Counterintuitive Fall 2024

Carbon-Free Power Grid With Nuclear and Renewable Energy Sources

As time goes by the issue of global warming becomes more and more of a reality. Global warming is caused by carbon dioxide or “greenhouse gases” being released in the atmosphere. Of course, gas powered cars release carbon dioxide into the atmosphere helping global warming. But, a large majority of carbon emissions are produced by power sources like coal plants that release carbon into the atmosphere. These coal plants produce the most amount of carbon dioxide in the air than any other sources. The cheap price and the easiness of producing power with coal is a makes them extremely attractive in the power production industry. But According to the article “Coal Plants Lock in 300 Billion Tons of CO2 Emissions” written by Bobby Magill. Magill explains “Coal-fired power plants are the largest contributors to the atmospheric CO2 concentrations, which last year reached 400 parts per million (ppm) for the first time in human history.” To counter this many are suggesting switching to carbon-free sources of power. Carbon free sources would be able to produce the same amount of energy as coal power plants but at the same time being environmentally conscious. For example, wind, solar, and nuclear are carbon-free sources of power can prove to be great counters to produce clean carbon free energy.

To better understand carbon free energy society needs to first understand what they are currently putting in their atmosphere. Currently the largest source of power in the United States is burning coal. Coal plants heat up coal to produce steam and turn a turbine to power a generator. Even though this process of burning coal is extremely cheap, doing this releases carbon dioxide into the atmosphere. Carbon dioxide or greenhouse gasses is the main cause of global warming. Amanda MacMillan in her article “Global Warming 101” MacMillan puts global warming in perspective by describing, “Over the past 50 years, the average global temperature has increased at the fastest rate in recorded history.” Basically, global warming is the overall average temperature increasing from the increase levels of carbon dioxide that we are currently putting into the atmosphere. This increase in temperature can become extremely damaging to our environment. Carbon free refers to absolutely zero power plants operating in a way the produces carbon dioxide. Meaning if carbon free would take full effect all carbon-based power plants would need to be shut down and replaced with carbon free alternatives that are good for the environment.

Renewable sources like wind and solar are great renewable sources to produce clean energy. Renewable sources operate by taking in zero one use materials like coal. Instead renewable sources use resources like wind and sunlight to operate and produce energy, releasing zero carbon into the atmosphere. Wind power plants operate like how a sail on a sailboat operates. A sailboat uses wind to move itself in the direction of the wind. But unlike sailboats wind turbines harness the power of the wind to turn larges blades that move a rotor powering a generator to produce energy. From the article “How Do Wind Turbines Work” from the office of Energy Efficiency and Renewable Energy they state, “A wind turbine turns wind energy into electricity using the aerodynamic force from the rotor blades, which work like an airplane wing or helicopter rotor blade.” ­Another viable renewable energy source that has been gaining large amounts of popularity is solar power. From Live Science in their article “How Do Solar Panels Work?” the author explains “a solar panel works by allowing photons, or particles of light, to knock electrons free from atoms, generating a flow of electricity.” Solar panels do have an advantage over wind turbines, instead of needed a large space almost anyone can install solar panels. A popular trend currently is to install solar panels on the roofs of houses. This makes solar panels extremely desirable to average homeowners making solar panels a great addition to a network of carbon free energy sources.

When society first thinks about clean carbon free energy sources most will just think of renewable sources like wind and solar. But nuclear power in another great energy source that is completely carbon free. In the article “How a Nuclear Reactor Works” From Nei, the author states, “Coal, natural gas, oil and nuclear energy use their fuel to turn water into steam and use that steam to turn the turbine.” But where nuclear differs from coal plants is, they do not heat anything to create steam to turn turbines. The uranium atoms do all the work and create fission that turns the turbines to create energy.  Most concern around nuclear power is the safety issue but, reactors have become extremely safe with new technological advancements. The high upfront price of building nuclear reactors have turned many away, but nuclear power plants produce a large amount of energy and can operate for a large period. This makes nuclear power plants extremely efficient in the carbon free energy system,

Carbon free refers to power plants that can operate and generate energy in a clean way that does not emit greenhouse gasses into the atmosphere.  In the article “Going ‘Zero Carbon’ Is All the Rage. But Will It Slow Climate Change?” Nathan Rott describes Carbon free as, “A state would be getting all of its electricity from renewable or clean sources like solar, wind or nuclear.” Essentially carbon free is releasing zero carbon dioxide into the atmosphere. To stop the rapid growing problem of global warming and the average temperature growing carbon free energy is by far the best counter. Even though society relies on coal plants and other sources of energy that release carbon it is possible to go completely carbon free with clean sources of energy. Instead of just using complete renewable energy systems like wind and solar to produce clean carbon free energy society should be looking to expand. Utilizing more of nuclear power with the use of renewable sources can push society into a complete carbon free power grid.

To avoid problems, renewable sources like wind and solar should be utilized alongside nuclear power plants. If we rely strictly on renewable sources large amounts of land will have to be dedicated to power fields, and conditions are not always optimal for power production. A large portion nuclear power protester believe that nuclear power is unsafe and should not be used because of this. But contrary to popular belief nuclear power is extremely safe, especially with new technological advancements. When using nuclear power and renewable sources together we can create an efficient power grid that utilizes both power sources strengths and eliminates their weaknesses.

When renewable sources are strictly used for all of power production large amounts of land will have to be dedicated for strictly power production. From the Tedx Talk “Why renewables can’t save the planet” the speaker environmentalist Michael Schellenberger explains, “Building a solar farm is a lot like building any other kind of farm, you have to clear the whole area of wildlife.” Shallenberger goes onto explain this process is extremely expensive and invasive in terms of removing wildlife from their natural habitats. To solely use renewable sources of power to produce the worlds energy we would need to clear large amounts of land to sufficiently produce enough energy for society’s needs. In doing this we would be destroying a large amount of wildlife. This process seems counterintuitive if we are building solar fields and wind fields to save the environment. But, in the process we are destroying wildlife and the environment. To counter this, nuclear power can be utilized to produce a percentage of power. The production of solar fields can be reduced and focused on just installing solar panels on top of Roofs.

