Roth, A. (2019, August 4). Fears of ‘Chernobyl on ice’ as Russia prepares floating nuclear plant. Retrieved from https://www.theguardian.com/world/2019/aug/04/russia-floating-nuclear-power-station-chernobyl-on-ice

Rosatom is a company based out of Russia that has produced a nuclear plant aboard a sea vessel. There was much criticism towards the production of the massive ship, some even calling it “chernobyl on ice”. The company says such a comparison is ridiculous. They claim to be using a different type of reactor as well as different safety measures than that at Chernobyl. The vessel is going to be sent to the Arctic port of Pevek, where it will provide power to drilling operations as well heat and energy for homes. This would replace the existing coal factory and rundown nuclear plant that are currently in use. There is also concern of the commercialization of these vessels. Countries like Sudan have shown interest in purchasing one of these vessels, but will they be as concerned over waste as Russia is? There is still much time to wait due to production and licensing.

It’s always exciting to hear about new technologies being implemented in our society, especially when they help the environment. I agree with much of the articles claims on why production and innovation is slow in the nuclear energy industry. We are afraid to make the change due to preconceived notions about nuclear power. Flying in a plane is scarier than driving a car, yet driving a car is more dangerous. We have had accidents in the past with nuclear power, but this does not even come close to the impact fossil fuels have had. As an environmentalist (scientist/not activist), this technology is very exciting, but we can only wait.

Goldstein, J. S., Qvist, S. A., & Pinker, S. (2019, April 6). Nuclear Power Can Save the World. Retrieved from https://www.nytimes.com/2019/04/06/opinion/sunday/climate-change-nuclear-power.htm1

France and Sweden are some of the first countries starting to decarbonize by using nuclear energy instead of fossil fuels. Similar efforts were made to decarbonize by Germany, but they instead built wind turbines. Although effective, carbon emissions have stayed level with when they were burning fuel. Nuclear energy seems to have the largest effect in decarbonization. Many of the emissions problems will be solved with nuclear power if it was integrated, yet it still is very expensive to build a plant in the United States compared to South Korea. The new fourth-generation nuclear plants have all kinds of safety features, but these features make them incredibly expensive to build. Besides cost, many people fear the idea of disaster or radioactive waste. We have already created more effective ways to deal with the byproducts of nuclear waste than we do fossil fuel waste.

Implementing nuclear power plants is the most likely solution to occur in response to carbon emissions. There is data proving that wind turbines can’t provide the energy needed in the growing world. And a majority of countries can not enjoy the hydro-power New Zealand and Sweden have. By having a cheaper and smaller way of producing energy, much of the world can receive power. Of course we would also see much innovation and growth in the nuclear power industry if more minds were focused on this solution. The solution is clear, but the awareness hasn’t caught up. 

Blix, H. (2019, March 11). Hans Blix: Nuclear Energy Can Help Us Stop Climate Change. Retrieved from https://time.com/5547063/hans-blix-nuclear-energy-environment/

Nuclear power has had a bad reputation since accidents like Fukushima, Three Mile Island, and Chernobyl. But like all industries, accidents happen; they should not slow the production and innovation of nuclear power, but rather the opposite. We are already experiencing the negative effects of our fossil fuel emissions, which is only getting worse since the increase is electrical power. In comparison, coal gives off 979 tons of carbon-dioxide as a byproduct when burned to produce a gigawatt, while nuclear power only produces 32 tons of byproduct for the same amount of energy. Many countries have also developed deep-ditch sites to store the waste. Which if it were to leak, it would likely release a gram of plutonium in some hundreds of thousands of years.

We have large deposits of uranium and thorium that could power our world for thousands of years to come. I would argue that uranium is a renewable resource considering the power output for the amount of energy put into the system. If our reactors became even more effective than the possibilities are endless. We can already convert around 33-37% of the nuclear fuel into energy. Thus making this method around 8,000 times more efficient than the burning of coal or similar fossil fuels. We would rather have to deal with some plutonium leaks thousands of years from now, than deal with climate change now.

Ambrose, J. (2019, July 27). Despite Hinkley, the new plan for nuclear is hardly better than the old one. Retrieved from https://www.theguardian.com/business/2019/jul/27/despite-hinkley-new-plan-nuclear-hardly-better-than-old-one

The United Kingdom’s government has a new funding model that supports the production of nuclear plants. EDF Energy is an integrated energy company based in the UK, and they have a deal with the British government to build Hinkley Point C. Hinkley will be the first power plant to be built in the UK in a decade. Additionally, the power plant is the most expensive plant ever built. Many taxpayers are concerned with the production of the plant, as recently the eco-friendly-trend of building wind turbines and solar have been more effective cost-wise. The price of the energy being produced from the plant is significantly higher than what their community has been paying. Many existing plant productions have either been brought to a halt or dropped completely, raising concerns on when this larger plant will be done. For now we wait another ten years. 

While nuclear power can seem very promising on paper, it has yet to deliver the optimal amount of energy required to make it an effective replacement. So it is concerning when billions are spent on a plant project that will only get dropped in some years time. There was a good argument brought up in the article saying that solar and wind turbines are the cheaper, and for now, the more effective production of energy. Money and finances have always played a big role in energy reformation and change only occurs when it is paid for. There needs to be further development of nuclear plants before we start funding large scale projects of them. For now our best environmentally friendly option is wind and solar.

(2019, June 25). ‘It’s the future’: How going small may fuel nuclear power’s comeback | CBC News. Retrieved from https://www.cbc.ca/news/business/nuclear-power-small-modular-reactor-1.5188048

Canada is attempting to set itself up for a new kind of energy system. They are proposing for the use of small modular reactors (SMRs). These SMRs would help migrate emissions from fossil fuels to a cleaner product. Canada has been a leader in nuclear power for sometime, thus making it a perfect place to start to test these SMRs. Of course many of the inhabitants in the area aren’t so convinced on the change from diesel. There is the worry of nuclear waste, radioactivity, and a meltdown. One of the private companies that manufacture the SMRs say that they have a site to store waste, but then again, most of these SMRs won’t be used for another ten years. There is still much licensing and research needed to be done in order to implement this tech as a replacement to fossil fuels.

Many of the existing problems with nuclear power fall under pollution issues. We already have many clean ways of producing energy, but these methods fall short in respective ways. There are problems with fish migration and dams, or destroying a section of land for wind turbines. Environmental science is always interested in improving existing methods of resource use. Improving being having a higher benefit with less of a cost. Nuclear energy, I believe, can be just that; an effective way of transforming thermal energy into electrical energy. The byproducts being radioactive waste and some water vapor will decrease as the machines become more effective at conversion.