By Linh Pham It has been 30 years since the Chernobyl Accident and 5 years since Fukushima Daiichi Accident, nuclear energy has left a bad impression in people’s minds. The disasters released high amount of radioactive, causing several deaths and affecting millions of people. The disaster raised doubts over the safety of nuclear power plant. At the time of the Fukushima accident, there were several public protests calling for nuclear power to be abandoned. Is abandoning nuclear power a good decision? The recent years have seen many improvements in both regulatory framework and technology of nuclear power. However, more importantly, besides the lessons learnt from the accidents, this article will focus on the benefits of nuclear power on the way to reach sustainable development goals. Economic dimension The fuel used in producing nuclear energy is Uranium (U), which resource availability is huge and superior when compared to oil or natural gas resource availability in terms of reverse-production ratio. Although the changes in regulations will not only increase the capital investment of nuclear power and nuclear power plants (NPPs) but also the construction time, making NPPs projects risky and not favourable in investor’s point of view, the levelized costs of electricity generation of nuclear energy are the lowest. Environmental dimension Nuclear energy is one of the power sources that emits greenhouse gases the least. Like renewable power sources, nuclear energy reduces acidification, eutrophication, antibiotic resource depletion potentials. As the wastes of producing nuclear power process are dangerous radioactive products, managing nuclear waste is a difficult challenge. A part of the spent nuclear fuel can be recycled and long-lived radioactive can be turned into material with a shorter half-life. Another approach with several advantages which is studied from the Fukushima accident is storing nuclear waste in dry casks at a small number of secured, separated completely from the reactors sites. Only a limited land surface needed for a unit of nuclear based electricity make nuclear power become beneficial regarding land use. Considerable water use for NPPs causes arguments about the environmental sustainability aspect, however, alternative cooling systems can be considered to comply with the requirements and adapt with climate change in the future. Social dimension Once radioactive is leaked, human health is put in danger. However, lessons from the tremendous disasters are unforgettable and national safety regulations everywhere are reconsidered and strengthened. In fact, the level of toxicity and radioactive waste disposal doses from nuclear power station are unsubstantial. Nuclear power is a relatively new field, especially in developing countries, hence it brings more opportunities with long term jobs, moreover, as the world is shifting toward a less carbon economy, the living standard of citizens will be improved. The two disasters might spread suspicions and fear amongst people, but it does not mean that we shut down all NPPs and abdicate nuclear power’s benefits. We have to get over the problems and consider them with different attitudes. Nuclear power, together with renewable powers, will be an irreplaceable part of the sustainable future with low-carbon electricity systems. References IAEA. 2016. Nuclear Power and Sustainable Development. Vienna: International Atomic Energy Agency. http://www-pub.iaea.org/books/iaeabooks/11084/Nuclear-Power-and-Sustainable-Development##ctl00_cphRDBooksHomeMain_FormViewBookDetails_rightsdivdiv
Moniz, E. 2011. Why we still need nuclear power. Foreign Affairs Nov/Dec 2011. Published 17.10.2011. Read 13.11. 2016. https://www.foreignaffairs.com/articles/2011-10-17/why-we-still-need-nuclear-power OECD. 2002. Chernobyl: Assessment on Radiological and Health Impacts. 