Upload
penn-sustainability-review
View
222
Download
5
Tags:
Embed Size (px)
DESCRIPTION
Â
Citation preview
Penn Sustainability Review | Fall 2014Published by the university of Pennsylvania students
Rachel AtchesonPHILADELPHA DIRECTOR OF THE HUMANE LEAGUE
The Fallacy ofNuclear EvilANTI-NUCLEAR DESIRES DEFEAT-ING THE ANTI-CARBON MOVE-MENT
Redefining WasteUPCYCLING DISCARDED MA-TERIALS FOR ARCHITECTUR-AL AND COMMERCIAL USE
A River RenewedHISTORICAL ATTITUDES TOWARD SUSTAINABILITY AND THEIR EFFECTS ON THE SCHUYLKILL RIVER
Editor in Chief:
Managing Editor:
Asst. Managing
Editor:
External Director:
Business Director:
Layout Director:
Online Director:
Secretary:
EMILY WEI
ANNIE LIU
JENNA WEBER
TATIANA BRUNVALL
AARON GUO
TUYET-VAN HUYNH
JOSHUA NG
JULIANNE GOODMAN
The Board
The WritersJAMIE SEAH
DOUGLAS RUSS
SASHA KLEBNIKOV
EMILY ZINSELMEIER
EMILY CHISHOLM
The BloggersGARETT NELSON
CHIHIRO OKADA
CLAIRE KNEIZYS
ALISSA JOHNSON
About UsPenn Sustainability Review (PSR) is a student-run online and
print publication featuring sustainability-related opinion edi-
torials, leadership interviews, and academic papers. We aim to
provide a platform for all members of the Penn community to
exchange knowledge, ideas, and perspectives on wide-ranging
sustainability issues. Over the course of each semester, the PSR
team will publish a print publication and will maintain regu-
lar online updates —through blogs and editorials— that incor-
porate relevant thought-provoking articles. Both the print and
online editions of PSR will cover a number of topics including:
climate change, green architecture, corporate strategic sus-
tainability, resource and energy conservation, public policy,
and sustainable technology to name a few!
Our SponsorsStudent Sustainability Association at Penn is the official student
sustainability umbrella group at Penn, SSAP was founded in
2010 to foster cohesion among environmentally-focused stu-
dent groups, develop strategies for impacting campus sustain-
ability, and to create a unified student voice on green issues at
Penn.
Contact UsTo receive our newsletter and stay up-to-date on sustainability
opportunities, apply to join our editorial staff, or make inqui-
ries regarding submission, please email us.
PSRMagazine
psrmagazine.org
Dear Readers,These past couple months have definitely been exciting! In Sep-
tember, history was made as 400,000 people from all walks of
life took to the streets during the People’s Climate March − the
largest climate march to date − to voice their concern for cli-
mate change injustice and the need for greater action by global
leaders.
Meanwhile, in October, the Schuylkill Banks Boardwalk was
officially unveiled as part of Philadelphia’s greater effort to fo-
cus on sustainability in urban planning. Given the history of
development along the Schuylkill River, this is an amazing feat
(p. 5). Even closer to home, Penn announced the second part
of its Climate Action Plan, Penn 2.0. With this five year plan,
Penn hopes to continue striving towards greater sustainability
efforts across the university.
It’s truly an inspiring time to be involved in the environmental
sphere. As the threat of global disaster looms closer and closer,
more and more people are realizing the importance of sustain-
ability, and ultimately, trying to do something about it.
Individuals like Rachel Atcheson, the Philadelphia Director of
The Humane League are making our city more “veg-friendly”
(p. 2). Organizations like Lendager Architects and Essentium
Matierials are reimagining the possibility for upcycled materi-
als to be used for commercial and industrial uses (p. 8). Now it’s
up to nation states to bear their portion of the responsibility.
Whether it is through creating carbon taxes or reconsidering
the benefits of nuclear policy (p. 12), governments, as well as
corporations, must take a stance in their country’s environ-
mental policy.
Environmental sustainability has been called the defining mo-
ment of our time. We must all play our part. At Penn Sustain-
ability Review, this means bring a diverse range of topics on
sustainability together to educate you, our readers. With our
fifth issue in your hands, we hope you learn widely and learn
deeply.
Environmental sustainability is not a choice. It’s a responsibil-
ity.
Sustainably Yours,
Emily Wei,
E DI T OR I N C H I E F
E M I LY W E I @W H A R T ON.COM
Table of Contents
Interview with Rachel AtchesonPhiladelphia Director of the Humane Leagueby Jamie Seah
A River RenewedHistorical Attitudes Toward Sustainability and Their Effects on the Schuylkill Riverby Douglas Russ
Redefining WasteUpcycling Discarded Materials for Architectural and Commercial Useby Emily Zinselmeier
The Fallacy of Evil NuclearAnti-Nuclear Desires Defeating the Anti-Carbon Movementby Sasha Klebnikov
2
5
8
12
Philadelphia Director of The Humane Leagueby Jamie Seah
Interview with Rachel Atcheson
achel Atcheson, a graduate of Boston University, is the
current Philadelphia Director for The Humane League
(THL). Originally founded in Philadelphia, THL is a leading
non-profit organization focused on farm animal rights advocacy.
