200 nuclear reactors across the world are scheduled to be decommissioned by 2040.  The International Energy Agency is estimating more than $100 billion in total costs, with “considerable uncertainties.” With the recent shutdown of the San Onofre Nuclear Plant, the world can begin to get an accurate estimate of the cost of shutting down an individual reactor. The entire process should cost around $4.4 billion, and includes waste disposal, whereas the IEA report does not.

With the exception of immediate threats to the environment or the surrounding populace, it seems rushed to decommission all these nuclear power plants in such a short period of time. Based off San Onofre, there are extreme costs associated with safely disassembling these plants, and that is without considering the drop in power supply or waste storage. On the other hand, decommissioning so many plants so quickly dramatically increases the need for a permanent waste storage, which could spark more innovation and solutions.

Despite fears that the shutdown of the San Onofre nuclear power plant would cost Riverside at least $79 million, residents should not worry about increasing electricity rates. The plant supplied 15% of Riversides power, and thus far, reserves of money have covered increased costs. Removing all the plant’s radioactive waste will take multiple years, and is expected to billions of dollars. Riverside is looking towards geothermal energy as a long term power solution in the future.

The shutdown of San Onofre reveals some of the challenges cities face when they try to transition away from nuclear power. Despite being an abundant and clean source of energy, going nuclear is a long term investment. Erecting and maintaining a plant is very costly, and one of its primary attractive features is the long term power it provides. To abandon such an endeavor comes with a considerable economic strain, but switching to forms of energy that do not produce waste could be worth it.

A waste storage company in Dallas is looking for approval to take on nuclear waste from the San Onofre plant. At San Onofre, spent fuel rods have been building up for more than forty years, and officials are eager to being removing some of the waste. As of now, the operators are transferring fuel from pools to dry casks. If the NRC approves the proposal, the Texas site could begin taking on waste immediately.

A major problem with storage at the Texas facility is that it is not a permanent solution. Eventually, even if it takes decades, that spent fuel will have to be moved again. However, temporary storage would relieve some of the pressure on California to deal with all the waste from San Onofre, especially when the money could be better spent helping along the plant’s decommissioning process.

Californian scientists have released more energy from a nuclear fusion experiment than they put in. This is a major milestone in an attempt to one day create a sustainable nuclear fusion reaction. Nuclear fusion is the process by which the sun produces energy, and there are currently two competing methods. One is to use lasers to compress pellets of fuel, and the other is to use a magnetic container to hold fuel in place.

The prospect of a working nuclear fusion reactor is an exciting option in the search for renewable, clean energy.  Fusion uses fuel based on hydrogen, so there are no concerns over radioactive waste, and it has far more potential for energy output than fission. However, after making sure the process produces more energy than it consumes, the main obstacle is how to reliably contain the intense heat.

A nuclear expert from the Federal Government recommended that Diablo Canyon nuclear plant be shut down until regulators can figure out whether the reactors can withstand potentially powerful earthquakes in the area. The Nuclear Regulatory Commission and PGE claim that the plant, which supplies 3 million people a year with electricity, is safe.  However, controversy remains over whether the NRC accurately estimated the amount of ground movement nearby quakes could trigger.

Especially in light of the Fukushima catastrophe, it is important to make sure existing nuclear plants are prepared to withstand natural disasters. Despite the loss of electricity caused by shutting down plants, making sure a nuclear meltdown does not occur during the next big earthquake is arguably more important. Still, even an expert can be wrong, especially when his findings contradict extensive studies by the NRC.

VNN. (2014, November 20). Russia to fire up VN’s nuclear power prospects. Retrieved November 24, 2014, from http://english.vietnamnet.vn/fms/science-it/116916/russia-to-fire-up-vn-s-nuclear-power-prospects.html

Russia and Vietnam are discussing a partnership in which Russia will aid the latter to create a successful nuclear power industry. The two countries are already working on a power plant in the Ninh Thuan province, and Vietnamese engineers are traveling to Russia to learn how to operate the facilities. Vietnamese officials are seeking to limit their dependence on fossil fuels, as well as develop technology and reduce imported energy. Another factor contractors are focusing on is to increase the populace’s approval of atomic energy.

If executed correctly, Russia and Vietnam’s venture could see the emergence of a successful, sustainably powered economy. Many developing nations rely on fossil fuels, and beginning modernization with a sustainable mindset puts Vietnam in a position for environmental success. Before the activation of any Vietnamese plants however, Russia needs to ensure the facilities are both properly constructed and staffed.  One misstep or accident could lead to a disaster which would have a tremendous impact on a developing nation like Vietnam, and potentially set it back years in development. Caution is key in making Vietnam a more sustainable, nuclear powered country.

