Tomich, J. (2023, November 2). Inside One company’s quest to revive U.S. Nuclear Power. E&E News by POLITICO. https://www.eenews.net/articles/inside-one-companys-quest-to-revive-u-s-nuclear-power

The opening of Centrus Energy’s American Centrifuge plant in Piketon, Ohio, marked the first domestically owned uranium enrichment production on U.S. soil in 70 years. The plant is licensed by the Nuclear Regulatory Commission to produce high-assay low-enriched uranium, or HALEU, a crucial fuel for the next generation of U.S. reactors. The Department of Energy estimates a need for over 40 metric tons of HALEU by the end of the decade to achieve President Joe Biden’s goal of 100% carbon-free electricity by 2035. However, the industry faces skepticism, with critics questioning feasibility and cost-effectiveness. Not only does Centrus Energy need customers to sell their HALEU to, but the $700 million allocated for HALEU production is just one-fifth of the estimated $3.5 billion needed.

Nuclear energy is complicated and requires a lot of commitment to go through with. This article sheds some light on what is needed for more nuclear energy to be feasible in the US by showing Centrus Energy’s new project on building a plant to produce HALEU. This is important for the future of nuclear energy in the US as it puts more money into nuclear energy and sets up the production of more plants in the future that can use HALEU. The issues that they are running into are the cost of the plant versus the funding they got (again, financial issues), and if this expansion will actually pay off in the future. It will be hard for this plant to sell their HALEU, so the government may have to be the first customer of the company so they can stay afloat in the long-run until more nuclear plants catch on.

Wesoff, E. (2024, January 18). When will the next nuclear plant come online in the US? no one knows. Canary Media. https://www.canarymedia.com/articles/nuclear/when-will-the-next-nuclear-plant-come-online-in-the-us-no-one-knows

The conditions for an “American nuclear renaissance” appear favorable, with government support, rising positive citizen sentiment, and global commitments to triple nuclear power by 2050. However, there are no plans for when the next US nuclear reactor will go online. Previous candidates, like NuScale’s small modular reactor for Utah, faced financial challenges, as with most nuclear reactors. Some potential future candidates include the restart of Michigan’s Palisades plant, Bill Gates’ Natrium reactor in Wyoming, and the Tennessee Valley Authority’s BWRX-300 small modular reactor. Challenges such as regulatory hurdles, fuel supply issues, and economic viability all add to the uncertain future of new nuclear projects.

Although support for nuclear energy is on the rise in the government and in the citizens, there are still many hurdles that make nuclear power difficult to fully implement. Most reactors run into financial issues when being built, which is usually the main obstacle for starting plans for new reactors. This again relates to government funding and how much money we are willing to put into nuclear reactors, tying back to public support. If more people support nuclear energy, there will likely be more funding for nuclear energy in the near future. Right now, I don’t think a lot of people favor nuclear energy just because they are not educated on it; people only know about its dangers and may have false assumptions about it, like it emitting dangerous amounts of nuclear waste, which is just not true.

Jie, L. H. (2023, August 22). Is nuclear energy the answer to a sustainable future? experts are divided. CNBC. https://www.cnbc.com/2023/08/22/nuclear-energy-the-answer-to-a-sustainable-future-experts-are-divided.html

As the world aims for net-zero emissions by 2050, nuclear power is presented as a crucial solution, offering clean, reliable energy that overcomes the intermittency of renewables. Some experts argue that it is the only scalable option for providing cheap, pollution-free energy for a growing global population. Governments are increasingly investing in nuclear energy, with 486 reactors planned, proposed, or under construction as of July. Despite concerns about safety and incidents like Chernobyl and Fukushima, proponents highlight the improved efficiency and safety of modern nuclear plants. On the other hand, challenges such as cost and public fear of nuclear energy and nuclear reactors continue to hinder widespread adoption.

This article perfectly summarizes the average citizen’s current opinion and knowledge of nuclear energy in the United States: over-feared because of big accidents like Fukushima and Chernobyl, even though those accidents are very rare and are even rarer now that nuclear plants’ safety has improved by a lot. Nuclear energy is a great scalable and sustainable way to provide clean energy to the US and the world, but the drawbacks are cost and public perception, as said in the article. The average overnight cost of a nuclear reactor is around $5-6 billion, but other costs push it way above that. Nuclear energy could be a main source of energy in the US right now, but people are not well-educated enough on it for it to be put into action with funding.