Another major problem with using strictly renewable sources of energy is conditions are not always optimal to produce energy. The two largest renewable sources of energy wind and solar require perfect conditions to produce energy efficiently. In the article, “Hybrid nuclear-renewable energy systems” the author, Author Siddharth Suman explains, “Renewable energy sources are not continuous, dependent upon geographical location as well as climatic conditions, and require a very large land footprint.” Suman not only talks about the large amount of land needed for renewable sources. But also explains how climate conditions play a huge role in how effective renewable sources are in producing energy. The problem with this is the wind does not also blow perfectly and the sun does not always shine. During bad conditions renewable sources will not be suitable to keep up with our large demand of energy. Considering our use of energy increases every day only using renewable sources will become a major issue.

Contrary to popular belief nuclear power is extremely safe. For example, France has been using nuclear power as their main power source since 1964 and have not had any major disasters that have threatened people lives. But, when looking at the process of burning coal to produce energy, society can conclude nuclear energy is far safer and burning fossil fuels threatens people’s lives every day. From the article “Every Day 10,000 People Die Due to Air Pollution From Fossil Fuels” written by Roger Pielke, the author can take away that over ten thousand people die by burning fossil fuels every day, making it far more unsafe then nuclear power production. Not only that but with nuclear power plants have made huge technological advancements to make them even more safe. From Applied Energy article “The benefits of nuclear flexibility in power system operations with renewable energy” the author states, “nuclear power plants are technically capable of flexible operation, including changing power output over time (ramping or load following) and providing frequency regulation and operating reserves.” This means that nuclear power plants do not have to operate at maximum power. Instead they can operate at lower levels of production making them far safer. Not only this but From the Nuclear Energy Institute in their article “Is Nuclear Energy Safe” the author Kelly McPharlin explains why nuclear reactors are safe in the modern world. McPharlin explains how nuclear reactors have many layers of safety systems. The layers of safety are used to prevent any issue the reactor might have. The people working in the reactor now are extremely trained to handle any situation the reactor might go through. Nuclear reactors are proving to be far safer than coal plants. Coal plants cause far more deaths, and will continue to cause even more from the carbon being released into the air causing global warming

The most efficient carbon free based power grid would be utilizing nuclear power alongside of renewable sources. Since renewable sources cannot always operate at maximum capacity due to climate conditions nuclear power would be needed in times where renewable sources cannot produce a large amount of energy. Going back to the Applied Energy article “The benefits of nuclear flexibility in power system operations with renewable energy” when the author explains, how nuclear power plants can operate at different levels or production. From this statement we can infer that when renewable sources are producing at maximum capacity because conditions are good, we can lower production for nuclear power plants. This goes for the same when renewable sources are not operating well due to climate issues, we can ramp up production for nuclear plants to make up for the renewable sources not producing at maximum capacity. Using renewable sources alongside nuclear energy also solves the issue of large amounts of land being used up from renewable sources. Some solar and wind fields will have to be used even if renewable sources and paired with nuclear energy, but a lot less land will be needed for solar and wind fields. Since nuclear will be utilized we can focus of using less solar fields and focus on installing solar panels are more roofs. To completely remove the use of carbon-based power plants and stop global warming, society needs to start utilizing a power grid that contains nuclear power and renewable sources working together.

Even though to create a complete carbon-free power grid society must utilize both nuclear power and renewable sources, Climate deniers have argued we can complete this power grid with just renewables. Climate deniers have also argued that this carbon-free way of power is too expensive to prove to be reasonable. With the largest contributor of global warming being carbon-based energy sources, these climate deniers must realize that in order to create a complete carbon-free power grid we must remove the burning of fossil fuels and utilize renewables and nuclear power side by side.

Some climate deniers believe that we can create a completely carbon-free power grid with only using renewable sources and making nuclear power obsolete. While renewable sources of energy are a great way to produce clean energy, they are not always reliable, and they cannot keep up with the energy demand. From “Perspectives on The Environment” in their article “Renewable Energy: Why Don’t We Use It More If It’s So Great?” the author explains, “Renewable energy is also not completely reliable even though it is sustainable. We cannot control when we receive it and how much we receive. It often relies on weather like the sun or water.” Every day our energy consumption increases, and if we don’t have completely reliable sources of power that would become a huge problem. The fact that the wind doesn’t blow as strong every day or some days it is not that sunny renewable sources will struggle to produce optimal power for society. According to the he National Renewable Energy Laboratory, in their article “Electrification & Decarbonization: Exploring U.S. Energy Use and Greenhouse Gas Emissions in Scenarios with Widespread Electrification and Power Sector Decarbonization” they explain, “Under our reference case, total U.S. electricity consumption grows from approximately 3,860 TWh in 2016 to 5,260 TWh in 2050. Consistent with results from other analyses of electrification impacts on electricity demand…” Knowing that power usage increases every day, unreliable sources like renewables will not be able to solely keep up with the growing demand of power.

The combination of renewable sources alongside nuclear power, will be able to obtain optimal power production for societies growing need for power. When renewable sources are not able to produce at a maximum capacity due to weather issues, nuclear power can always produce energy. Unlike renewables, nuclear power does not rely on optimal weather conditions. In bad weather conditions nuclear power can still operate at maximum capacity. Nuclear power plants can make up for the lack of productions renewables may encounter when conditions are not optimal for max production of power.

Another major argument is the issue with price. Many climate deniers argue that renewables and nuclear are too expensive and are not worth it because of the high prices. Burning fossil fuels is attractive in the energy production industry because of the low price. But what many people do not realize with renewables and nuclear energy is the only expensive part of them is the upfront cost. While it is expensive to build a nuclear power plant, solar field, or wind farm they are sustainable for a long period of time. The energy nuclear power plants and renewable plants produce will eventually pay for themselves. They are all able to produce energy with no raw material added, unlike popular coal plants.

