Appunn, K. (2021, December 28). Q&A: Why is Germany phasing out nuclear power and why now?. Retrieved February 6, 2022, from https://www.cleanenergywire.org/news/qa-why-germany-phasing-out-nuclear-power-and-why-now

Germany, a powerful economic force in Europe, is attempting to accomplish its climate goals while not using nuclear power (phasing out its last plant by December 2022). Mainly, Germany’s phasing out of nuclear energy is because Germany’s general public is against nuclear power due to the proximity of the Chernobyl disaster as well as how much of the German workforce is involved with coal. It also turns out that Germany sees flaws in concurrently running nuclear power with renewables like solar and wind.

This article is related to environmental science as it tackles why Germany, a massive economic powerhouse in the West, is getting rid of its nuclear energy. It addresses the costs of creating modern reactors, public opinion, and why concurrent nuclear isn’t being used. I find this article very interesting, as it addresses a lot of unseen opinions with the economy and the general feasibility of nuclear, especially in an economically strong country such as Germany, but I still don’t agree with the reasons why Germany is phasing out nuclear: especially before coal.

Harvey, G. (2021, November 19). Nuclear Power Won’t Save The World. It Won’t Even Help.. Retrieved February 6, 2022, from https://cleantechnica.com/2021/11/19/nuclear-power-wont-save-the-world-it-wont-even-help/

This article discusses an unpopular take that not only is nuclear energy not going to be the primary solution to solving climate change, but in fact, it is a detriment. The author claims that nuclear energy is mainly detrimental for its cost, which is apparently larger than solar and wind, and also time-consuming. He also notes that the arguments that solar and wind power aren’t always effective are in bad faith, and together they complement each other’s weaknesses.

This article is related to environmental science as it takes on the idea that nuclear energy is not a valid solution to climate change. In fact, he states that it is actually a detriment to solving climate change. Instead, he argues that we should be focusing more on solar and wind energy as they are cheaper and more effective. He also points out the layer of uncertainty with modern, smaller reactors and how their creation has been dragged out for years. I personally don’t agree with his idea since there is already so much investment into nuclear that it would be a hassle to reverse it all economically and time-wise.

Meyer, R. (2021, November 10). Nuclear Is Hot, for the Moment. Retrieved February 6, 2022, from https://www.theatlantic.com/science/archive/2021/11/nuclear-power-hot-moment/620665/

Nuclear power is in a strange spot at the moment where it isn’t loved or hated but “begrudgingly loved”. It has had a negative stigma for years because of the few disasters that caused worldwide news, but the stigma is slowly being phased out as its positive impact is evident. The only thing holding them back from becoming loved again is the time it is taking for the technological advancements to come to the public eye and yield results before climate goals need to be met.

This article is related to environmental science as it describes the global dilemma with nuclear energy as both loved and hated. It concludes that in recent times, nuclear energy has become more of a worldwide, begrudging necessity rather than a welcome one as a solution to climate change. I personally agree with the opinions expressed in the article as it speaks the truth: countries may be hesitant to completely comply with nuclear energy, but it is a necessity to solve climate change.

World Nuclear News. (2021, December 15). Nuclear makes a comeback in the Netherlands. Retrieved February 6, 2022, from https://www.world-nuclear-news.org/Articles/Nuclear-makes-a-comeback-in-the-Netherlands

The Netherlands government has proposed to provide 500 million EUR or 564 million USD towards nuclear power by 2025. They are trying to build 2 new nuclear power plants and cumulative support for the new nuclear is estimated to reach 5 billion EUR by 2030. This is all to aim for a 55% CO2 emission reduction by 2030.

This article is related to environmental science as it shows how the Netherlands is responding to climate change: with a ton of support for nuclear power. As most nuclear power plants today are relatively old, it is astonishing to hear of a country investing so much in new nuclear power plants. I agree with the choices made by the Netherlands presented in this article as if they try to reach a 55% reduced CO2 emission goal by 2030, they will definitely need the help of nuclear energy.

Herman, S. (2021, June 7). White House Cautiously Embraces Nuclear Power to Meet Green Goals. Retrieved August 22, 2021, from https://www.voanews.com/usa/white-house-cautiously-embraces-nuclear-power-meet-green-goals

In order to achieve President Biden’s goal of a net-zero carbon emission economy by 2050, the White House is embracing nuclear power. Nuclear power is necessary to the equation of a net zero-carbon emission economy along with the other clean energy sources such as solar and wind. However, people still doubt the viability of nuclear power with scary incidents such as Three Mile Island and Fukushima in mind. Despite this, the White house signaled to lawmakers and industry stakeholders that it supports subsidies to prevent old nuclear reactors from shutting down.