Fasching, E., Hodge, T., & Johnson, S. (2023, December 26). First new U.S. nuclear reactor since 2016 is now in operation – U.S. Energy Information Administration (EIA). https://www.eia.gov/todayinenergy/detail.php?id=61106

The first new U.S. nuclear reactor since 2016 is now operational at Georgia’s Vogtle plant, and it is the largest in the country. The 1,114 megawatt unit 3 reactor, part of the new Westinghouse AP1000 design, joins two existing reactors, with another expected to start by March 2024. The project’s total cost is now over $30 billion, though the original cost was expected to be $14 billion. The new design features advanced safety systems and a simpler design, making it safer and more efficient. With recent legislative support, nuclear energy is considered vital for reducing the carbon footprint, comprising nearly 20% of the U.S. electricity generation from 93 operating reactors.

Most nuclear reactors were built from 1970-1990, and almost no more are being constructed in the US. This reactor initially started construction in 1973 and stopped in 1985, then started again in 2007. This shows how little nuclear reactors are being built in the United States. Although there hasn’t been any construction of new reactors, old reactors are still being used and will continue to generate electricity. Also, public opinion is growing more in favor of nuclear energy, as seen in the first article, which means it could trigger more construction of nuclear reactors in the future. Again, nuclear energy should be a heavy consideration to replace more of other energy sources that are worse for the environment.

Leppert, R. (2023, August 18). Growing share of Americans favor more nuclear power. Pew Research Center. https://www.pewresearch.org/short-reads/2023/08/18/growing-share-of-americans-favor-more-nuclear-power/

A majority of Americans (57%) now support expanding nuclear power plants for electricity generation, a significant increase from 43% in 2020. This rise is evident among both Democrats and Republicans. Although nuclear energy support has increased, solar (82%) and wind power (75%) remain more favored by Americans, with all three emitting no carbon. Advocates for nuclear power argue that it has a large role in carbon emission reduction, while critics point out its high costs and radioactive waste challenges. Men (54%) are more supportive of nuclear power than women (28%), and Republicans (66%) more than Democrats (50%). Despite a 17-point partisan difference, both parties show increased support since 2020. The U.S. has 93 nuclear reactors, declining since 1990, with safety concerns impacting projects.

It is interesting to see how different political parties and gender each support nuclear power differently. I wonder why republicans are more favorable for nuclear power and why men are more favorable than women. Politics are largely related to the future of our environment and climate since they affect what policies are put into place and how we decide to deal with climate change and energy consumption and production. In this case, it is good that more people are supporting nuclear energy since it is a better alternative to energy generation than coal, natural gas, and other non-renewable energy. Although it is a better alternative, there are still issues with nuclear energy and it is more of a transitional energy source until we find a more efficient source.

Kotsonis, S., & Chakrabarti, M. (2023, June 21). Is it time to take Putin’s nuclear threats more seriously? WBUR. Retrieved July 27, 2023, from https://www.wbur.org/onpoint/2023/06/21/is-it-time-to-take-putins-nuclear-threats-more-seriously

In the ongoing conflict between Russia and Ukraine, Russia has repeatedly warned of its potential use of nuclear weapons. While many observers view these threats as bluffs, some experts take the warnings seriously. Retired Brigadier General Kevin Ryan argues that if Ukraine’s counteroffensive leads to significant territorial gains, the likelihood of Russia resorting to a nuclear strike increases. Ryan believes that President Putin will use nuclear weapons to avoid being seen as weak in the war. U.S. Director of National Intelligence Avril Haines views the odds of this scenario as very low. However, Ryan’s analysis points to Russia’s reliance on nuclear weapons as a key deterrent after its conventional military strength weakened post-Cold War. The situation presents a challenging dilemma for both Ukraine and NATO, given the potential consequences of Russia’s actions and the complexities of international response under Article 5.

This issue reminds me of the movie War Games where, in the end, they figure there is no winner in a nuclear war because the warheads destroy everything. Nuclear warfare is something that people don’t think about on a daily basis, but the reality is that there are many moments where a nuclear missile could be launched and start a nuclear world war. This is a scary thought for humanity where, in a moment, everything one knows could be destroyed. Not only will nuclear bombs destroy whatever they hit in a big radius, but it will leave nuclear fallout in an even bigger radius. When things are blown up, they can be rebuilt. However, nuclear fallout will kill environments and humans and will stay in the area for a long time. A lot of pop culture reflects this dystopia of post-nuclear-war, such as the game Fallout 4.

van Brugen, I., Feingold, J., Harris, A., Mutua, A., Tobin, J., & Perry, D. (2023, July 25). ‘Hot Shutdown’ at Zaporizhzhia Nuclear Plant Sparks Radiation Fears. Newsweek. Retrieved July 26, 2023, from https://www.newsweek.com/hot-shutdown-zaporizhzhia-nuclear-plant-ukraine-radiation-fears-1815091

After invading Ukraine in late February, Russia captured Ukraine’s Zaporizhzhia nuclear plant (ZNPP) in March. They then ordered one of the plant’s six reactors into a hot shutdown state which violates safety protocols. This has caused concerns for a potential nuclear catastrophe. The other five reactors have been shut down into a cold shutdown state where the coolant is lowered to pump water at an atmospheric pressure. Ukraine and Russia have accused each other of shelling the facility. Kotin, the president of Energoatom, the company owning the reactor, says that violating the safety protocols for the reactor is a “criminal” decision and “violates Ukrainian and international law.” Although the requirements of the State Atomic Energy Regulatory Authority of Ukraine (DIARU) require that all the reactors of the plant be put into a cold shutdown, the Moscow-installed administration of the plant says that keeping one of the reactors in hot shutdown mode can produce steam, ensuring nuclear safety.

