The conflict in Ukraine has raised questions about the availability of uranium ore to be used in US nuclear reactors, which is typically imported from Russia. This has driven a shift to look for domestic sources of Uranium, which are typically found in tribal lands inside the continental US. Growing mines like one in Arizona are threatening tribal sites for native tribes like the Havasupai Tribe and have the potential to contaminate water supplies with heavy metals from mining. As the threat of sanctions on Russian uranium looms, the potential for increased conflicts surrounding new mines or revitalizing old mines will only grow.

This article really shows the complex issues that one must balance when considering nuclear energy beyond just the reactor. There is so much else that goes into making and running an effective power plant, from fuel to heavy water and storage that is rare, expensive and can threaten other at-risk communities or the environment. Hopefully, with fusion and more efficient reactors, power plants can make the most of less fuel, but I think this conflict will only get worse into the future and we need to develop better, more environmentally friendly mining practices or the cure could be almost as bad as the problem.

Solomon, Erika, and Melissa Eddy. “Breaking Taboo, Germany Extends Life of 2 Nuclear Reactors.” The New York Times, The New York Times, 5 Sept. 2022, https://www.nytimes.com/2022/09/05/world/europe/germany-extend-life-nuclear-reactors.html.

Energy shortages in Europe have made it clear that Europeans need an alternative source of energy to coal, natural gas or renewables. As a result, Germany is planning on extending the service life of two of its nuclear power plants in order to preserve them as a strategic energy source into the future. This need was heightened by the conflict in Ukraine which cut off natural gas supplies in Europe and nearly caused widespread energy shortages.  

I think this article does a good job of showing the dangers in conventional non-renewable sources of energy, especially since we typically buy them from autocratic or dictatorial regimes. In the past, these regimes have been tenuous allies or tactic partners however in periods of heightened crisis, depending on countries like Russia to be our energy suppliers is more than just a climate risk, it’s a national security issue. Nuclear energy is one strong alternative to these imperiled fossil fuels, providing a dependable source of energy that can rapidly scale to meet demand, albeit at a higher cost.

Santora, Marc. “The Zaporizhzhia Nuclear Power Plant Returns to Relying on Generators after Shelling.” The New York Times, The New York Times, 3 Nov. 2022, https://www.nytimes.com/2022/11/03/world/europe/zaporizhzhia-nuclear-power-plant-blackout.html.

Russia is currently occupying Ukraine’s largest nuclear power plant, endangering the entire region. Russian shelling has cut off power lines running to the plant, putting the reactor at risk of a nuclear accident. Furthermore, the Russian occupation of the plant has endangered personnel on-site, who are allegedly being coerced to sign contracts with the Russian state nuclear energy company. Conditions in the region have worsened and international inspectors are warning of the potential for a disaster.

I think this exemplifies the terror nuclear power has the potential to incite and the need to protect nuclear power plants from outside threats. Unlike other energy sources, nuclear power plants have the unique potential to be weaponized by outside agents to incite terror, requiring their operators to invest in costly protection measures. This raises the cost of nuclear energy and further limits its reach. Ultimately, I think this just goes to show why continued investment in new reactor technologies is necessary in order to develop a safer, lower-cost power technology that can be widely deployed.

Bokat-lindell, Spencer. “Could Fusion Arrive in Time to Solve Climate Change?” The New York Times, The New York Times, 21 Dec. 2022, https://www.nytimes.com/2022/12/21/opinion/fusion-climate-change-nuclear.html.

Fusion is often regarded as a cleaner, more promising alternative to nuclear energy, but will it come fast enough? Fusion is extremely energy efficient, using minute amounts of fuel to supply astronomical amounts of energy—reducing land and resource use. However, it has largely eluded research scientists—largely due to the massive engineering challenges associated with fusion reactors. While recent breakthroughs have shown promising results, they importantly do not meet cost or efficiency requirements to make fusion feasible.

I think the opinion piece makes some strong points about the limitations of fusion technology and the unrealistic expectations we have in the short term for it. Climate change is a current and pressing issue. While funding alternative energy research into futuristic technologies like fusion energy is essential to our long term plans to address climate change, expecting that a technology we have not even proven is feasible will address all our energy needs in the short term is unrealistic and unreasonable. In the short term, we can’t look to fusion as our future and ought to reinvest in proven technologies like solar, wind and nuclear energy before it is too late.

Mckenzie, Pete. “In the Pacific, Outcry over Japan’s Plan to Release Fukushima Wastewater.” The New York Times, The New York Times, 30 Dec. 2022, https://www.nytimes.com/2022/12/30/world/asia/japan-fukushima-wastewater-pacific-radiation.html.

Japan plans to begin releasing wastewater from its Fukushima Daiichi Nuclear Power plant used to cool the damaged reactor. This wastewater is created due to the necessary process of flushing the reactor daily in order to prevent another meltdown. Nations in the Pacific, especially including the Marshall Islands and Australia, have long had a tumultuous relationship with promises surrounding nuclear waste and security—especially given the US history of nuclear tests in the region. As a result, many countries in the region have signed to protest Japan’s planned release in an attempt to delay what they fear will be a release of radioactive waste into the Pacific Ocean.

I think both sides of this issue raise valid concerns. Japan has a valid need to release its wastewater—it can neither stop the daily flushing nor find more space to put it. However, especially given pacific island countries’ relationship with nuclear energy I think they have a strong basis for their concerns—a basis driven by impacts of past nuclear waste exposure that still affects the health of their citizens today. To solve this problem, one potential solution could include stronger dialogue and security assurances from Japan and international watchdogs with a history of managing secure waste disposal. Japan’s plan has the potential to radically change the region, they ought to respect the voices of oft-sidelined stakeholders.

