PSR Fall 2014

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.

[email protected]

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


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.


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.


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.”


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.


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


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.


21% Global Energy

<1% Global Electricity

~1% 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


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)


18-

18

Coal

Nat. Gas

Nuclear

Hydro-Electric

Wind

Wind Offshore

Solar Thermal

Solar Photovoltaic

10 -

9

11

11 +

14

23

26

40

PSR Fall 2014

Documents

Transcript of PSR Fall 2014