This article highlights how carefully nuclear plants have to be treated in order to ensure safety. In times of war, this can be dangerous because the original people who were running the plant are not running it anymore, so the new administration could potentially cause a safety hazard. Like people know from the Chernobyl accident, nuclear power plants can be very dangerous if not operated correctly and there will most likely be an accident in a plant’s life. Although nuclear power plant accidents are declining, they can still happen and are dangerous. I hope nothing detrimental happens at the ZNPP because not only will it affect people, it will also affect the environment by leaking radioactive chemicals. This can destroy ecosystems that may not recover.

Dress, B. (2023, July 24). Second US nuclear submarine arrives in South Korea amid tensions with North. The Hill. Retrieved July 25, 2023, from https://thehill.com/policy/defense/4115764-second-us-nuclear-submarine-arrives-in-south-korea-amid-tensions-with-north/

The US docked the USS Annapolis, a second submarine on an island in South Korea after provoking North Korea with the first one, USS Kentucky, which was the first nuclear submarine to visit South Korea since 1981. North Korea has been building up nuclear tension for years, so the presidents of the two countries agreed on the two submarine arrivals. North Korea responded to these docks with “a stern warning of the possibility of a nuclear response from Pyongyang” and two missile tests.

I am interested in nuclear submarines because they can stay underwater for three months without needing to surface. The nuclear reactor inside allows the submarine to stay powered for that long. I wonder how they dock at an island in South Korea and how North Korea can know that they docked a submarine there. This article relates to environmental science because submarines can have negative effects on the ecosystems around it. For example, submarines generate noise which can affect sensitive species in the water. Submarines also have the potential to pollute the water with radioactive materials if there is a leak or something of the like.

World Nuclear News. (2023, July 20). Russian designs for underwater nuclear power plant in Arctic : New Nuclear. World Nuclear News. Retrieved July 23, 2023, from https://www.world-nuclear-news.org/Articles/Russian-designs-for-underwater-nuclear-power-plant

The Malakhit Marine Engineering Bureau in St Petersburg, Russia is working on an autonomous, underwater nuclear power plant in the Arctic that will be able to dive up to 400 meters and have a capacity of 20 MWe. Submerging the power plant will “reduce the risk of collision with icebergs” and have increased seismic resistance while providing energy to remote territories where traditional power plants cannot be located.

When one thinks of nuclear power plants, they usually think of a cone-skewed cylinder in the middle of nowhere. This underwater nuclear power plant is a smart way of putting plants in places that may otherwise be impossible to place one, such as the arctic. It can provide power to remote areas near water and are easier to maintain since they are mostly autonomous and only need maintenance every three months. I am very interested in how more of these power plants will be used in the future.

Tiwari, S. (2023, June 22). Evading US Multi-Layered Defense System, Russia To Induct Its Nuclear Armed, Nuclear Powered Autonomous Torpedo In 2023. EurAsian Times. Retrieved July 22, 2023, from https://www.eurasiantimes.com/new-sia-to-induct-its-nuclear-armed-nuclear-powered-autonomou/

The Russian Navy will add a nuclear Belgorod submarine carrying the lethal nuclear torpedo ‘Poseidon’ in 2023. It is an experimental vessel for Poseidon drones and is the largest submarine built in 40 years. The Poseidon torpedo is one of Russia’s six strategic weapons, or “Super Weapons.” It can travel at a top speed of 108 knots with an operational depth of about 1,000 meters, making it elusive and faster than existing torpedoes. It can cause devastating, lasting damage by spreading radioactive material over large areas. This move by Russia aims to counter American ballistic missile defense systems in Europe, creating a geopolitical imbalance.

This article demonstrates how nuclear energy is being used for weaponry in a military context. By harnessing nuclear energy, many things are possible to create, including weapons. This torpedo puts into perspective how powerful weapons can be with nuclear power. Not only will the initial impact of a torpedo this size be able to cause massive damage to whatever it hits, the radiation will create lasting damage that will cause humans and the environment to die. Depending on how far the radiation travels, whether in the air or in the water, it can have a large radius that will affect many different people and ecosystems.