THL has 9 offices all over the country.
How did you begin your career with The Humane League? How did you realize this fervent passion for animal rights advocacy?
I met one of the principal activists involved in THL while we were
both donating blood. At that time I was involved with social justice
issues such as animal rescue, prisoner advocacy, and labor rights.
As time went on, I became more and more consumed with animal
protection and was drawn to THL because of its grassroots efforts
focused on farm animals. I started as a volunteer with THL when I
was a student at Boston University and then completed a year-long
internship in Boston. I continued to volunteer with THL by par-
ticipating in the Warped Tour, leafleting on Ivy League campuses,
meeting other compassionate individuals who shared my philos-
ophy about protecting farm animals. I found the work incredibly
rewarding and enjoyed seeing our message of compassion spread.
You are currently the Philadelphia Director for The Humane League. What does your typical day look like, and what sort of work does the The Humane League do that’s specific to Philadelphia?
There is no typical day at The Humane League. That’s something I
love about the work; every day is different. The Humane League is
a national non-profit that works in various cities across the US on
grassroots campaigns tailored to those individual cities. We have
specific programs including our humane education program, the
Meatless Monday campaign, and outreach to spread awareness
about factory farming that compose about 80 percent of my job.
The other 20 percent–work that I develop at my own discretion–re-
lates to simply making Philly a more veg-friendly city. We’ve com-
posed a Philly Veg Dining Guide that lists veg-friendly restaurants
throughout the metropolitan area. When it comes to local Philly
activities, we organize a VegFest, host a Holiday Party, organize
Philly Vegan Drinks, and coordinate a Runners for Animals team.
How does The Humane League differ from other or-ganizations such as PETA and Mercy For Animals? Do you enjoy a close working relationship with other animal rights organizations?
THL is a unique organization because it delegates a great deal of
responsibility to the team in each city to develop local programs to
promote our mission. We work with hundreds of volunteers across
the country who are interested in our mission; each one of our
volunteers is special in his or her own unique way. One volunteer
who came from Denmark, Elizabeth, is a perfect example of the
passion felt by our volunteers; she found us online and traveled
from Denmark to Philadelphia to give a voice to the animals.
We have been listed as one of the top two most cost-effective an-
imal charities worldwide. We strive to make every donor’s dollar
R
Penn Sustainabil ity Review | 3
Rachel Atcheson Rachel Atcheson, Philadelphia Director for The Humane League.
A volunteer promoting The Humane League’s Meatless Mondays campaign.
go as far as possible. I enjoy working with other groups on vari-
ous campaigns, such as our current work to ban gestation crates in
New Jersey alongside the Humane Society of the United States. A
colleague once told me, “We are all working for the animals, we just
get paychecks from different organizations.” I completely agree.
The farm animal protection movement has some of the most dedi-
cated activists I know, and I see us all as members of the same team.
Bring us through the changes that Philadelphia has seen with regards to veganism and animal rights ad-vancement.
I think Philadelphia is one of the most veg-friendly cities in the US.
Over the last 7 years, The Humane League in Philly has led cam-
paign after campaign on college campuses in the metropolitan
area to encourage these colleges and universities source their eggs
from cage-free facilities. We have worked tirelessly each semester
to bring informational pamphlets about factory farming to the 38
campuses that are in the metropolitan area. The Humane League,
within the last year, led a campaign to introduce the international
Meatless Monday program to the School District of Philadelphia;
the School District now serves vegetarian meals once a week to its
roughly 85,000 school lunch participants. A smaller campaign–one
that might be more noticeable to the resident or visitor to Phila-
delphia–is our “Vegan Options Inside” sticker; this program alerts
Philly residents or visitors to healthy food options at local coffee
shops or restaurants.
You mentioned that you interned at The Humane League’s Boston office. How would you rate Phila-delphia’s vegan scene and responsiveness to The Hu-mane League’s work in comparison to Boston’s?
Each THL team is unique and competitive in all the cities where
we work. We try to develop and pass on ideas that work in specific
locations because we are all working on the same cause. We try to
beat each other’s leafleting records (passing out the most leaflets
on our respective college campuses), but at the same time we are
supportive of each city’s individual work. Philadelphia is a much
larger city with a lot of moving parts in our efforts; because of this,
I feel I’m seeing the vegan scene change right in front of my eyes.
.It’s very satisfying to see more people consider vegetarian and veg-
an options and make healthy choices for themselves, which also
helps the animals.
Finally, what would your advice be for undergradu-ates keen on going into the fields of animal and veg-an/vegetarian advocacy and activism?
My advice to undergraduates keen on animal advocacy is to get
involved now. Don’t wait for the perfect moment. Activism is about
trial and error; the sooner you get involved, the sooner you’ll be
able to hone your skills and find your niche. The animals on facto-
ry farms have no voice of their own. They need people to stand up
for them, and they need them now. If you’d like to know how you
can help more specifically in Philadelphia or back home, we can
give you an assignment that will fit your individual skills.