Robert, A., & White, S. (2014, November 14). IEA warns against fossil fuel subsidies and the cost of nuclear power. Retrieved November 24, 2014, from http://www.euractiv.com/sections/sustainable-dev/iea-warns-against-fossil-fuel-subsidies-and-cost-nuclear-power-309986

The International Energy Agency’s annual World Energy Outlook publication demonstrated concern over increasing global consumption of fossil fuels to meet increasing demand for electricity. If countries do not reduce their quantities of greenhouse gas emissions, global temperature could rise by 3.6 degrees Celsius by 2040. Despite an agreement to reduce emissions by the US and China, 200 out of 434 nuclear reactors worldwide are scheduled to be decommissioned without plans to deal with the waste or replace the lost energy. The decommissioning process will cost about $100 billion.

Even with the dangers and expenses associated with nuclear energy, it is still a better alternative to fossil fuels. Increased wasted is a problem, but as the IEA points out, global climate change is imminent, and the world is no less reliable on emission-causing fuels. A possible solution for the decommissioning of old reactors is to instead upgrade them, or replace some with newer, more efficient reactors. Despite the increased costs, the world would benefit in the long term from the reliable energy. Shifting funds from fossil fuel subsidies to nuclear power could also ease the financial burden while helping to cut emissions.

Perring, R. (2014, November 21). Radioactive leak at Scottish nuclear power plant. Retrieved November 24, 2014, from http://www.express.co.uk/news/uk/538274/Radioactivity-Scotland-Dounreay-nuclear-power-plant

A nuclear power plant in Dounreay, Scotland recently had a radioactive leak. Small amounts of the radioactive element tritium were released, but not enough to be seen as a threat. The leak was caused by a fire which began in a storage building for sodium waste. After an investigation, the Nuclear Decommissioning Authority determined that safety procedures were not adequately followed and an improvement plan has subsequently been instated. Nobody was harmed, as the fire had been extinguished within half-an-hour.

Arguments both for and against nuclear power can be drawn from this event. On one hand, even supposedly secure sites can have problems, releasing radiation. If the accident had been any larger, serious damage to both the environment and populace could have occurred. However, despite less than adequate safety procedures, the fire was contained quickly, and no one was hurt. If these small mistakes can be avoided in the future with increased safety training, nuclear energy could become a very safe option.

Chellaney, B. (2014, November 19). False promise of nuclear power. Retrieved November 24,2014, from http://www.thehindu.com/opinion/lead/false-promise-of-nuclear-power/article6612000.ece

Nuclear power is not an effective global energy model for the future. It is simply too expensive, as countries like the United States and France are exporting plants to China, India, and South Korea. The long construction time for plants and amount of resources spent on them, makes nuclear energy reliant on government subsidies, which is ultimately unsustainable with little private investment.   In light of the recent Fukushima nuclear meltdowns in 2011, upgrading and decommission older existing reactors is even more expensive. Alternative energy sources like wind and solar power are far cheaper, and come without a growing waste problem for the future.

This article highlights some major economic and environmental issues with nuclear energy. Despite nuclear generators’ capacity to create more power than wind turbines or solar panels, expenses to build and secure them could make them less practical. A long term energy solution must be affordable in order to prevent countries from defaulting to fossil fuels during economic hard times. Fortunately advances in reactor technology, like fusion reactors could eventually become both cheaper and more efficient. Fusion reactors also produce less waste, which would help ease the growing waste problem as the world searches for a solution.

Bloomberg News. (2014, November 21). China Needs 1,000 Nuclear Reactors to Fulfill Its  Climate Pledge. Retrieved November 24, 2014, from http://www.bloomberg.com/news/2014-11-21/latest-china-revolution-seeks-great-leap-for-clean-energy.html

In addition to approximately 500,000 wind turbines and 50,000 solar panels, China needs to build 1,000 nuclear reactors to meet its carbon emissions goal for 2030. China is already the world’s leader in solar and wind energy, but is also nuclear options to combat its urban pollution crisis. Pollution protests in Chinese cities have become more frequent and even violent the past summer, further prompting the energy plan. To achieve this goal, each reactor needs mass amounts of uranium and at least 1000 workers, resulting in $1.77 trillion of spending,

China’s environmental policy changes, if successful, could be a major step forward in the global fight to reduce fossil fuel dependence. Nuclear energy is a vital part, of the country’s plan, and will be effectively tested on a large scale. If 1,000 nuclear power plants are successfully erected and maintained, China could transform its energy structure from an industrial era system into a model for the future. Furthermore, it will serve as a test for the long term feasibility and safety of nuclear power as a major source of energy. The construction of so many power plants could also lead to possible solutions for the subsequent storing of the radioactive waste that they generate.