Month: March 2016

Introduction

The President’s Climate Action Plan was released by the United States Executive Office of the President in June 2013. It set forth a vision for the US government to work to prevent climate change not only domestically, but internationally. This blog post will first describe this action plan, and then give examples of three initiatives set forth in the action plan.

The President’s Climate Action Plan

This document is in the form of a 21-page report, and is divided into three sections. The first section is titled, “Cut Carbon Pollution in America,” and describes the President’s plan for domestic efforts to reduce carbon emissions in the US. It sets forth goals with respect to deploying more clean energy, cutting waste in both the home and business sectors, and reducing other greenhouse gas emissions. One initiative put forth in this section is cutting carbon pollution through advanced transportation technologies, and I will describe this initiative in this blog post.

The second section of the report is titled, “Prepare the United States for the Impacts of Climate Change”. This section describes plans to build safer infrastructures and communities, protecting the US economy and natural resources, and referring to science to manage climate impacts. This section describes an initiative focused on preventing droughts, wildfires, and floods, and I will describe this in my blog post.

Finally the third section is titled, “Lead International Efforts to Address Global Climate Change”, and describes international efforts the US is involved in. Initiatives are described that involve joint efforts between countries, and how international negotiation is intended to be used to develop new international joint efforts is covered. One initiative described in this section involves international efforts to prevent deforestation, and I will cover this initiative here.

Cutting Carbon Pollution in America through Advanced Transportation Technologies

Several initiatives under this main initiative were described:

• Renewable Fuels Standard – This initiative supports investing in research and development to develop new biofuels and bring them online. Biofuels are energy made of biomass; the two most comment types of biofuels are ethanol and biodiesel.

• Department of Energy’s eGallon program – This program informs drivers about electric car operating costs in their state. The national average for operating costs for electric cars is only $1.14 per gallon of gasoline equivalent.

• United States Navy and Departments of Energy and Agriculture – These agencies are collaborating on an initiative to work with the private sector to accelerate the development and use of advanced biofuels in military and commercial sectors.

Preparing the United States for Climate Change: Droughts, Wildfires, and Floods

The President’s Climate Action Plan also described efforts to mitigate the impact of droughts, wildfires and floods:

• National Drought Resilience Partnership – The Obama Administration launched this effort which was built upon the National Disaster Recovery Framework. This is intended as a “front door” for communities seeking assistance in preventing droughts and reducing the impact of droughts.
• Western Watershed Enhancement Partnership – This is a pilot project in five western states between the Department of the Interior and the Department of Agriculture. This project aims to reduce the risk of wildfires by removing flammable vegetation around critical areas such as water reservoirs. In August 2014, the program announced that it had restored an important central Arizona watershed.
• Update to Flood Risk Reduction Standards – This effort is an extension of the work done by the Hurricane Sandy Rebuilding Task Force. It will incorporate the most recent science on expected rates of sea-level rise in different regions.

International Efforts: Reducing Emissions from Deforestation

Conclusion

Introduction

We went on a trip to the Museum of Science in Boston, and were asked to review four exhibits: Energized!, Catching the Wind, Conserve@Home, and Investigate. Energized! focused on different ways of generating energy. Catching the Wind focused on wind turbine energy. Conserve@Home showed different ways of recycling and conserving energy. Investigate! provided opportunities for observation and experimentation. I will review my reaction to these exhibits here.

Energized! Exhibit

In the Energized! Exhibit, one part of the exhibit showed how energy levels generated by solar energy change throughout the
day, depending on the time of day. This is similar to an experiment we did in class in looking at how much solar energy was generated when we directed light from a flashlight on a solar cell.

To the left, you can see the picture I took of this part of the exhibit. Notice the arrows labeled “Morning”, “Noon”, and “Afternoon”. These are associated with three buttons on the console. As you can see, I pushed the button on the right, and that directed Afternoon levels of light at the solar panel (see the red wand). A display is made that shows the level of energy being generated – see the red box on the left.

Observe that the black surface on which the light is falling is irregularly shaped, like a building would be. This is to demonstrate that not only does the surface matter, but the location of the light source matters, in terms of generating solar energy.

Catching the Wind Exhibit

This exhibit focused on wind energy. There was a tube under which a person can place their hand and feel wind. This is the amount of wind needed in order to turn a wind turbine. I tried it, and it was not a very strong wind, but it was definitely stronger than a breeze.

They had a display that showed several different types of wind turbines.

