Provide a 50-75 word discussion reply to the following post below.
I believe that my views have remained essentially the same, but with broader understanding. Having worked in the energy field for most of my adult life, the basics of power plant energy production, safety equipment and environmental safety upgrades (specifically for coal and natural gas power plants). However, I can say that two specific discussions and a couple of module units were particularly helpful in expanding my baseline knowledge or giving me a more in-depth understanding of a concept that I was only vaguely aware of. Firstly, module 1s discussion of the steps of the initiation of the Environmental Protection Agency (EPA) and how that set the stage for future regulations and standards was a history that is well within my career path but had never been explored. The module 4 discussion on passive reactor designs was interesting, because although I have both education and experience with reactor operations, most of this is based on older generation PWRs (including the oldest nuclear powered aircraft carrier), so the idea of a mostly hands-off design for operation and emergency was an amazing new section of nuclear power to learn about. As far as reading units, I assumed that I had a basic understanding of how electricity generation and transmission worked, but breaking down the path into specific subsections and adding a more detailed view of those pieces of equipment really helped to solidify that area of electrical travel. Overall, however, I feel that the section on renewables was likely the module that most affected my stance on power, particularly in the pros and cons of each type. Expanding my views on how different power sources could affect not only emissions, but wildlife and native inhabitants was a really eye-opening addition to my learning that will hopefully bring important change to my future work.
Overall, I think the most important thing to work on environmental stability is research and the separation of political parties from energy generation. I believe that more funding and greater STEM field recruitment will increase the efficiency of fossil fuel use and toxin removal as the supplies decrease and allow better collection and storage of renewable energy as the transition happens. However, in my opinion (based primarily on the struggle/lack of changes with current minimal guidelines) much of this depends on requirements passed down from the government to ensure that these changes are in fact requirements and that not complying has specific consequences. Mostly, however, I feel that the ability for energy companies to put money towards political candidates has direct consequences on the formation and follow-through of climate change and environmental protection bills and laws. Personally, I believe weve seen that candidates who receive money from energy corporations are more likely to focus on those corporations profits (shrouded behind the idea of maintaining jobs and maintaining the economy ) and less likely to do things that may have more immediate negative effects on the corporations profits, but decrease damage to the planet and the health risk of the world population. The ability for the earth to maintain life should not be across a political divide.