Continuing the argument with the concern of high price, when we think of the high price of these nuclear power plants or renewable plants, many forget we are also paying a higher cost to save lives. From the article “Every Day 10,000 People Die Due To Air Pollution From Fossil Fuels” the author Roger Pielke explains, “A study published last week in the journal Cardiovascular Research estimated that in 2015, the deaths of more than 3.6 million people worldwide could have been avoided if air pollution from fossil fuels were reduced to zero.” 3.6 million seems like of people dying from climate change at first but when you put that number into perspective it seems like an even larger amount of deaths, every year around 3.6 million people die because of climate change. While some people may say nuclear is just as dangerous or more dangerous then burning fossil fuels, the deaths from nuclear do not even come close to the deaths from climate change or burning fossil fuels. To put this in perspective we can look at the largest user of nuclear power, France. They generate almost all their power from nuclear power plants. From the article “France: A Study of French Nuclear Policy After Fukushima” the author makes the claim, “France has the largest percent of nuclear in total domestic electricity generation according to the International Energy Association and exports about 44.91 billion kWh of electrical energy per year. With 58 nuclear reactors, France has now depended on nuclear energy for many years without ever having a serious accident.” With having very few incidents France has only had one death from nuclear since they started utilizing nuclear power in 1964. If society could stop using carbon-based energy production and switch over to a power grid that utilizes nuclear and renewables, we can save 3.6 million lives every year. Even if the upfront price is higher than burning fossil fuels.

A power grid that utilizes both nuclear power and renewable sources is essential to create a fully carbon-free power system. This is necessary to reduce greenhouse gasses in our environment to eventually stop global warming. If we do not do this the death rate from global warming and releasing carbon dioxide will continue to rise. The argument of the high cost of renewable sources will pay themselves off in time. The high price should also be justified to save millions of people’s lives every year. Even though some climate deniers want to solely use renewable sources. Nuclear is necessary to produce optimal power and create a complete carbon-free power grid.

References

Magill, B., & @bobbymagill, F. (2014, August 28). Coal Plants Lock in 300 Billion Tons ofCO2 Emissions.

MacMillan, A. (2020, March 9). Global Warming 101.

How“How Do Wind Turbines Work?” Energy.gov,

Dhar, Michael. “How Do Solar Panels Work?” LiveScience, Purch, 6 Dec. 2017,

“How a Nuclear Reactor Works.” Nuclear Energy Institute

Jenkins, J. D., Zhou, Z., Ponciroli, R., Vilim, R. B., Ganda, F., Sisternes, F. de, & Botterud, A. (2018, April 24). The benefits of nuclear flexibility in power system operations with renewable energy.

McPharlin, K. (2019, November 22). Is Nuclear Energy Safe?

Shellenberger, M. (n.d.). Why renewables can’t save the planet: Michael Shellenberger:TEDxDanubia.

Suman, S. (2018, February 1). Hybrid nuclear-renewable energy systems: A review.

Renewable Energy: Why Don’t We Use It More If It’s So Great? (2015, February 13).

Pielke, R. (2020, March 10). Every Day 10,000 People Die Due To Air Pollution From Fossil Fuels.

France: A Study of French Nuclear Policy After Fukushima. (2012, July 17).

Steinberg, D., Bielen, D., Eichman, J., Eurek, K., Logan, J., Mai, T., … Wilson, E. (2017). Electrification and Decarbonization: Exploring U.S. Energy Use and Greenhouse Gas Emissions in Scenarios with Widespread Electrification and Power Sector Decarbonization. doi: 10.2172/1372620

Should You Be Eating School Lunches?

School lunch is the most look forward to time of the day for students. All they think about during morning classes is getting to devour some food while socializing with some friends. Students can either bring their own lunches from home or buy one of the several options provided by school lunch programs. Before choosing which lunch to eat for the day, everyone should understand the benefits of what they are choosing. Homemade lunches provide great variety and are commonly thought to be better and healthier than school lunches. Arguably, homemade lunches, given their great variety, are much worse for students because of the dangerous extent of that same variety. Students aren’t forced to pack a nutritionally beneficial lunch, but rather they choose whatever they want from home which can result in unhealthy diets. School lunches, on the other hand, are supplied with nutritional standards that make sure all meals hold daily nutrients while also supplying great variety. Promoting the consumption of modern school lunches will benefit student health and education much better than modern homemade lunches because of the well-balanced variety given by schools and lack of nutritional standards for homemade lunches.

The school lunch provided to students and teachers holds a bad reputation from it’s past, but counterintuitively, it’s due for a new look such as “Nutritionally Beneficial” . Through studies and surveys, the claims in favor of healthy and well-balanced school lunches overrule the poor standards of unhealthy/ unbalanced homemade lunches. 

Modern school lunches have been aimed to provide the best possible benefits packed into one meal. They’re not the old slabs of pizza with some tater tots as they were a decade ago, but they present themselves as a variety with a goal to keep students nutrition balanced. It’s not an argument enjoyed by society because of the influence past decades has on students. Since parents received the horrendous lunches years ago they probably categorize modern school lunches the same. These modern school lunches have been experimented on and worked on to the point that the standards for a school lunch nowadays is much stricter than a homemade lunch since the aim is to provide all the food groups and healthy options to students.

An argument persuading people to think higher of school lunches and lower of homemade lunches sounds absurd. Surely, there will be reasons behind parents and students thinking homemade lunches are more nutritionally beneficial than school lunches, but that can actually be refuted. The argument is here for a new possibility, which is, trusting that these school lunch programs can properly feed one or one’s kids in a nutritious way. Leaning students, teachers and parents off their opinions can be difficult, but supplying rebuttals will win them over and provide  them a new look at school lunches.

These school lunches are commonly thought to be school prison food. Lots like to present their opinion on the food as terribly unhealthy and trash. These opinions are old-minded and cause faulty attributions to be given to school lunch programs. If students give school lunches more opportunity than they could see the major benefits they supply. Margaret Brown, NRDC’s staff attorney, who works on presenting new ideas for school lunches says, “Salad bars are usually a huge hit because kids like to choose what they eat,” in NRDC’s article “Getting a Better School Lunch.” The fresh ideas being incorporated into school lunch programs are the way to winning over these students who hold strong opinions. The less processed foods and given the more variety is going to be key to exchanging the reputation of school lunches to a much more deservable name.