Vankin, J. (2022, May 20). Nuclear power in California: The good, the bad and the ugly. California Local. Retrieved August 14, 2022, from https://californialocal.com/localnews/statewide/ca/article/show/5445-nuclear-power-california-diablo-canyon-gavin-newsom/

Nuclear power is largely safe, the costs of shutting down the Diablo Canyon plant are far worse. There has never been a full nuclear meltdown in the continental United States, in fact recent studies have found nuclear power has one of the lowest associated rates of death. The US and nuclear power plant industry have a strong regulatory framework to prevent disasters, the true impact of nuclear power is the waste which would not be removed from the Diablo Canyon premises even if the plant closed.

I think many of the dangers associated with nuclear power are catastrophic but rarely occur and with modern mitigation levels are manageable. Nuclear meltdowns are catastrophic but rare. Is that worse than the continuous and certain health impact pollution from coal and natural gas plants have on their surrounding communities? Or worse than the impact of climate change? Modern safeguards have made nuclear power controlled and safe, policy should not be dominated by outdated fear.  

Mulkern, A. C. (2022, July 22). Calif.’s last nuclear plant faces closure. can it survive? E&E News. Retrieved August 14, 2022, from https://www.eenews.net/articles/calif-s-last-nuclear-plant-faces-closure-can-it-survive/

The Diablo Canyon nuclear power plant is slated to close by 2025, maintaining plant operation beyond that date would require intervention from the California state legislature. Recent events in the national government demonstrate that states must be responsible for mitigating climate change but scientific models and forecasts suggest that only using solar energy in California will not meet peak energy demand. In order to maintain plant operation to reduce reliance on fossil fuels, the state has applied for a federal DOE grant to maintain plant operation and provide funding for necessary updates.

I think that regulatory challenges will be one of the most significant challenges to maintaining the Diablo Canyon Nuclear Power Plant’s operation. According to the article, the plant does not meet federal legislation with its cooling water cleaning and earthquake absorption systems. This seems to suggest larger problems within the plant that remain unaddressed, especially concerning PG&E’s record with preventative maintenance. Maintaining the plant’s operation is essential to lowering California carbon emissions but that should not come at the cost of a nuclear plant failure. 

Roth, S. (2022, April 29). California promised to close its last nuclear plant. now Newsom is reconsidering. Los Angeles Times. Retrieved August 14, 2022, from https://www.latimes.com/environment/story/2022-04-29/california-promised-to-close-its-last-nuclear-plant-now-newsom-is-reconsidering

Solar energy faces many challenges as it nears widespread adoption. Solar power is intermittent, it does not provide power all day long. This requires energy storage solutions to ensure that a renewable energy grid can meet consumer demand even when the sun isn’t shining. By contrast, nuclear power has no such limitation leading to the decision from Newsom to continue its operation. This is especially important considering that the US commerce department is planning on tariffs for imported solar power which could threaten solar energy projects in California that are an alternative to maintaining the Diablo Canyon power plant.

While I support keeping Diablo Canyon operational, I don’t see arguments that solar panels face supply chain and tariff threats and thus will not be feasible as valid arguments. Supply chain and tariffs compared to the timescale of commissioning, maintaining, and decommissioning a nuclear power plant are inherently transient. Even the chip shortage has only been happening for a couple of years. The global demand for solar panels ensures that solar panels will always be cheaply and widely available even if they appear not to be in the short term.

Korte, L. (2022, April 12). California proposes to extend life of last nuclear plant at cost of $1.4 Billion. POLITICO. Retrieved August 14, 2022, from https://www.politico.com/news/2022/08/12/california-proposes-extend-nuclear-plant-cost-1-4-billion-00051535

The Diablo Canyon nuclear plant has explored several avenues for funding to stay open, but it appears that the California state energy commission will provide 1.4 billion in sustainment funding. The proposed funding bill exempts the plant from environmental impact studies and maintains plant ownership under PG&E. Opponents of the bill argue that it distracts from more critical action to mitigate climate change and pursue renewable energy and lacks empirical data supporting the need for extending Diablo Canyon’s lifetime. Newson, a proponent of the bill, argues that it is necessary to prevent a dependence on fossil fuels.

I think continuing funding for the Diablo Canyon plant is essential but worry that removing the requirement for environmental reviews could lead to even worse environmental impacts from the plant. The Diablo Canyon plant is on the coast, bordering the crucial california littoral zone which is designated as a marine preserve statewide. The plant has a long history of detrimental environmental effects. With the plant’s proximity to delicate ecosystems, environmental reviews are essential to protecting this marine preserve for years to come.

Canon, G. (2022, June 23). The last nuclear plant in California – and the unexpected quest to save it. The Guardian. Retrieved August 14, 2022, from https://www.theguardian.com/us-news/2022/jun/23/california-last-nuclear-power-plant-save

The Diablo Canyon nuclear power plant appeared to be near closure however recent demand for renewable energy could save it. The Diablo Canyon nuclear power plant has been mired in controversy for years, especially relating to its dangerous proximity to earthquake fault lines and impact on bay ecosystems, but provides 9% of California’s energy. Nuclear power plants have been on the decline in California for years, with legislation banning their construction in 1976. However, if the plant closes it will be replaced with nonrenewable energy sources like natural gas leading to support from the state government to keep the plant open.

I think that while nuclear power has many significant disadvantages, it is the best current option to minimize carbon emissions. The sheer urgency of climate change demands urgent renewable energy solutions in order to immediately and effectively curtail emissions. Current true renewable energy sources from solar to wind do not yet meet this demand. Nuclear power is not a viable long-term, renewable energy solution but it is a necessary stepping stone in order to meet the gap in demand created from switching to renewable energy sources. Diablo Canyon should stay open.