This picture shows four different turbines. I had not really thought about the differences between these before this exhibit. One way they demonstrate the differences is by showing how many light bulbs could be lit for a year using the energy from this turbine. They show this with a graphic to the right of the turbine.

As you can see by the graphics, the one on the left produces the most energy. This can be seen by all the yellow light bulbs that would be lit for a year. The turbine to the right of it is similar, but the ones on the far right seem far less productive.

Conserve@Home Exhibit

There were two sections of this exhibit I will talk about: A part that showed how waste can be recycled into products, and a
part that showed, how “smart” houses might be able to generate energy from within themselves.

What a Waste! Display

On the left, you will see a picture I took of the first part I mentioned. The flaps over the wooden boxes show an example of a type of waste. When you lift the flap, inside is an example of a product that can be made through this type of waste As you can see on the right, a person is lifting the flap and showing a type of garment that can be made out of recycled materials. The point of this part of the display was to show how different household waste we see every day could be changed into something new that we need at home.

Turn Your Energy Into Light Display

In this display, there was a steering wheel (lower right). As I turned the steering wheel, it would generate electricity that
would be shown by how much the lights connected to the steering wheel lit up. If I turned the wheel very fast, it generated more energy.

There were three kinds of lights: The one of the left is LED, the one in the middle is incandescent, and the last one was CFL (fluorescent). I noticed that as I turned the wheel, there was a delay between that and the lights coming on. And, I noticed this delay was the shortest with the incandescent light – it came right on when I started turning the wheel.

Investigate Exhibit

Finally, the Investigate exhibit encouraged us to consider some ideas from a scientific perspective. I was very interested in a particular exhibit that showed how a toilet flushed. I took a video of this, but I had trouble posting it, so I will post the picture here. Notice that in the toilet bowl, there are two white floating ping pong balls. When it is flushed, we can see the balls travel to the left through the pipes.

Notice the white vertical pipe on the back wall. The balls actually travel through the plumbing system and end up coming down that pipe! After viewing this, these questions were posted to think about:

To answer some of these questions, I learned the process of how the mechanisms in a toilet work to push the water along, since it was transparent. It made sense now with the sound I would hear with the flush; I now can see what happens along with the sound. Also, I was able to see how narrow this was, and I totally understand why people are told not to put too much paper in the toilet! It is easy to plug.

Conclusion

In conclusion, I enjoyed looking at these different exhibits. From the Energize! exhibit, I was able to see the effect of the sun moving across the sky on solar energy generation. In the Catching the Wind exhibit, I learned about the different types of wind turbines and how much energy they make. In the What a Waste! display, I learned about a lot of products that can be made from recycled waste. And finally, in the Investigate exhibit, I learned about how the water in a toilet flows.

Introduction

Pandora’s Promise is a documentary produced in 2013 by award-winning director Robert Stone. Robert Stone had made previous anti-nuclear documentaries, but this one was different. Instead, this one made the case that nuclear energy is actually safer and greener than coal, and was directed at environmentalists to make them reconsider nuclear energy as a possibility for solving the world’s energy problems. This blog post will provide my review of this movie.

Many Opinions, Few Facts

I found the movie visually appealing and interesting, but difficult to follow in terms of thearguments the director was making. For example, a journalist was interviewed who said he used to be on the anti-nuclear side, but now he changed. He said the reason he changed was that he spent a lot of time with physicists and finally learned how nuclear energy really works. He was very passionate, but he was not convincing. He didn’t explain what it is he learned from these physicists that made him change his mind.

In fact, the movie was not good about putting titles visually on the screen for the people the director was interviewing. I was unfamiliar with these people so it was hard to keep track of what the points were supposed to be about. A lot of the movie was comprised of people remembering past nuclear activism and issues, and a lot of history is presented. But there are not a lot of clear facts. In fact, it is debated in the movie as to how many people died at Chernobyl. Two totally different numbers are cited, but not attempt is made to figure out the correct number.

Analysis: Is Nuclear Really Safer?

It is hard to watch this movie and not consider the situation that if something goes wrong with a nuclear reactor and there is a meltdown or explosion, it could be especially catastrophic. The opinions expressed that suggest that nuclear isn’t as dirty as once thought, or that other fossil fuels are not as clean as once thought, are probably based in fact. But ultimately, the point made early in the movie, that even Fukashima, which was run well and built solidly, ran into a problem after a freak tsunami. Every single situation cannot be prevented, and one huge mistake with a nuclear power station could be devastating. This cannot be said for fracking, coal extraction, or other types of “dirty” energy production.