School lunches to the government are extremely important and worked on each year to improve. The government funds the National School Lunch Program (NSLP) which works yearly to better the food nutritionally in schools. The article, “Eating School Lunch Is Associated with Higher Diet Quality among Elementary School Students” on ClinicalKey says that, “Findings from this study showed that students who ate breakfast and lunch from school consumed diets higher in dairy-rich foods while limiting calories from solid fats and added sugars, compared with students eating meals from home.” Studies are proving that students who choose the school option are better dieted over students with home made lunches. With the government funding programs like the NSLP students will continue to see more benefits with their health.  

Nutrition often thought by society is the label slapped to the back of everything eaten. If anyone wonders what’s in their food or how much of something is in it they can find it right on the nutrition label. Nutrition is to keep the body orderly and well maintenanced. With improper nutrition comes health issues. Given most people don’t know what all ingredients are and what they do for the body the main concern people think of is calories, proteins, carbs, sugar, fats, etc. People consuming these school lunch products don’t receive the label, so they go off what they’ve always known. Therefore, the idea of these school lunches being healthy and nutritious isn’t very popular, but the lunch programs are starting to advertise them as healthy.       

Pairing school lunches with the words nutritionally beneficial may seem absurd in many people’s opinion, but they actually fit perfectly. The feeling as if the past of school lunches have completely controlled the perception of modern school lunches. No, the argument here is not if the food tastes bad or good, it’s not restaurant worthy food, but it’s just there for one to get their daily lunch intake in the most beneficial way possible. Being nutritionally beneficial would mean the nutrients of the food are very good at maintenancing your body and brain. In the Wilder Research paper, “Nutrition And Students’ Academic Performance,” sources say, “Nutrition also indirectly impacts school performance. Poor nutrition can leave students’ susceptible to illness or lead to headaches and stomachaches, resulting in school absences. Access to nutrition that incorporates protein, carbohydrates, and glucose has been shown to improve students’ cognition, concentration, and energy levels.” Modern school lunches contain the healthy nutrients and hold out on the unhealthy parts like trans fat, sugar, refined carbs, etc. Those healthy nutrients included are the reasoning behind this argument since they are doing a great job at keeping our healthy orderly. Also, since it’s understood that nutrition keeps the body and brain orderly then that results in great amounts of energy and better behavior during school which further results in better grades and understanding of material. Opposingly, if one doesn’t receive the proper nutrients daily it could result in much more issues like headaches and illness, like said above. Also, resulting in better grades and understanding of material.                                                                                                                    

School lunches unlike homemade lunches give access to a nutritionally balanced meal opportunities everyday. Homemade lunches can have such a variety that students could have one of the healthiest meals one day, but the next day have a bag of chips with cookies and fruit punch. Clearly it’s understood how big the variety of homemade lunches can be and that could be the fuel parents and students’ opinions use since there’s no extent to what a homemade lunch could include.  The goal of this argument is to present to students and parents, by using studies and stats, that school lunches are overall much better compared to homemade lunches because of all the unknown benefits. Also, school lunches being improved each year really just provides a strong backbone to their nutritional value.  

School lunch programs, like every program, have small goals leading to a much bigger goal. That main goal is to benefit students’ health by satisfying students’ hunger, providing proper nutrients and do it all with great variety. Homemade on the other hand has one known goal and that being to satisfy hunger for students. Most students and parents don’t go through lunch prep at home and question whether they have all the food groups incorporated, but they think about what’s going to satisfy their hunger until the next meal. Overall, school lunches are given educated thought to what is being put out for students while homemade lunches are not. 

There might be underlying goals hidden behind these school lunches, but what are they for exactly? There for the students/ teachers and their health/ academics, but lots aren’t aware of this domino effect. The nutrients being provided are there to satisfy most daily health needs throughout the day given the unknown circumstances of students personal lives. In the “School Nutrition and Meal Cost Findings” summary, the USDA says, “Virtually all daily lunch menus met the daily quantity requirement for milk. Nearly all daily lunch menus met the daily quantity requirements for fruits (95 percent) and meats/meat alternates (91 percent). Roughly 8 in 10 daily lunch menus met the daily quantity requirements for vegetables and grains (81 and 80 percent, respectively).” Being able to provide these percentages of food groups weekly to students and staff is unbelievable. If a student receives a dairy, fruit/veggie, meat, grains, etc. then they will be receiving much greater nutrients to energize the body. Oppositely with homemade lunches, since studies show average students homemade lunches don’t contain well balanced nutrients, their bodies and brains won’t be working to their best abilities. These standards are the proof of school lunch programs having true well-balanced lunch meals. Now that it’s understood that school lunches have nutritional value in them, it’s easy to see how the ones in consumption are receiving their daily vitamins/ minerals/ nutrients/ etc. for a positive healthy lifestyle. 

Saying all homemade lunches are unhealthy is obviously obnoxious since you don’t know what everyone is eating every meal of every single day. Some might get misdirected to where the idea is coming into play here. These school lunches provide the best overall opportunity for students’ health and education. It’s uncountable to how many varieties that can be made up for lunch from home and that’s known as well, but students today aren’t taking advantage of that variety given at home and bring in lunches like poptarts, cookies, chips, candy, etc. There’s no way to know exactly what every kid is eating and to say all kids are eating poorly, but the studies below show that homemade lunches overall are relatively on the unhealthy side rather than the healthy side. In the article, on ProQuest, called “Home-made packed lunches slip through nutrition net” it’s stated, “Of the 1,294 packed lunches, 14 (1.1 per cent) met all the food based standards for school meals set in England.” These studies being done with over 1,000 real packed lunches provides an ideal image of what other students lunches look like. Only 1.1 percent of all randomly tested homemade lunches could achieve the standards of a school lunch.  Homemade lunches can’t match against school lunches given that school lunches carry much higher standards. Another article, on Journal of Nutrition Education and Behavior, called, “Nutritional Comparison of Packed and School Lunches in Pre-Kindergarten and Kindergarten Children Following the Implementation of the 2012–2013 National School Lunch Program Standards” says, “Of the 1,314 observations collected; 42.8% were packed lunches (n = 562) and 57.2% were school lunches (n = 752). Energy, fat, saturated fat, sugar, vitamin C, and iron were significantly higher whereas protein, sodium, fiber, vitamin A, and calcium were significantly lower for packed lunches than school lunches.” Once again a study was done with over 1,000 random students and results came to a conclusion that school lunches hold higher standards which means more healthier foods, while homemade lunches had lower standards which resulted in more unhealthy nutrients being consumed like saturated fat and sugar. This refutes the idea that homemade lunches are healthier by the statistics provided and shows school lunches could provide a student with much better nutrition.