For more information, visit www.thehumaneleague.com.
4 | Penn Sustainabil ity Review
Rachel Atcheson, Philadelphia Director for The Humane League, holding a chicken.
“Tabling” is a huge part of The Humane League’s outreach effort.
Historical Attitudes Toward Sustainability and Their Effects on the Schuylkill River
A River Renewedby Douglas Russ
[the boardwalk] represents a major step in our evolving relationship with a river once described as an “immense septic tank”
n a warm October day, the Schuylkill River Boardwalk
was opened to the city of Philadelphia after eight years of
construction. Extending the heavily used Schuylkill River
Trail a half-mile from Walnut Street to the South Street Bridge, the
boardwalk does more than make it easier for Penn runners to ac-
cess the trail; it represents a major step in our evolving relationship
with a river once described as an “immense septic tank” by a 1920s
municipal engineer. (Philadelphia Water Department)1
How does it
reflect our attitudes toward urban development? A trail that brings
people closer than ever before to this once-toxic river signifies a
growing approach that places sustainability and livability as pri-
orities in the post-industrial city. It reflects the empowerment of
sustainable transportation— of walking, jogging, and cycling in
a city built for the automobile. While we know the river’s water
quality and ecosystem is slowly being restored, a brief look at its
history demonstrates the shifting attitudes toward sustainable de-
velopment in Philadelphia over the past two centuries.
If nothing else, the Schuylkill River’s history is an industrial one.
A river once used for light industry in the earliest days of the city
was, by the early nineteenth century, quickly becoming an indus-
trial powerhouse as it linked the Pennsylvania countryside with
a navigable route to the Atlantic Ocean. Taking a conservationist
approach, elite Philadelphians sought to preserve the quality of
the city’s water supply at the Fairmount Waterworks by designat-
ing both upstream banks of the river as public, open space which
would later become Fairmount Park. Yet anywhere south of the
waterworks was free to be industrialized. This noble goal in actu-
ality reflected a narrow public health initiative that was primarily
a call for urban hygiene in reaction to the Yellow Fever Epidemic
of 1793. It was in no way true sustainable policy; the inescapable
forces of industrialization swallowed up the rest of the Schuylkill
and degraded its water quality. Despite the intentions of Fairmount
Park, thousands died of typhoid fever at the turn of the twentieth
century at the hands of the contaminated water. The river caught
on fire in 1892. (Towne, 2012, p. 14)2
Flash forward to 1949 when the infamous Schuylkill River Ex-
pressway, nicknamed the “Surekill River Expressway” for the high-
way’s congested and hazardous nature, began construction with
6 | Penn Sustainabil ity Review
1 Schuylkill River Watershed History. (n.d.). Retrieved from the Philadelphia Water De-partment website: http://www.phillywatersheds.org/your_watershed/schuylkill/history
2 Chari Towne, A River Again: The Story of the Schuylkill River Project (USA, Delaware Riverkeeper Network Press, 2012), 14.
O
The industrial Schuykill River in 1927, source: planphilly.com
[In 1949] the infamous Schuylkill River Express-way[was] nicknamed the “Surekill River Express-way” for the highway’s congested and hazardous nature
Sustainability is not the sole objective in building the trail and surrounding green spaces, but it is a guiding factor that reflects an increasingly sustain-able mindset underlying city planning
the mid-twentieth century ideals of efficient shuttling of cars and
trucks from city to suburb. Much of the river’s west bank was for-
ever destroyed with the rise of this new concrete behemoth. Any
other use of the river was simply inconceivable in a time when the
automobile was king; as historian Steven Conn writes, “[it was] a
time when parking was regarded as far more important to the hu-
man condition than parks.” (Conn, 2006, p. 177)3
This priority yield-
ed an ironic outcome; daily automobile use in Philadelphia grew so
much that within a year of the expressway’s 1959 opening its daily
traffic volume had already doubled its 1970 projection. Today, it’s
difficult for users of the Schuylkill River Trail to ignore the speed-
ing rush of the expressway, a manifestation of an era obsessed with
the car and wholly unaware of sustainable development.
Mean, basic principles of conservation were becoming popular
enough to produce The Schuylkill River Project of 1946, champi-
oned by then Pennsylvania Governor James Duff, sought to undo
the hundred years’ damage to one of the country’s dirtiest rivers.
This substantial effort made a dent in removing the millions of tons
of coal and culm in the river and was in fact the first conservation
project of its kind in the country. But the goals were inward-look-
ing; coal use was still encouraged so long as its waste stayed out of
the river. Approaches to urban problems in the framework of sus-
tainability was lacking, and the river caught on fire again in 1952.