2002 Update of Chernobyl: Ten years on. Paris: Organization for Economic Co-operation and Development. http://www.oecd-nea.org/rp/chernobyl/ OECD. 2016. Five years after the Fukushima Daiichi Accident: Nuclear Safety Improvement and lessons learnt. Executive Summary. Paris: Organization for Economic Co-operation and Development. https://www.oecd-nea.org/nsd/pubs/2016/7285-five-years-fukushima-es.pdf Ripley, W. Ogura, J. and Griffiths, J. 2016. Fukushima: Five years after Japan’s worst nuclear disaster. Updated 11.03.2016. Read 13.11.2016. http://edition.cnn.com/2016/03/08/asia/fukushima-five-year-anniversary/ United Nation. Sustainable Development Goals. http://www.un.org/sustainabledevelopment/sustainable-development-goals/ There is no beauty in the finest cloth if it makes hunger and unhappiness. (Mahatma Gandhi) Do you know what is the most polluting industry? Well, that’s an easy one. Of course, it’s oil. Can you guess the second? I was really shocked to find out that it’s fashion. I’ve been searching for this information through the whole Web, hoping that this is just a journalist’s trick, but, unfortunately, it is not. So does it mean that I have a shelf, full with second most polluting stuff? Insane. And definitely not ecofriendly. When I think about it now, this news sounds logical. A lot of chemicals are used to color tissues to make them vivid color, so people would like to buy it. But some costumers like saving money so much, that they are ready to buy them, that were colored with cheap, but dangerous for skin chemicals. I really don’t want to add any of these disturbing photos, but search for them, if you feel like doing so. The cheapest is the dearest, as this case is like a demonstration of the proverb. You may say: "Where should I get money for clothes, if I have a mortgage/student loans/five kids, that need food!". Well, I am not saying, that you should buy the most expensive ones, right? It is possible to find things with really good quality in mass market or even thrift shops (actually, they are full of fashionable treasures). Just always check the compound of your new apparel and keep in your mind that if a fur coat costs ten euros, then there is probably something wrong with it. Furthermore, recycling clothes instead of just throwing it away, will help not only your wallet, but also the environment. I really remember how my grandma put our old t-shirts into stripes and made carpets out of them. To be honest, now barely no one does it, but I think, you got the point. Once again, search the Web. There are really outstanding ideas. The best thing is that you will never see a person with exactly the same clothes. Recycling is a base for eco fashion. Nowadays big mass markets have understood this and give a discount coupon for next buying, because you brought them your old stuff. Isn’t this wonderful? Let’s agree, eco fashion is not clothes from trash bags! I tell you, these are not ready-to-wear collections and they are not going to be in the shops, at least for some years now. They are made by designers only to attract public’s attention about this topic, which turned out to be very serious. So always check what you’re buying, recycle your old clothes and together we can make fashion safer. (Nicole Bridger – Vancouver Eco Fashion Week) References:Eco Watch Contributor, 2015, http://www.ecowatch.com, accessed 13.11.2016, http://www.ecowatch.com/fast-fashion-is-the-second-dirtiest-industry-in-the-world-next-to-big--1882083445.html
Finland is the most forested country in Europe, with forestry land covering about 86% level of whole land area of the country, according to Finnish Forest Association. (See picture 1) So, it’s not a surprise, that on their web-site I found this interesting quote: “Forests are rooted in the Finnish way of life – in its full meaning. Forest is a state of mind”. Definitely, forests play vital role in Finland, because they provide needed timber, food (mushrooms, berries) and fresh air. As well as they are homes for many species of trees, plants, animals, insects, microorganisms and others. PICTURE 1. Land of forests (Finnish Forest Association, 2016) Finns care a lot about sustainable forest management because of importance and necessity of forests in their lives. Forest protection is an essential part of it. The first step was made already in 19th century with the very first Forest Act in 1886, which prohibited destruction of forests in Finland. Nowadays forest ownership is protected by legislation and voluntary certification. This means that forest owners must ensure that after felling a new forest will replace the old one. Almost all commercial forest areas in the country are certified with PEFC (Programme for Endorsement of Forest Certification) or FSC standard (Forest Stewardship Council), which results in 90 % and 6 % respectively. Certification establishes the standard of silviculture and helps to improve biodiversity of Finnish forests. (Finnish Forest Association, 2016) Finland has the biggest share of protected forests in Europe. The area of protected forests in Finland has tripled during the past 35 years. (MetsäBoard, 2016) Using timber from certified