Another causal component school lunches connect with is student performance in the classroom. In the article, “The Impact of Nutrition on Learning and Behavior: A No Brainer” the National Institute for Student-Centered Education provides examples from Eric Jensen’s book, Teaching With the Brain in Mind, saying, “The brain needs a variety of nutrients to be able to function optimally. To focus, remember and regulate our emotions we need protein, unsaturated fats, complex carbohydrates and sugars (in grains, fruits and vegetables), as well as a host of trace elements such as iron, potassium, and selenium.” These nutritious lunches provided by the school helps with student performance tremendously. Students continuing to grow and develop need a good lunch plan for success. Without the proper consumption of essentials like amino acids, vitamins (A,B,C,E), iron, proteins, complex carbohydrates, etc. humans wouldn’t be able to function to their max potential. That’s the idea around these school lunches. They are giving the students and teachers the chance to reach their maximum potential. One example of direct effect these nutrients have on the brain is with complex carbs. Not getting enough complex carbs can result in low blood sugar which then results in the hippocampus (part of the brain) being affected and given that the hippocampus plays a central role in learning that would mean the lunches packed with these nutrients play huge roles in how students do academically. Once again, it’s not this one meal that will control the success of one’s self, but it’s one that can play a huge role. It’s known that lots of students don’t eat breakfast before school or class because of how early school is, so in lots of cases these lunches are students’ first meals. School lunch programs understand not all kids eat breakfast so they make sure to fill up these lunch meals with nutrients as if they were the first meal of the day, while still maintaining a good portion so students are not over eating. 

Stating that school lunches are more nutritional and more well-balanced often brings up occasional questions like what’s in the foods, what’s so healthy about these lunches, what are the effects, etc. One topic that hasn’t been cleared up is the caloric measurements of these lunches. Lunch being one of the most important meals, because it provides energy for the whole afternoon and night, means there will need to be a sufficient amount of healthy calories for energy. These lunches acquire lots of nutrients while having a good amount of calories. They keep the calories intake to a fair level so that students get the calories needed while not over doing it. School programs also keep track of the calories being put out so that it’s different by grade. On Action For Healthy Kids, the article, “How Does School Lunch Work?” says, ”Kindergarten through fifth-grade students get 550-650 calories. Sixth through eighth-grade students get 600-700 calories. Ninth through 12-grade students get 750-850 calories.” These lunches are approximately ¼ – ⅓ of the calories generally consumed daily. School lunches put out a perfect amount of calories, with the nutrients , as well, to the students and staff so that they can stay focused and energized for the whole day and maintain a healthy lifestyle.

Another counter argument could be the idea that not every student and family could afford cafeteria lunches. The NSLP is the solution to those in need. They provide students with free or reduced lunch daily if qualified. The article, “Children’s Food Security and USDA Child Nutrition Programs” by the USDA says, “In 2015, 16.6 percent of households with children were classified as food insecure (adults, children, or both were food insecure). Children were reported to be food insecure in 7.8 percent of all households with children.” 16.6 percent may not seem like a huge number, but that’s about one in every six families being food insecure. The NSLP plays a huge role in protecting and supporting those families’ children to the best of their abilities. Every student receives paperwork early on in the school year to determine whether they qualify for a free or reduced lunch. The NSLP supports millions and millions each year with their food needs. The article, “The National School Lunch Program” by the USDA says, “About 7.1 million children participated in the NSLP in its first year. Since then, the Program has reached millions of children nationwide: 1970: 22.4 million children; 1980: 26.6 million children; 1990: 21.1 million children; 2000: 27.3 million children; 2010: 31.8 million children; and 2016: 30.4 million children.” One can very much understand the success the NSLP has had by the statistics of children supported. The NSLP strives for the best for all students including those who can’t afford anything. This shows that school lunch programs are there for any students who cannot afford the school lunches. The NSLP isn’t run to earn greater profits from students, but rather to support students who have financial issues outside of school.

Everyone is different when it comes to their taste buds and what they enjoy and not. So many factors play a role in a person’s taste buds like religion, where they’re from, their family, etc. and it might mean someone might not enjoy the food, for example, if someone doesn’t eat red meat because of their religious beliefs than they might pack a lunch more often. These school lunches can control issues like these by providing multiple different selections each day so students can supply their needs appropriately. There will always be the main course option which is switched up daily, but there are also the foods the programs provide daily like meat and cheese sandwiches, burgers, salads, etc. This is the variety aspect of school lunches that defeats the argument that one might not enjoy the meal on the menu for the day causing them to want to bring lunch. Another possible issue against school lunches would be allergies. Allergies are very serious for lots of kids/students and the NSLP takes that into consideration. It’s impossible to accommodate for each student’s allergies as there could be hundreds of students with different allergies, some being more serious than others. Yes, students with intense allergies may tend to bring food more than buying because they can find what fits them best, but that doesn’t defeat the refute that the NSLP, with it’s huge variety, gives additional options that avoid certain allergies. For example if a student is allergic to peanuts, which is one of the most common allergies, they could buy a salad and still have the fruits and veggies. There will always be accommodation options for these students. Students usually understand their allergies and will just need to avoid the options they are vulnerable to and they can still acquire the nutritious balance of food from the school lunches.

Overall, the idea of persuading more to choose school lunches over homemade is vulnerable to certain arguments, but those have been given alternatives or solutions to, above. If one wants to make their own meals that’s completely self-choice, but the reliable and consistent school lunches are always there for great possibility. Understanding what a “nutritionally beneficial” lunch is and how school lunch programs are classified under that category while homemade lunches are not, one can support the choice of a school lunch over homemade. School lunches are greater for future success of students and are highly suggested to all students and staff. School lunches hold underlying values that make them special and worth the cost. The further consumption of school lunches over homemade lunches will benefit students now and in the future more than anyone may expect. Take advantage of the benefits provided by schools as they get better and make their consumers healthier.

References

Home-made packed lunches slip through nutrition net. (2010). Nursing Standard (through 2013), 24(25), 16.