(Towne, 2012)4
As we look at the past couple decades, a period in which Amer-
ica’s energy mix has grown greener and Philadelphia’s air clean-
er, gradual but noticeable reclamation of the river has begun. The
Schuylkill River Development Corporation, established in 1992,
has from the start had the chief goal “economic, recreational, en-
vironmental and cultural improvements and tourism initiatives on
the Schuylkill River between the Fairmount Dam and the Delaware
River.” (schuylkillbanks.org)5
Its work in Center City Philadelphia
has focused almost entirely on building a trail on the east bank
of the river, which only twenty years ago was a blighted post-in-
dustrial wasteland. Certainly, sustainability is not the sole objec-
tive in building the trail and surrounding green spaces, but it is a
guiding factor that reflects an increasingly sustainable mindset
underlying city planning. This progressive effort has restored a riv-
erbank and helped multiply the use of sustainable transportation
and recreation much like the Schuylkill River Expressway did for
fume-spewing automobiles. The work done on the banks fits neatly
into city-wide sustainability efforts encompassed in the municipal
government’s project Greenworks Philadelphia.
The trail is one of Philadelphia’s most visible demonstrations of a
growing trend of sustainability and livability in city planning. Cit-
ies around the country are increasingly prioritizing the creation of
parks over the construction of highways and parking lots. In No-
vember, Philadelphians voted to make the Mayor’s Office of Sus-
tainability, founded in 2009, a permanently funded branch of city
government. While the city’s steps toward a sustainable future may
be minuscule at a global level, it signifies the growing understand-
ing and concern we have for our heavy impact on the environment.
The new boardwalk contains several lookout decks intended for
sitting, reading, and even fishing. Wildlife has indeed returned –
making fishing a possibility – which is a feat for a river that was
once flammable. As Philadelphia attempts to become a greener city,
more livable for its residents and sustainable for its environment,
so too can Philadelphians get closer to the river than ever before.
While highways and train tracks line the river on both sides, a
testament to its industrial past, Philadelphians are now brought
close enough to the river to actually experience it. Hopefully this
will spur additional support to help ensure that the Schuylkill can
survive in the heart of a metropolis, not just for the opportunities
it holds for enhancing urban living but for the progressive, sustain-
able values it signifies to the people of the Philadelphia region.
Penn Sustainabil ity Review | 7
3 Steven Conn, Metropolitan Philadelphia: Living with the Presence of the Past (Philadel-phia, PA: University of Pennsylvania Press, 2006), 177.4 Towne, 1744 What We Do (n.d.) Retrieved from the Schuylkill River Development Corporation Website: http://www.schuylkillbanks.org/about/what-we-do
The Schuylkill Banks source: Irsla.com
The Board Walk source: Philly.com
Upcycling Discarded Materials for Architectural and Commercial Use
Redefining Wasteby Emily Zinselmeier
“Upcycled materials have a certain aesthetic to them that, although different, is captivating; they have a story to tell,” — Anders Lendager, (founder and lead designer at Lendager Architects)
epurposing “found objects” as components in artistic exhi-
bitions became an accepted practice in the 1920s, and even
now, utilizing waste materials with little to no previous
value in art and design continues to be considered both a viable
artistic choice and a bold environmental statement. Although this
trend is evident on a more local scale—in home goods, clothing,
and handmade designs—architects and engineers are also begin-
ning to experiment with possible large-scale commercial and in-
dustrial uses for these upcycled materials.
For instance, the Denmark-based firm Lendager Architects de-
signed and built a house using only upcycled and recycled mate-
rials, excluding the appliances installed in the kitchen and bath-
room. As it became apparent to them that more thought needs
to be devoted to moderating the environmental strain our waste
products generate, the firm took it upon themselves to discover in-
novative methods to reduce the carbon footprint associated with
constructing and living in an average house.
“Our goal with this project was to see what the impact of this phi-
losophy—focusing on more sustainable materials and construc-
tion methods as opposed to the traditional approaches—could be,”
Anders Lendager, founder and lead designer at Lendager Archi-tects, said. “When we started the Upcycle House, it wasn’t even
clear that we’d be able to find upcycled or recycled alternatives for
an entire house, so we started out by looking at the accessibility of
these sustainable materials, and from there, it became about see-
ing how far we could push that initial idea.”
The loadbearing structure for the design includes two prefab-
ricated shipping containers secured to a foundation that utiliz-
es precise, high-strength steel screws to anchor it, as opposed to
traditional concrete, which emits carbon dioxide
during its production and which cannot be recy-
cled in a constructive fashion. On the exterior,
upcycled aluminum cans are used to create the
roof and facade paneling, while recycled Styro-
foam and paper from granulated Danish newspa-
pers are used in the insulation layers for the main
structure. As for the interior, walls and floors are
covered with OSB panels, a composite material
made from wood chips collected from various pro-
duction sites, imbuing the space with an organic
character. In addition, the kitchen floor is tiled
with a material made from cut-up cork pieces,
while the bathroom tiles are made from recycled
glass.
