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 1’s 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 we’ve 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.