USDA. (2017, November). The National School Lunch Program.

Farris, A. R. (n.d.). Nutritional Comparison of Packed and School Lunches in Pre-Kindergarten and Kindergarten Children Following the Implementation of the 2012–2013 National School Lunch Program Standards.

Wilder Research. (2014, January). Nutrition and Students’ Academic Performance.

Au, L. E. (n.d.). Eating School Lunch Is Associated with Higher Diet Quality among Elementary School Students. Retrieved April 27, 2020

Graves, G. (2019, June 25). Getting a Better School Lunch.

Mathematica Policy Research . (2019, April). School Nutrition and Meal Cost Study Summary of Findings.

Cuninggim, P. (2014, May 6). The Impact of Nutrition on Learning and Behavior. 

Action For Healthy Kids. (2020, April 20). How Does School Lunch Work?

Ralston, Treen, & Coleman-Jensen. (2017, June). Children’s Food Security and USDA Child Nutrition Programs.

The Career Trajectory of Candidates Possessing Soft Skills From Obtaining A Stem Degree

In the 21st century, Science, Technology, Engineering and Math (STEM) degrees have been the center of attention in terms of whether or not they are a good investment for candidates seeking long-term career success by providing them soft skills that employers demand. There is no doubt that technical and analytical knowledge are essential to the employability skills STEM candidates need to possess. However, soft skills are becoming increasingly important in STEM industries.

STEM skills are vital to the world, but technology alone is not enough. We need the expertise of candidates who are educated and possess soft skills that are typically provided by a liberal arts degree. Broadening soft skills are the key to long-term, productive careers; however no student should be prevented from majoring in a subject that they are passionate about based on the idea of what they need to succeed. Soft skills can complement and support the technical requirements necessary to acquire and maintain employment in the STEM field. To become an effective STEM candidate it requires time to identify and develop key professional soft skills that employers demand- in any chosen career. 

In the University of New England study, “Critical Soft Skills And The STEM Professional”, author Elizabeth J. Kranz defines soft skills as “generic (non-discipline specific), transferable interpersonal skills that involve one’s ability to manage self, people, relationships and information.” Examples of soft skills include, communication, problem solving, teamwork and leadership- to name a few. Personal effectiveness for STEM candidates requires a range of soft skills that if left unpracticed can derail their career paths- even the most accomplished candidates. Meanwhile hard skills which STEM candidates possess are “specific, objective and measurable skills.” Examples of hard skills include computer programming, foreign language and machine operation.  

Not all STEM degrees are going to give students these range of soft skills, of course. Therefore, a solid humanities foundation, internships, extracurricular activities and hands-on project-based learning will help STEM candidates develop soft skills and employ them in the real-world which employers argue is the key to employment and long-term career success.

According to Kranz, “the global society and economy has transformed into a knowledge and information based culture;” “the skills required to thrive in the marketplace have also transformed, placing significantly greater emphasis on soft skills.” STEM candidates have been criticized for lacking soft skills due to the fact that their learning objectives emphasize hard skills, which puts them at a disadvantage compared to liberal arts candidates. Therefore, there has been a call for making adjustments to the STEM education curriculum in order to involve a variety of soft skills needed to obtain long-term career success.     

Traditional roles of STEM candidates have changed due to the way careers develop overtime along with short job tenures. Thus the expectations of skills STEM candidates need to possess have changed as well. Employers now expect STEM candidates to employ soft skills that are essential to creating success in the workplace environment. As STEM candidates move up in the ranks over the course of their career, the more soft skills are required. According to The United States Bureau of Labor Statistics, there will be a projected “increase of nearly one million computer, mathematical, architecture, engineering and science occupations by 2026.” Thus, this will likely require STEM candidates to possess soft skills in order to fill in the influx of jobs and meet the employers demands.     

Kranz claims that “the definition of the employability of a college student has transformed,” in which “job-ready” and “career-ready are two different concepts.” STEM candidates acquire the hard skills learned at university to obtain an initial job after graduation but lack soft skills that are directly linked to long term success in a career. In the study, “An exploration of global employability skills: a systematic research review”, authors Isra Sarfraz, Diana Rajendran and Chandana Hewege claim that employers recruit candidates with soft skills because it is easier for them to teach the technical skills the job requires to an employee rather than soft skills. Soft skills take more time to develop and are more complex in nature compared to hard skills. Thus, employers tend to hire candidates with a broad range of soft skills rather than hard skills. 

The study claims that, “employers use soft skills as the no.1 differentiator for job applications in all types of industries.” Furthermore, the study reported that candidates possessing soft skills, increases their chances of successful employment. In particular, the most common reported employability skills that employers demand are “teamwork, problem solving, communication, computer skills, analytical thinking, leadership, time management, creativity, interpersonal and organization.” The researchers also argued that the main reason for unemployment is not due to the lack of jobs, rather it is the lack of employability skills possessed by candidates. 

The importance of employability skills is directly related to how the way jobs in the 21st century are designed today, in which the workplace requires employees to interact with one another as a team in order to achieve goals that the employer demands. In Kranz’s study, she “illustrates the scale of the interpersonal interactions a STEM professional can expect to encounter in a professional setting.” Stem professionals can be expected to interact with others, ranging from large scale interactions with the general public to small scale interactions with colleagues.The study also reported that “the STEM professional will likely interact repetitively with colleagues and most intimately with direct teammates on a daily basis.” Furthermore, according to Kranz, “the level of expertise with which the soft skills are behaviorally exhibited can determine the success of the interactions.”  

Due to the fact that the 21st century is characterized by innovation, in which companies are competing with one another to produce innovative ideas, employers are requiring candidates to possess the following soft skills of problem solving, creativity and critical thinking in order to succeed on behalf of the company. The increase of college graduates has also added pressure for employers to recruit candidates with the right balance of hard and soft skills. Employers believe that possessing a college degree and previous work experience are the basic requirements for a job while soft skills lead to long-term career success. 