Penn Sustainabil ity Review | 9
R
On the interior, walls and floors are covered with OSB panels, a compos-ite material made from wood chips collected from various production sites, imbuing the space with an organic character. In addition, the kitchen floor is tiled with a material made from cut-up cork pieces, while the bathroom tiles are made from recycled glass. Source: Lendager Architects
The Upcycle House, designed by Anders Lendager of Lendager Architects, utilizes two prefabricated shipping containers to create the loadbearing structure in addition to upcycled alumi-num cans for the roof and facade paneling as well as recycled Styrofoam and paper from granulated Danish newspapers for the insulation layers for the main structure. Source: Lendager Architects
“Moving forward, I think we need to change how we see waste—we need to start looking to waste as a resource” — Anders Lendager
“Upcycled materials have a certain aesthetic to them that, although
different, is captivating; they have a story to tell,” Lendager said.
“For me, sustainability does not act as a limit on a design’s aesthetic
value; in fact, these sustainable materials have new spatial and tec-
tonic qualities that make them interesting to experiment with as a
designer. Moving forward, I think we need to change how we see
waste—we need to start looking to waste as a resource.”
The idea that waste is an untapped resource is shared by those
working with Essentium Materials, a company founded by Elisa
Teipel, Blake Teipel, Ryan Vano, Matt Kirby and Gene Birdwell that
researches and formulates essential materials from organic waste
to be used in the automotive and home goods industries. Accord-
ing to co-founder Elisa Teipel, the Essentium Materials team was
inspired to help people who, despite living in some of the econom-
ically poorest places in the world, have access to an abundance of
natural resources. For example, in the Philippines, farmers harvest
coconuts to produce coconut milk and oil, and until now, the husks
were seen as waste; Teipel and her team questioned this assump-
tion and decided to look into whether coconut husks are a viable
engineering material, and if so, what possible applications could be
associated with it.
“We found out that coconut fiber is naturally stiffer than synthetic
fibers due to its larger diameter, and it’s resistant to microbial at-
tack, meaning it’s less susceptible to things like mildew,” co-found-er Ryan Vano said. “Due to these and other properties, the fiber is a
natural fit for molded automotive products.”
10 | Penn Sustainabil ity Review
Essentium Materials researches and formulates essential materials from organic waste, like discarded coconut husks (left), to be used in the automotive and home goods industries (above). Source: Essentium Materials
Utilizing passive properties in a building’s design can positively affect a visitor’s overall experience in the space.
As was done with the coconut fibers, Essen-
tium determines potential applications for a
material by first working to understand its in-
herent properties, as well as how these quali-
ties can be refined to best optimize the final
product’s overall performance. According to
Vano, only after they understand the material
can they understand how to apply it.
“Our approach is what’s most important be-
cause it can be applied to other materials that
we’ve never dealt with before,” Teipel said.
“Overall, although we are involved in prod-
uct development as well, we’re really focused on research and the
broader holistic goal of helping communities around the world like
those in the Philippines to fully take advantage of all their resourc-
es, even materials we might not usually consider valuable.”
Although Essentium produces refined composite materials from
organic waste while the Upcycle House utilizes upcycled and recy-
cled materials to create a contemporary design, both Lendager and
those working with Essentium have found new use for waste mate-
rials with little to no previous value. In both cases, the strain placed
on the environment—and in Essentium’s case, on rural communi-
ties—is drastically reduced.
Sustainable design encompasses more than just the use of green
materials, however. Buildings can also be made more energy ef-
ficient by utilizing what have been termed “passive properties.”
When designing a home, for example, it is crucial to optimize the
structure’s position in order capitalize on the site’s natural light
and shade. This makes heating and air conditioning systems less
instrumental, which in turn makes the building more energy effi-
cient. Other such properties deal with the site’s ventilation patterns
and temperature zones, among other things.
These principles can be implemented on a larger scale, as well. In
fact, the Star, a center for civic and cultural activities in Singapore,
utilizes several passive properties in its design. The building’s form
is “shaped to collect prevailing northerly and southerly breezes”
in order to “create comfortable outdoor seating areas [in which]
patrons [can] socialize.”1
In addition, the structure’s facade—its
window-to-wall ratio, in particular—was designed to maximize
daylight in the occupied areas while minimizing overall solar heat
gain.
In the same vein, when working on the Upcycle House, Lendager
Architects combined these two approaches—using sustainable ma-
terials and utilizing architecture’s passive properties. For example,
the windows were “designed with some tolerance,” which means
differently sized glass sections could be mounted outside the struc-
ture to create windows, Lendager said. Although these elements do
not open, allowing for differently sized glass pieces made it more
feasible and cost-effective to acquire the recycled materials. In ad-
dition, due to the absence of a frame, the resulting windows max-
imize the amount of daylight let into the house and are thus more
energy efficient.
Although the core concepts behind passive properties seem simple,
it quickly becomes clear that in practice, an intimate knowledge of
both the site as well as how visitors will interact with the structure
is vital during the design process. Moreover, aside from the mon-
etary and environmental ramifications these principles have, it is
also apparent that utilizing passive properties in a building’s design
can positively affect a visitor’s overall experience in the space.
