficiency standards that will require automakers to produce vehicles with a “fuel economy to the equivalent of 54.5 mpg for cars and light-duty trucks by Model Year 2025” (The White House). By increasing gas mileage standards it will help cars to become more efficient and travel further with less gas. I like to see this new standard as a mutualistic relationship between the environment and car consumers. While consumers get to consume more gas for their buck, the environment receives more relief as a result of less CO2 emissions.

 

President Obama’s strategy is definitely a challenging task, which is still doable. These plans will only work if everyone, private and public sectors, cooperates with one another in achieving these new standards and also promoting alternative green energy. We are at a perfect time where the older generation can pave the road for green energy and pass the torch to our current young generation that will keep the flame burning vibrantly.

 

References:

Davenport, Coral, and Gardiner Harris. “Obama to Unveil Tougher Environmental Plan With His Legacy in Mind.” The New York Times. The New York Times, 01 Aug. 2015. Web. 21 Sept. 2015.

Malloy, Allie, and Sunlen Serfaty. “Obama Unveils Major Climate Change Proposal.” CNN Politics. CNN, 3 Aug. 2015. Web. 21 Sept. 2015.

“Commit to Solar.” Commit to Solar. Office of Energy Efficiency & Renewable Energy, n.d. Web. 21 Sept. 2015.

“Highlights of Obama’s Plan to Cut Carbon.” Washington Post. The Washington Post, n.d. Web. 21 Sept. 2015.

“Obama Administration Finalizes Historic 54.5 MPG Fuel Efficiency Standards.” The White House. The White House, 28 Aug. 2012. Web. 22 Sept. 2015.

“Obama Sets March 2016 Goal for Truck Fuel Efficiency Rules.” Automotive News. N.p., 18 Feb. 2014. Web. 22 Sept. 2015.

A Lonely Quest for Facts on Genetically Modified Crops

Leave a reply

In Amy Harmon’s article “A Lonely Quest for Facts on Genetically Modified Crops” (2014) she explores the perspectives of two different activists regarding the GMO (Genetically Modified Organism) bill that was introduced in May 2013 in Hawaii. The GMO bill that was introduced would of banned the use of genetically engineered crops in Hawaii, except for corn and papaya. The head of the GMO bill, Margaret Wille, believed that the health risks of GMOs have not been thoroughly investigated. She also elucidated that introducing GMOs into Hawaii would disturb the natural ecosystem that the island holds. The counter-arguer of the bill, Greggor Ilagan, believed that GMOs were economically advantageous to the island and to farmers as well. During one of the public hearings of the bill, various people expressed their resentment towards GMOs as a result of “cancer in rats, a rise in childhood allergies, out-of-control superweeds” (Harmon). It is evident that the public community saw GMOs as a threat to the environment due to the negative effects listed by those individuals. However, while the public community had a negative connotation of GMOs, local farmers express their support towards the use of GMOs. Local farmers saw GMOs as beneficial to their crops since it increases the livelihood to survive attacks from pesticide. This argument by the farmers was definitely a good point because their crops have received genes with attributes that can help them (the crop) to become immune to natural diseases and pests. Farmers also explicated how economically important GMOs are, such as Papaya, because it allowed them to maintain a smooth income without being too dependent on the health of their crops. One argument that the farmers could have definitely used to strengthen their point was that with GMOs, they don’t need to rely so heavily on chemicals to use on the land, which is harmful. GMOs allow most of the land to be “recycled” and not be exhausted with excessive chemicals.

 

Mr. Ilagan saw the use of GMOs as a positive step towards the agricultural success of crops on the island. In contrast, Ms. Wille saw many things wrong regarding the usage of GMOs. Ms. Wille also took an economical view on the matter and concluded differently to Mr. Ilagan. The idea of having GMO Corporations in the island was seen as a nonviolent threat to the people. Ms. Wille has an environmentalist mindset and her ultimate goal is to protect and conserve the natural ecosystem of the island. Introducing GMOs into the environment will only hurt habitats. She also believes their is a more economical advantage to non-GMO products which can be marketed. Corporations are thought to be more interested in the economic income of GMOs rather than the health of the community. Another problem that Ms. Wille noticed with GMOs was the cost of the seeds. GMO seeds are more expensive than conventional seeds. It is almost as if the disadvantageous cancels out the benefits of GMOs. Very poor farmers find themselves buying expensive bioengineered seeds that they can barely afford. As cited by Ms. Wille, GMOs caused “suicides among farmers in India, purportedly driven into debt by the high cost of patented, genetically modified cotton seeds” (Harmon).

 

As stated by Amy Harmon, President Obama reassured the Hawaiian community that he would take a stance in all issues. Although with his perspective of GMOs and its implementation, he seems to find himself stuck in a weird position where he cannot take a definite stance. This just comes to show the complexity of GMOs. It is a technology that has not been researched enough and more unanswered questions are piling up rather than answered questions with scientific research to back up the claims.

 

In my personal opinion, I only support the availability and the usage of GMOs that are already distributed in our current agricultural market. Most of us have been consuming GMOs for the majority of our lives; these include soy, canola, and sugar. These common GMOs are proven to be safe for consumption and are not known to have any side effects. However, I do not support the use of untested GMOs that have not been fully researched. Without enough scientific research we are dealing with something that even we don’t fully understand. The drawbacks of such technology still is not clear to the science community so it shouldn’t be fully accessible to the public. Instead, I think research laboratories should conduct studies with a variation of participants who are willing to test different GMOs and observations should be taken regarding the health of the participants. We must understand how GMOs can directly impact the human body rather then rat labs. After GMOs are tested and are found safe for consumption then I will support the use of all GMOs. After all, GMOs are a great way to help fight malnutrition in 3rd world countries and could possibly help sustain the world in the future due to the rapid population growth.

 

References:

Harmon, Amy. “A Lonely Quest for Facts on Genetically Modified Crops.” The New York Times. The New York Times, 04 Jan. 2014. Web. 16 Sept. 2015.