When soft skills are employed in the workplace, STEM candidates will be able to adapt to change and gain a better understanding of people and the world around them which contributes to long-term career success. Soft skills are just as critical as hard skills but unfortunately they aren’t emphasized enough in the STEM education curriculum, which creates a skills gap between STEM and liberal arts majors. Each job requires specific hard and soft skills that are unique to that profession, in which candidates who develop both skills have an advantage in their careers. Even in professions where it would appear that the demand for hard skills outweighs soft skills, candidates need to have a balance of both. Candidates with the right blend of hard and soft skills become a critical component to the improvement and strength of the company that they work for. Incorporating soft skills should be a priority in the STEM education curriculum as well as organizations because those skills will be needed for long-term effective careers. 

Thus, it is not surprising that schools, parents and employers are heavily focused on the STEM industry these days due to the growing demand. Students majoring and pursuing STEM careers have increased overtime, with the hopes of obtaining job security and financial security. However, employers want STEM candidates to develop the critical skills and knowledge base that comes from a liberal arts education in order to obtain long-term career success.

Today many policymakers and industry leaders have agreed that the U.S is in the midst of a high-tech talent crisis due to the growing skills, racial and gender gap in the workforce. The U.S is in a race to become a dominant high-tech country amongst other global powers in the international system; However there is a debate and question about whether the U.S will have enough future STEM candidates to propel the country into a global high-tech power. There is an issue of whether the U.S education system is adequately teaching the future generation of students the value of a STEM career and the skills needed to obtain one. Another major issue is the racial and gender opportunity gap within the STEM field which unfortunately begins at a young age; thus dissuading them from pursuing a STEM education. Many employers and educational professionals argue that introducing STEM at an earlier age and educating students about the numerous careers the STEM field has to offer are crucial in preparing them for the workforce. In order to narrow the skills, racial and gender gap there needs to be reforms within the STEM education system as well as an opportunity for making STEM more accessible for racial minorities and women which are both essential to the U.S becoming a thriving high-tech based economy.     

According to the study, “Myths and Motives behind STEM (Science, Technology, Engineering, and Mathematics) Education and the STEM-Worker Shortage Narrative” researcher Heidi J. Stevenson claims that “the modern STEM crisis can be traced to the 1950s when there was a perceived threat to U.S economic and homeland security by the launch of Sputnik, and fear that the Soviet Union was annually producing almost twice as many more scientists and engineers than the United States.” Thus there has been a “cycle of alarm, boom and bust,” in which “someone or some group sounds the alarm that there is a critical crisis of insufficient numbers of scientists, engineers, and mathematicians and as a result the country is in jeopardy of either national security risk or falling behind economically.” 

In order for the U.S to combat the STEM shortage crisis and become a dominant global figure in the STEM industry, there needs to be STEM workplace and educational reforms that include an increase in racial diversity and inclusivity of women. According to the Pell Research Center poll, “Women and Men in STEM Often at Odds Over Workplace Equity,” researchers Cary Funk and Kim Parker concluded based on the results that “The field still remains dominated by white males: The representation of women in computer fields has declined since 1990, while black and Hispanic employees each make up less than 10% of the STEM workforce. Thus, the racial and gender opportunity gap is a significant contributing factor to the low number of racial minorities and women being interested and pursuing STEM careers.   

The poll also found that “only about 25% of Americans surveyed feel that K-12 STEM education is above average compared to other advanced countries, and only 13% of people with a postgraduate degree in a STEM field feel that it excels.” Furthermore, 55% of Americans surveyed said that “STEM teachers spent too much time meeting state standards and 53% said they spent too little time emphasizing practical applications. Hence, there is a lot of work to be done not only in the STEM curriculum but also on how Americans, in particular racial minorities and women perceive STEM fields and education. 

To get them more interested in pursuing STEM fields we need to start at an earlier age. According to the survey “2 in 5 Americans Believe the STEM Worker Shortage is at Crisis Levels,” Emerson- a Michigan based technology and engineering company shows that “fewer than 50% of parents say their daughters are encouraged to pursue STEM careers.” Furthermore, in the study “Stumbling on STEM: Why K-12 Education Must Align with the Digital Economy” conducted by Business Roundtable- an association composed of executive officers of American’s leading companies; “80% of U.S High School students are either uninterested or non-proficient in STEM subjects.” Thus, one of the main causes of the U.S STEM crisis is a shortage in talent. The lack of sufficient education in K-12 school systems as well as in universities informing the future generation of students about the value of pursuing STEM careers leads to the candidate pool suffering in quantity as well as quality. This additionally makes it harder for employers to hire STEM candidates with highly specialized skills. In addition it is important for the U.S education system to inform students of all the possible career opportunities STEM has to offer and fight the stigma associated with racial minorities and women working in the STEM field. 

Another cause of the U.S STEM shortage crisis is the technical and soft skills gap in the workforce. There are not enough STEM candidates in the workforce that possess the technical and soft skills that employers demand. This ultimately drives companies to move their factories and jobs overseas because American STEM candidates don’t possess the skills required for jobs domestically. Thus the growing STEM skills gap is causing the outsourcing of high-paying technical jobs. 

Due to the advancement of technology over time, there has also been a shift in labor demands. As industries shift towards more automated processes there has become an increasing demand for highly skilled technical labor along with soft skills. While automation will make certain jobs disappear, the need to implement technical and soft skills is essential to maintain automated systems which will thus create new opportunities for high-paying STEM careers if the next generation of STEM candidates learn and possess the skills needed to fill these vacancies. Unfortunately, that doesn’t seem to be the case for STEM candidates which is shown in the study “Employers Must Redefine STEM to Attract Future Talent,” conducted by Randstad North America- an employment/recruitment agency for temporary and permanent staffing. According to the data released in 2016, “the U.S had roughly 3 million more STEM jobs than it had workers to fill these vacancies.”

The path to a rewarding career is an uphill battle. When a person begins their college education, the preparation for achieving their dream career also begins. A college education is an important factor in economic and career trajectory. Furthermore, the demand for candidates with college degrees is expected to increase in the future; which has led to overtime, an increased interest of high school graduates who plan on continuing their education at a 2 year or 4 year institution. Thus high school graduates and college students believe that investing in their future by obtaining a college degree is essential for increasing their earning potential and improving job prospects. The value of a college education has never been more important and the close relationship between college attainment, employment prospects, salaries, and job satisfaction is stronger than ever.   