In the end, according to Lendager, the Upcycle House reduced
carbon dioxide emissions during construction by a staggering
86 percent when compared to the traditional Danish benchmark
house, a “radical reduction that other trial houses had never be-
fore achieved.” As for how the Upcycle House compares to the
standard over its entire lifetime, when taking into account that a
home’s construction represents 40 percent of its total emissions,
the project’s total carbon footprint has been reduced by 34 percent,
just by building it with upcycled and recycled materials. Due to this
success, Lendager Architects are now working on converting the
Upcycle House into a feasible option for the real estate market, fo-
cusing especially on streamlining the design so it can be emulated
internationally. In addition, to take their design further, the firm is
looking into whether their design lends itself to commercial proj-
ects that are required to be multiple stories in height.
Overall, it is important to keep in mind that sustainability and
aesthetically pleasing, contemporary design are not mutually ex-
clusive ideals. As Lendager points out, although green materials
create a different aesthetic than their traditional counterparts,
upcycled and recycled alternatives also provide new opportunities
for growth within both architecture and engineering. Designers are
tasked with devising innovative products aimed at improving both
our lives and our world, and at this moment in time, it would be in-
credibly irresponsible to ignore the critical need for more sustain-
able practices in industries that have the potential to make a real
difference in conserving our resources and reducing our carbon
footprint.
Penn Sustainabil ity Review | 11
1 The Star, Singapore. (2012, October 1). Aedas.
The Star, designed by Andrew Bromberg of Aedas, is designed both to collect wind moving through the site to help cool the outdoor seating areas and to work with the site’s sun exposure to maximize daylight in the occupied areas while minimizing overall solar heat gain. These considerations are called the architecture’s “passive properties” and can be exploited to improve a structure’s energy efficiency. Source: Paul Warchol
by Sasha Klebnikov
The Fallacy of Nuclear EvilAnti-Nuclear Desires Defeating the
Anti-Carbon Movement
Penn Sustainabil ity Review | 13
hernobyl. Fukushima. Radioactive Wasteland. Death In-
dustry. The lexicon of the anti-nuclear movement evokes
powerful and scary reactions. Electricity generated using
the world’s most dangerous explosive hardly seems to be an envi-
ronmental choice. After numerous steam pipes started vibrating
excessively and broke, ‘Environmental’ Advocates closed San On-
ofre Nuclear Generating Station near San Diego. Japan and Germa-
ny are shuttering their plants, while halting new nuclear construc-
tion to perform additional environmental impact studies. Nuclear
seems to be a bad source of electricity, and the industry is waning.
But why? A growing movement sees nuclear as the most cost-effi-
cient solution to climate change. Advocates point to new designs
and materials increasing accident safety to the point where more
people die from fires on wind turbines than in nuclear plants.1
Waste volumes continually decline as our knowledge of plasma
physics improves. New fuels like Thorium or ‘Thermal’ reactors
lead to a 99% reduction in nuclear waste. Nuclear provides reli-
able power 24 hours a day, 365 days a year. These arguments are
strong – yet why is nuclear still on the decline?
Even as operating costs plummet, nuclear power plants are insane-
ly expensive to build. Two of the most recent projects, Finland’s
Olkiluoto Station2
and George’s Vogtle Power Plant3
, each cost ap-
proximately $14 billion. This is comparable to the annual GDP of
Cambodia or Iceland. These plants cost more than the newest, fan-
ciest Aircraft Carrier, the Gerald R. Ford. For $14 billion, one could
build five comparably sized natural gas power plants. Or, using
Solar Panels, we could build photovoltaics that produce ¼ of the
electricity generation of nuclear.4
Total Electricity Generation & Cost of Germany’s Solar PV and Two Olkiluoto-Sized Nuclear PlantsAll Solar PV Panels Installed in Germany, 2000 - 2011 (20-Year Contracts)
Two Olkiluoto-Sized EPRs (20 Years of Operation, 80% Capacity Factor)
Not only is the cost high, but investment is also risky. Nuclear
plants require a massive capital investment, but then low costs to
maintain, compared to natural gas or coal, where the plants are
cheaper to build, but the fuel is expensive. Because nuclear plants
take ten years to plan, license and build, the price of electricity
(and thus the profits for a plant) can change significantly during
construction. Recently, the combination of cheap natural gas due
to fracking and government subsidies for wind and solar power
has driven electricity prices down far faster than the industry
had predicted. This altered market means many nuclear plant
construction plans have been cancelled, as the future is deemed
too unpredictable. A company making a $14 billion investment
is effectively betting its entire financial future on their venture,
a venture which will only start paying off in 10 years time. With
C
1 Kharecha and Hansen, ‘Prevented Mortality and Greenhouse Gas Emissions from Historical and Projected Nuclear Power’, Environmental Science and Technology, 2013.
2 Jessica Lovering and Max Luke, ‘Germany’s ‘Energiewende’ Shows Why We Need Nuclear’, The Breakthrough Institute, July 9, 20133 Price of Vogtle expansion could increase $900 million’, The Augusta Chronicle, May 11, 20124 Alex Trembath, et. al, ‘Cost of German Solar is Four Times Finnish Nuclear’, The Breakthrough Institute, May 14, 2013
401 Terawatt-Hours
448 Terawatt-Hours
$130 billion
$31 billion
Coal – Global Average
Coal – China
Coal – U.S.
