Nuclear Disaster: Japan's Fukushima-Daiichi Power Plant

Nuclear Power plants are double-edged swords; both efficiently beneficial but potentially volatile and dangerous. In March of 2011, The Fukushima-I nuclear power plant in Japan experienced a disaster due to an earthquake's subsequent tsunami. The damage caused by the tsunami resulted in severely damaged equipment within the Fukushima plant. The broken equipment caused a loss of coolants and produced a nuclear meltdown that released huge amount of radioactive material. The disaster is the the largest in calibre since the Chernobyl disaster in the Ukraine. Many casualties resulted in from the earthquake and tsunami, however, experts agree that an radiation-exposure deaths in the future will only be limited to workers within the plant. 

Japan's government is still currently dealing with the aftermath of the meltdown - dealing with contaminated water and ensuring appropriate actions are taken in case of a similar event in the future. There remains much speculation that the disaster could have been avoided had officials reacted more quickly and without miscommunication (if water coolants had been injected at a reasonable time - the meltdown probably would not have occurred).

In a post-Fukushima Japan, there is significant focus on increasing clean energy endeavors. The leading investment firm Goldman-Sachs has even promised an investment of nearly $500 million to assist in solar, wind and biomass-related efforts. However, Japan still asserts that nuclear power is still a necessary source of energy for the country and are committed to opening new plants once proper safety guidelines are followed.

Of interesting note is the fact that Japan is the only country to have been attacked with nuclear weapons, so understandably the issue of nuclear-related politics is a hot topic issue for its citizens. Government officials should maintain the current interests in renewable energy sources so future disasters such as Fukushima-Daiichi don't occur again.

Global Efforts: Solar Energy & Green Subsidies

Currently, leaders and policy-makers around the world are concerned with finding greener alternatives to produce energy. Solar energy is arguably one of the most prevalent methods for a vast majority of countries to maintain a renewable energy source.

France is one country that is rigorously beginning to improve upon their solar energy efforts. The country's former president, Nicolas Sarkozy, halted new solar installations back in 2011 during an economic stagnation. However, current president Francois Hollande has promised the country to significantly boost the country's reliance on solar energy and to stray away from nuclear endeavors. In 2013 alone, the country has, in fact, doubled its target goal for new solar projects.

In Middle Eastern countries such as Saudi Arabia, focus on solar energy is becoming increasingly significant as the country's oil prices have greatly risen. In recent years, burning oil has actually accounted for approximately 50% of the country's electricity. Saudi Arabia's first solar plant was installed just two years ago. However, the nation's energy agency has vowed to expand upon solar capacity to 41 gigawatts within the next 20 years. Currently, the country's solar capacity is only at .003 gigawatts.

Clean energy subsidies have been a main focus for most developed countries. Finding a satisfying pricing equilibrium for both consumer and producer is certainly an arduous task. Global fossil-fuel energy subsidies are over $500 billion; renewable energy subsidies are just under $90 billion. Ensuring clean energy subsidies is important because it ensures security of the energy supply and ultimately stimulates local economies and helps reduce poverty by making energy more easily accessible in underdeveloped nations. However, ensuring that these clean energy sources are at sensible price points does incur the risk of over consumption. This can potentially place a heavy financial burden upon governments and threaten possible economic growth. 

Sources:

Renewable Energy World

http://money.cnn.com/2011/11/21/news/international/saudi_arabia_solar/index.htm

http://www.forbes.com/sites/jamesconca/2013/10/20/european-economic-stability-threatened-by-renewable-energy-subsidies/

Solar Energy Project

In class, we connected a small solar cell to the NXT adaptor and measured the cell's acquired voltage with a probe. To do this, we placed a small flashlight from varying distances and aligned the data acquired by the NXT adaptor with the different distances measured. The chart below exhibits that the voltages acquired by the solar cell gradually decreases as the flashlight is distanced further away.

 Next, we placed four different colored film filters in order to see how different light spectrums affected the acquired voltage of the solar cell. The light was placed directly against the solar panel with each respective film sheet in between them. The chart below shows that the darkest hue, blue, limited the voltage the most. Whereas the lightest hue, pink, emitted the most light and gave the cell the most voltage.

Voltage Project

In class, we attached a flashlight's battery to the NXT device which was then attached to the computer via USB. The generator inside the flashlight's tube was a magnet that moved back and forth through a coil of wire. The more the flashlight itself was shaken, the more voltage was produced. The Labview program accurately measured the produced voltage over 30-second intervals. After saving the acquired data, we were able to convert the information into an Excel spreadsheet file for easier analysis.
By manually counting the number of shakes made over the 30-second intervals, we were able to plot out the sum of the squares of the voltages measured versus the amount of times the magnet was shaken. After plotting out the data from three different "shake trials," it was clear that the faster the flashlight's magnet was shaken, the higher the measured voltage was. The scatter plot below shows our findings:

Hydraulic Fracturing

Hydraulic fracturing, or "fracking," is the high pressure injection of water-based chemicals and sand into the ground. This process creates small fractures deep within the Earth to which natural gases and petroleum will inevitably disperse to and thereby be extracted from. Despite it's relatively recent inception, fracking currently yields approximately 60% of the Earth's oil/gas wells. However popular the process, hydraulic fracturing nevertheless has created a divide among the population with just as many critics as it has proponents.

Today, many government officials are establishing strategic zoning laws to appease opponents of fracking. These critics argue that the process poses serious risks such as the contamination of valuable ground water, the expulsion of chemicals to the Earth's surface, air pollution and the subsequent health effects caused by said risks. 

Proponents of fracking urge the population to focus on the economic benefits of mining otherwise-unattainable oil and gas. They additionally argue that fracking is responsible for economic growth as well as increasing job opportunities. However, a study in 2012 by professors at the University of Wisconsin found that although fracking benefits overall income growth for a community, it has virtually no effect on employment.

I personally feel that, in terms of hydraulic fracturing, the potential risks of the means don't justify the end result. Phasing out fossil fuels altogether seems to be the safest and most reliable alternative to fracking.

Sources:

http://www.catskillmountainkeeper.org/our-programs/fracking/why-we-need-to-ban-fracking-and-adopt-a-renewable-energy-policy/

http://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC1817691/

http://www.spe.org/jpt/print/archives/2010/12/10Hydraulic.pdf