The article is related to environmental science as it shows the White House’s opinion on how to solve climate change. In the article, the White House refers to nuclear power as part of their solution alongside other clean energy sources. My opinion on this article is that it is very encouraging to hear the White House, the group in charge of the country, supporting nuclear power. In my mind, that must mean that nuclear power is on a similar level to solar or wind, and I hope that others can see its importance as the White House has.

Clifford, C. (2021, June 11). Bill Gates: Stop shutting down nuclear reactors and build new nuclear power plants to fight climate change. Retrieved August 21, 2021, from https://www.cnbc.com/2021/06/11/bill-gates-bullish-on-using-nuclear-power-to-fight-climate-change.html

Bill Gates calls for an increased amount of nuclear power in the U.S. as the amount of nuclear power plant retirements expect to reach a record high in the U.S. for the year. His company, TerraPower, is building an advanced reactor at the site of a retiring coal plant in Wyoming and similar companies have been given some funding from the United States Department of Energy. However, some experts disagree that nuclear power is a renewable source to be invested in, such as Stanford professor Mark Z. Jacobson.

The article is related to environmental science as it shows an important industry leader’s opinion on how to solve climate change. Specifically, it is Bill Gates advocating for nuclear power in order to reach “net zero” emissions. My opinion on this article is that since I respect Bill Gates so much, it makes me feel as though his words on nuclear power have some truth behind it. I am excited to see if his opinion changes upon operating a reactor in Wyoming, and if he changes other experts’ minds about nuclear power.

Markoff, J. (2021, August 11). Massachusetts Start-Up Hopes to Move a Step Closer to Commercial Fusion. Retrieved August 20, 2021, from https://www.nytimes.com/2021/08/10/technology/commonwealth-fusion-mit-reactor.html?action=click&module=RelatedLinks&pgtype=Article

Commonwealth Fusion Systems, a start-up founded by scientists at the Massachusetts Institute of Technology, began testing an extremely powerful magnet that would be used in a nuclear fusion reactor. This nuclear fusion reactor they are using it in is called Tokamak, which uses magnetic forces to make plasma as hot as the sun. The scientists at Commonwealth Fusion Systems claim that the final product will be able to produce energy without a resource while a Princeton physicist argues that they won’t be able to make it in time (2035).

The article is related to environmental science as it talks about a scientific breakthrough in a part used in a nuclear fusion reactor, something that may in the future be able to replace unclean coal power plants that contribute to global warming. My thoughts on this article are that the breakthroughs are exciting, but with a deadline in 14 years it seems so far away. On the consumer end of this, I can’t exactly look into the details of research, but if genuine progress is being made then I feel satisfied.

Macfarlane, A. (2021, July 8). Nuclear Energy Will Not Be the Solution to Climate Change. Retrieved August 5, 2021, from https://www.foreignaffairs.com/articles/2021-07-08/nuclear-energy-will-not-be-solution-climate-change

The world has recently shown interest in nuclear energy in order to prevent the obvious effects of global warming. However, nuclear power is not the solution to climate change for a few reasons. Firstly, nuclear power has too high of a capital cost. Secondly, new reactor makers use different types of coolants, moderators, and fuel types, making the innovation process complex. It also usually takes over 10 years to create a reactor in the U.S. While it may not be the solution to climate change, it still is useful to research it.

The article is related to environmental science as it argues that nuclear energy is not the complete solution for climate change. It argues mainly about the complexity of nuclear energy that makes it unable to completely solve climate change, such as its economic and logistical weaknesses. My opinion on this article is that it makes fair points about the viability of nuclear energy, and can agree with the conclusion that it should still be researched.

Parshley, L. (2021, May 4). The controversial future of nuclear power in the U.S.. Retrieved August 3, 2021, from https://www.nationalgeographic.com/environment/article/nuclear-plants-are-closing-in-the-us-should-we-build-more

President Biden set a goal to cut U.S. carbon emissions in half by 2030 and have a net-zero carbon economy by 2050. To meet that goal, many renewable energy sources have shown growth. However, to meet the goal, reintroducing nuclear power may be necessary. The problem being, nuclear power recently has been more costly than alternatives and less effective due to lack of research. If the U.S. wants to meet Biden’s goals, a mix of energy generation may be the most effective.

The article is related to environmental science as it tackles the subject of whether or not nuclear power is viable in the grand scheme of cutting carbon emissions. Cutting carbon emissions is an environmental issue as carbon emissions cause climate change, which is a pressing issue that the U.S. is attempting to take on today. I personally agree with the article in that we need a mix of energy generation to effectively replace carbon emissions, and am interested to see whether or not nuclear power will get any further along.