Oil
Natural Gas
Biofuel/Biomass
Solar (rooftop)
Wind
Hydro – Global Average
Nuclear – Global Average
Energy Source
170,000
280,000
15,000
36,000
4,000
24,000
440
150
1,400
90
Mortality Rate
50% Global Electricity
75% China’s Electricity
44% U.S. Electricity
36% of Energy, 8% Elect.
20% Global Electricity
21% Global Energy
<1% Global Electricity
~1% Global Electricity
15% Global Electricity
17% Global Electricity
Deaths/TrillionkWhr
James Conca, Forbes.com
San Onofre Nuclear Generating Station (SONGS) Source: songscommunity.com
“a strong anti-nuke ideology beat a strong an-ti-carbon ideology by exploiting a minor, but easily resolved, engineering flaw [causing the closure of a nuclear generator]” – James Conca
an uncertain electricity market, public opposition to nuclear, and
shareholder’s clamour for immediate profits, constructing nuclear
plants is not common for private companies. Currently the major-
ity of growth is led by strong central governments like Finland, In-
dia, South Africa and China; private companies can no longer build
plants themselves.
The USA once led the world in constructing nuclear power plants.
Throughout the 1960s and 1970s, the US government offered giant
loans to private utilities to build over 100 nuclear plants. Today,
these nuclear plants provide 20% of our electricity. However, after
twenty years of federal subsidies, solar panels produce only 0.23%5
of our generated electricity, 1% of the total generated by nuclear
energy.
The current US government is not interested in financing new nu-
clear construction. Conversely, emerging nuclear energy giants
India and China encourage growth. India has 5.3 gigawatts of elec-
tricity (GWe) of nuclear capacity installed (the USA. has 99 GWe6
currently installed), but is planning to expand their capacity by
1600% to 80 GWe by 20507
– an ambitious goal of having a new
plant come online every two months. China is less open to shar-
ing their plans, but similar growth is expected. In contrast with
the USA, these countries see the value of nuclear power plants as a
steady, price-independent, carbon-free form of energy.
Nuclear plants in the USA. are closing quickly. In the San Onof-
re Nuclear Generating Station (SONGS) a small miscalculation
resulted in steam pipes leaking8
, causing the plant to shut down.
Instead of fixing and relicensing the plant, the company decid-
ed the bureaucracy of California and bad press was not worth it
– even though running the plant was considered financially and
ecologically viable. Forbes journalist James Conca writes “a strong
anti-nuke ideology beat a strong anti-carbon ideology by exploit-
ing a minor, but easily resolved, engineering flaw.9
” The effect of
this decision? $13.8 billion of natural gas plants are being built to
replace the single plant, causing a net 10% increase10
in California’s
CO2 emissions -- equivalent to the level of emissions from wind
5 6 EIA 2014 Annual Energy Outlook7 http://www.world-nuclear-news.org/ee-indian-nuclear-must-grow-15-times-for-clean-future-0408141.html8 The leakage was around 150 gallons per day - on the order of a drip coffee pot, with a radiation dose of 0.000000052 mSv - a billion times lower than that given off by New York Grand Central Station’s granite walls. (http://atomicinsights.com/san-onof-re-steam-generators-honest-error-driven-by-search-for-perfection/)
Comparison of Non-Hydro Low-Carbon Energy Sources in California (for the last full year of operation)
Electricity Production (billion KWhs/year)
9 James Conca, ‘Are California Carbon Goals Kaput?’, Forbes Online, October 2, 201410 ‘State Contributions to Recent US Emissions Trends’, Rhodium Group, October 28, 2013. 11 Independent analysis, from the International Energy Agency to the World Energy Council to our own EPA and the Energy Information Administration, confirms that any credible program to reduce carbon emissions must include a significant contribution from nuclear energy, 30% or more. - James Conca
14 | Penn Sustainabil ity Review
Vermont Yankee Source: wamc.org
Nuclear (Diablo Canyon)
Nuclear (SONGS)
Wind
Solar
Biomass
Geothermal
18-
18
12
4
7
12+
In the history of the world, only three reactors have malfunctioned.
Public apathy and misinformation are fueling the anti-nuclear contingent.
and solar production over the last twenty years.11
So much for the
flagship state of American environmentalism.
The closing of Vermont’s oldest and most profitable power plant,
Vermont Yankee, is also heavily debated. While the public wor-
ried about the potential for meltdown, it had been providing emis-
sion-free electricity to three states (Vermont, New Hampshire and
Massachusetts) for 42 years. Recently relicensed in March 2011 by
the Nuclear Regulatory Commision for another 20 years, it has
been scheduled for decommissioning due to pressure from the
same anti-nuclear advocates in the case of SONGS. Department of
Energy licensing auditors are not only nuclear experts, but have
a massive incentive to stop any disasters – yet anti-nuclear advo-
cates said their report was not comprehensive or safe enough. Now
residents in all three states are expecting to see their electricity bill
increase between 37% and 50%12 due to a single plant closure.