Although, there is plenty of evidence that a college degree is in fact worth it, the question then becomes is majoring in liberal arts more beneficial than STEM and vice versa. The soft skills advantage argues that the curriculum generally does a better job of improving their graduates’ soft skills in the following areas of problem solving, critical thinking and communication, which employers demand in the labor market. Liberal arts education prioritizes interdisciplinary learning which gives students the ability to thrive and develop soft skills which translates to many different career fields. Furthermore, as society transitions into the digital age, more soft skills are essential to fixing the problems that technology cannot compute alone.       

There is no doubt that STEM careers make a difference in society; ever since the Cold War, when the U.S and the Soviet Union both encouraged students to go into STEM fields in order to expand their militaries and industries. Today, due to globalization, there is a new drive to create advancements in technology, infrastructure, transportation and medicine- to name a few. According to the study “Occupational Employment Projections to 2018,” conducted by T. Alan Lacey and Benjamin Wright from the U.S Bureau of Labor Statistics (BLS), “it is projected that by 2020, a 34% increase in professional, scientific, and technical services will take place.” 

Current economic conditions as well as the supply and demand of candidates with particular degrees and skills are also important factors that influence career trajectories. According to the study, “How Liberal Arts and Science Majors Fare in Employment,” conducted by Debra Humphreys and Patrick Kelly, “currently demand in the labor market for graduates in engineering and some professional fields, including health-related fields dramatically exceeds supply, while demand for most graduates in liberal arts and science fields is roughly even with supply.”

However, STEM is more in demand than the liberal arts because our world depends on it. The economy and our general well-being is supported by science, technology, engineering, and math. STEM jobs are abundant and growing in which professionals working in STEM fields are less likely to be unemployed than their non-STEM counterparts. Employers are eager to hire candidates who can problem-solve and think analytically which are skills at the core of STEM curriculum. The heavily globalized economy is in need of candidates who possess the knowledge and skills that drive innovation. The candidates who have brought innovation to the table are those equipped with science, technology, engineering and math abilities. Due to the important role that STEM-related skills play in the advancement of new technologies and the continuance of economic progress, potential candidates are encouraged to develop STEM skills needed in the workforce while in school.

Another important debate is whether liberal arts degrees or STEM degrees provide the best return on investment. The soft skills advantage argues that earning a degree from a liberal arts college pays off in the long run which is shown in the study “ROI Liberal Arts Colleges Value Adds Up Over Time,” conducted by Anthony P. Carnevale, Ban Cheah and Martin Van Der Werf, from Georgetown University. According to the study, “the median return on investment for a liberal arts college degree is 40% below other colleges 10 years after graduation,” however, “after 40 years the ROI on a degree from a liberal arts college is 25% higher than all other colleges.” The soft skills advantage further argues the increase in ROI is due to the value of soft skills and credentials becoming more prominent by employers over time.  

On the contrary, according to the study “Career Corner: The Value of a STEM degree,” conducted by Youngstown State University, “STEM majors earn on average $43,000 upon entering the workforce compared to all majors which comes in at $33,000.” Furthermore the study projected that STEM majors also see the largest wage growth over the course of their careers. The study also reported that when it comes to job prospects for recent grads, “newly minted engineers have been the most heavily recruited and highest paid in the class of 2012, with a median salary of $58,581; followed by computer scientists at $56,383.”The problem-solving capabilities of engineers and computer scientists put them in demand across the U.S economy.  Thus careers associated with STEM are the highest paying and offer the best opportunity to pay off student loan debt.  

STEM fields are more substantial than the liberal arts because they bring more value to society. A more STEM-proficient generation will help move our country forward. STEM careers promise stable and high-paying employment for graduates amongst the rapid advancement in technology. STEM advocates point to the high number of unemployment amongst liberal arts majors but liberal arts advocates claim that a deep understanding of the humanities and the development of soft skills are just as important. However, there needs to be more emphasis placed on STEM subjects because we live in a technological world that requires technical skills in order to continue functioning. Due to the fact that technology is in almost every aspect of life and as the work environment changes, STEM knowledge and skills grow in importance for a variety of workers in the labor market.  

References

Kranz, E. J. (2019, July 1). Critical Soft Skills And The Stem Professional. Retrieved March 6, 2020,   from https://dune.une.edu/cgi/viewcontent.cgi?article=1234&context=theses            

 “An exploration of global employability skills: a systematic research review”

Emerson’s 2018 Stem Survey Shows a Need for Stem Education: Emerson US. (2018, August). 

Retrieved April 3, 2020, from 

https://www.emerson.com/en-us/news/corporate/2018-stem-survey

Funk, C., & Parker, K. (2019, December 31). Women and Men in STEM Often at Odds Over 

Workplace Equity. Retrieved April 3, 2020, from 

https://www.pewsocialtrends.org/2018/01/09/women-and-men-in-stem-often-at-odds-ove

r-workplace-equity/

Ramos, D. (n.d.). employers must redefine STEM to attract future talent, according to new 

randstad US data. Retrieved April 3, 2020, from 

https://rlc.randstadusa.com/press-room/press-releases/employers-must-redefine-stem-to-a

ttract-future-talent-according-to-new-randstad-us-data

Stevenson, H. J. (2014). Myths and Motives behind STEM (Science, Technology, Engineering, 

and Mathematics) Education and the STEM-Worker Shortage Narrative. Retrieved April 

3, 2020, from https://files.eric.ed.gov/fulltext/EJ1045838.pdf

Carnevale, A. P., Cheah, B., & Van Der Werf, M. (2020). ROI Liberal Arts Colleges Value Adds Up Over Time. Retrieved April 11, 2020, from https://1gyhoq479ufd3yna29x7ubjn-wpengine.netdna-ssl.com/wp-content/uploads/Liberal-Arts-ROI.pdf

Humphreys, D., & Kelly, P. (2014). How Liberal Arts and Science Majors Fare in Employment. Retrieved April 11, 2020, from https://www.mass.edu/foradmin/trustees/documents/HowLiberalArtsandSciencesMajorFareinEmployment.pdf

Lacey, A. T., & Wright , B. (2010, December 22). Occupational Employment Projections to 2018. Retrieved April 11, 2020, from https://www.bls.gov/opub/mlr/2009/11/art5full.pdf