Conclusion

Although this movie was visually stimulating, and provided interesting history and opinions, I do not think it met its goal of being convincing about its point, which is that nuclear energy deserves a second look and could possibly solve our energy problems. Since the earlier eras where there was a lot of protesting against nuclear energy, it has been revealed that most energy production is dirty, not just nuclear. Simply saying that nuclear is not as bad as we thought, or the other energy generation approaches are worse, does not lead to the idea directly that we should wholly embrace nuclear energy.

Introduction

Generating electricity from nuclear power requires nuclear power plants. While these can be helpful and efficient ways to generate electricity, there are also downfalls. One of the main downfalls is that if there is a problem with the nuclear reactor, there can be health effects. The worst case scenario is a nuclear disaster, where radioactive gasses are released and living things in the area (including plants, animals, and people) become ill and even die.

In this blog post, I will talk about two nuclear disasters: Three Mile Island, which took place in the United States, and Fukushima, which took place in Japan. I will explain what happened in these disasters, why the disaster occurred, and will finish the post by saying what can be done to make nuclear energy safer.

Three Mile Island

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

Three Mile Island is a nuclear energy generating station in Pennsylvania. The above picture commemorates the nuclear disaster that took place at the station in 1979.

What Happened

The Three Mile Island nuclear accident did not result in negative health effects of plant workers or residents, according to the government, but was the most serious commercial nuclear disaster in the US and it brought about changes and reform.

What ultimately happened was that a cooling system for the reactor broke down because a valve was stuck open and coolant was pouring out, but the employees did not know this. Therefore, the coolant leaked out and caused the reactor to overheat and melt down. This is similar to if a radiator in a car runs out of coolant and the engine overheats and breaks.

Why it Happened

The story of why it happened has several steps. First, the problem only happened in one of two reactors. In that reactor, the problem started in a non-nuclear part. A cooling system stopped working right, and this caused a buildup of pressure in the nuclear part. That was okay, because then a valve opened to allow the pressure to escape.

Where the problem came was that the employees thought the valve had closed, but it hadn’t. Coolant started pouring out the valve, so it was not cooling the reactor. The reactor started to overheat, and alarms went off, but the employees had no idea what was going on. They actually took actions that made the situation worse without realizing it. Finally, the core started to melt, and this was when the actual problem was discovered and addressed.

The plant workers did not actually get complete control of the plant back until Day 10 of the disaster. The community around the plant had to be evacuated until this time.

Fukushima

On March 11, 2011, a large earthquake and tsunami hit Japan and did considerable damage. It hit the Fukushima power station, which has 11 nuclear reactors. Luckily, the reactors survived the earthquake, but the tsunami caused damage that led to the Fukushima nuclear disaster.

What Happened

In March of 2011, an earthquake occurred followed by a tsunami, and interestingly, the 11 reactors of the Fukushima plant all survived the earthquake. Seismically, the reactors proved resistant to damage, but their operations were vulnerable to the tsunami.

All 11 reactors shut down as planned when the earthquake hit. Also, the power plant lost electrical power, and this caused them to revert to using back-up generators. However, there were not enough back-up generators to handle all the power needs since this was such a large power failure.

Why it Happened

The tsunami disabled 12 of the 13 backup generators. This caused the cooling system to be inadequate for 3 of the 11 reactors. The three units could not maintain proper reactor cooling and water circulation functions, and electrical switches were disabled. It took many weeks of dedicated work by employees to get the cooling system to begin functioning again and to get the reactors back online.

Below shows a map of the exposure from the disaster.

Making Nuclear Power Safer

In terms of Three Mile Island, the result of the disaster was reform. Public health investigations as well as lawsuits took place, and there were a lot of lessons learned about how to improve protocols at nuclear plants to make them safer.

However, the example at Fukushima shows that even the best plans cannot account for every situation. The fact is that nuclear energy involves dangerous mechanisms over which humans can lose control. The result can potentially be a huge loss of human life. Whenever a nuclear plant is built, the human race is placing a bet. Therefore, probably the safest approach to nuclear energy would be limiting it and finding less dangerous and more sustainable approaches to generating energy.

Conclusion

Three Mile Island, which took place in the US, and Fukushima, which took place in Japan, represent two modern nuclear disasters. Even though the result was not widespread death and injury, the events were enough to strike fear into the local populations. The result of the Three Mile Island incident was reform, but ultimately, the safest approach with nuclear energy would be to limit the number of reactors in the world so as to limit the risk of a nuclear disaster.