Do other countries have better records? Germany’s ‘Energiewende’
is projected to cost some $4.5 trillion, or around 2.5% of GDP for
fifty years straight.13
This investment made headlines this summer,
when solar provided 50% of electricity on a few peak summer
days.14
But this is 50% of ‘electricity capacity’, or instantaneous
power – solar energy produced half of all the energy in Germany
for a few minutes around noon. ‘Electricity Production’, the far
more important metric, is the energy created over a day, where
solar provided only 4.6%15 on those days. Nuclear, by contrast, has
a 84% capacity rate, so power plants are producing at full capacity
almost all the time.
In addition, having such a massive portion of a country’s electric-
ity occasionally be generated by solar is damaging to other forms
of power production. When a single source varies from 50% of pro-
duction to nothing at night, other plants need to compensate. This
cycling of plants means nuclear (which varies its production over
multiple days) cannot be part of the energy mix, so the other 95% of
total daily production must come from gas and coal. The growing
international consensus is that “Energiewende is the worst possible
example of how to implement an energy transition. The overzeal-
ous push for the wrong generation technology has hurt citizens,
businesses, and the environment all at the same time.”16
The Ger-
man investment plan has caused higher energy imports17
, Germa-
ny’s highest coal usage in twenty years18
, and its highest electricity
prices ever.
We must instead follow China’s lead. The Chinese Academy of Sci-
ences (CAS) has built a new nuclear research center in Shanghai
with 450 Scientists, with 300 more to be hired over the next year.19
Comparatively speaking, Penn currently has 113 faculty in the en-
gineering school. CAS’s mission is not to build existing nuclear re-
actors, but innovate with novel fuels (Thorium), coolants (liquified
salt) and plant designs (putting reactors underground, or floating
on the ocean). China’s focus on solving their electricity problem
is commendable, and will make China the intellectual leaders on
nuclear power for years. Meanwhile, the US government instead is
reducing grant programs to develop new low cost ‘Small Modular
Reactors’.
Nuclear poses a moral dichotomy. Humans can now split atoms
in half, unleashing massive power that we harvest in giant, com-
plex reactors. The energy harvested drives our industry, our offic-
es, our homes. Should this complex process go wrong, the entire
country suffers, yet in the history of the world, only three reactors
have malfunctioned. Advocates state that in terms of deaths per
kilowatt, Nuclear is considered the safest form of energy available
to the world.20
The argument states that proliferation risks are re-
duced due to new fuels and international protocols. They cite the
tiny amount of radioactive waste21
, and increasingly effective stor-
age techniques as making the waste point moot. Power produced
from nuclear reactors is incredibly cheap and reliable over the en-
tire lifetime of the plant.
More importantly, the spectre of climate change looms large. As
the battle between anti-nuclear and anti-carbon advocates rages,
carbon dioxide is rapidly causing the earth to alter its basic pro-
cesses. Nuclear power offers a simple, easy solution to this problem,
directly replacing gas and coal plants with carbon-free electricity
production. Solar and wind are a useful part of the energy mix, but
nuclear power could be the country’s solution. Public apathy and
misinformation are fueling the anti-nuclear contingent. Scientists
and policy makers use research and common sense to fight back;
the fate of this battle is in the hands of ordinary Americans.
12 James Conca, ‘Closing Vermont Nuclear Bad Business for Everyone’, Forbes Online, September 29, 201413 Willem Post, ‘Global Warming Targets and Capital Costs of Germany’s ‘Ener-giewende’’, The Energy Collective, December 3, 2012 14 Mark Lynas, ‘Germany’s ‘Energiewende’ - the story so far. January 15, 201315 Thomas Gerke, ‘Sunday, Solar Sunday: Germany’s Recent Solar Energy Record In-Depth’, The Energy Collective, July 13, 201316 Ryan Carlyle, ‘Should Other Nations Follow Germany’s Lead on Promoting Solar Power?’, Quora, posted on Forbes, October 4, 201417 Trembath, Breakthrough Institute
US Electricity Generating Costs (Cents per Kilowatt-Hour)
18 Stefan Nicola, ‘Merkel’s Green Shift Backfires as German Pollution Jumps’, Bloomberg, July 29, 201319 ‘Thorium Reactors: Asgard’s Fire’, Editorial, The Economist, April 12, 201420 Kharecha and Hansen, ‘Prevented Mortality and Greenhouse Gas Emissions from Historical and Projected Nuclear Power’, Environmental Science and Technology, 2013.21 All nuclear waste ever produced would cover a football field 7 yards deep- not very much! Nuclear Energy Institute (http://www.nei.org/Knowledge-Center/Nuclear-Statis-tics/On-Site-Storage-of-Nuclear-Waste)
Penn Sustainabil ity Review | 15
18-
18
Coal
Nat. Gas
Nuclear
Hydro-Electric
Wind
Wind Offshore
Solar Thermal
Solar Photovoltaic
10 -
9
11
11 +
14
23
26
40