sources, companies ensure that all wood is harvested legally and can be traced back to their natural environment, which prevent illegal import/export of timber, pulp and paperboard. As an example of good forest management, we can consider MetsäBoard. This company promote sustainable forestry and forest certification, so that all wood would be safe and legal, while forest’s biodiversity and recreation quality would be preserved. For each tree harvested, 4 new seedlings are planted instead, in order to renew forests with fresh trees. Sustainability in forest matter implies that almost every part of each tree will be used for the purpose it suits best, to reduce number of waste in whole process. For example, the main stem is used for construction purposes, while smaller parts of the stem are for pulp, branches and so on, and other parts of discarded wood supply to bioenergy sphere. (MetsäBoard) An example of this multiple usage of the wood can be seen from the picture below. PICTURE 2. Annual timber flow in Finland in 2014 (Finnish Forest Association, 2016) The Natural Resources Institute Finland reported in 2014 that annual the growth of forest area in Finland is around 105 million m³ of timber and exceeds annual forest removal. This fact means that the amount of timber in Finnish forests increases every year and sustainable forestry works. With all the importance of the forests, we shouldn’t forget also, that there are simply beautiful and need our care, then they will make us happy :) PICTURE 3. Remote Finnish road (Yunakovskiy Artem, 2013)
Author: Yunakovskiy Artem References: Natural Resources Institute Finland, 2014, accessed 2.11.2016, http://www.metla.fi/index-en.html Finnish Forest Association, 2016, accessed 2.11.2016, http://www.smy.fi/en/ MetsäBoard, 2016, accessed 3.11.2016, http://www.metsaboard.com/Pages/default.aspx Organic food is filling the shelves and praised like never before, but often it might have travelled a long way before reaching the shelves in the stores. The question I wanted answered was how big an impact the so called food miles (the distance food travels from farm to plate) have on environment. Quite a few studies have been made to conclude if organic or local food is better. For example, a Swedish researcher took a closer look at a typical Swedish breakfast (apple, bread, butter, cheese, coffee, cream, orange juice, sugar). His calculations showed that the distance the breakfast travelled before reaching the breakfast table was approximately one turn around the Earth. A similar calculation was done in Iowa, USA. There the research team concluded that to make one cartoon of strawberry yoghurt the ingredients travelled about 3 550 km. At that point the ice cream hadn’t even left the factory. These numbers, together with the fact that transportation does release a lot of greenhouse gases (especially air and road transport), displays a real problem for the environment. However, to know the environmental impact of food isn’t as easy as calculating food miles. Transportation system and, as with organic food, the process of making the food might have an even greater impact on the environment. For example, potatoes trucked from 100 miles away might have a higher environmental impact than potatoes shipped by rail from 1000 miles away. Still, if looking at the big picture, the food miles only makes up a small part of the total environmental impact of products. DeWeerdt suggests making a life-cycle analysis for food instead of just looking at the food miles. When looking at the production it is obvious that beef and dairy products have some of the highest environmental impacts (see table below). When put shortly, what you eat has a bigger impact than the food miles. Ida Smedlund References:Caputo, V. Nayga Jr, R.M. Scarpa R. 2013. Food miles or carbon emissions? Exploring labelling preference for food transport footprint with a stated choice study. In Australian Journal of Agricultural and Resource Economics, 57, pp. 465-482.
DeWeerdt, S. 2013. Is Local Food Better? In World Watch Magazine, Volume 22 No. 3. SYKE. Article: Climate-friendly food. SYKE, Aalto-yliopisto, YTK, Ilmatieteen laitos. Read: 19.10.2016. https://ilmasto-opas.fi/en/ilmastonmuutos/hillinta/-/artikkeli/ab196e68-c632-4bef-86f3-18b5ce91d655/ilmastomyotainen-ruoka.html%2017.10.2016 |
Want to be an author?Write for us and we will publish your writing right here on our blog! It can be about anything related to environmental engineering Archives
May 2019
Categories
All
|