Final countdown to site selection for Canada’s nuclear waste geologic repository. Bulletin of the Atomic Scientists. (2023, January 17). Retrieved January 29, 2023, from https://thebulletin.org/premium/2023-01/final-countdown-to-site-selection-for-canadas-nuclear-waste-geologic-repository/

 This article brings up the issue of storing nuclear waste around the world. Nuclear waste storage  needs to be highly secure and safe, but countries continue to store their waste locally. The article mentions that “only four countries’ ‘ (Finland, Sweden, France, and Switzerland have found local repositories for nuclear waste; however, for many countries such as Sweden, they are still trying to work through regulations and the details of how the waste is going to be safely stored. 

I find it interesting how many countries are struggling to find safe areas to store their waste. One thing I wished the article had brought up is if these countries were to get into a military conflict, how would they prevent nuclear waste storage sites from being weaponized? Furthermore, I wonder why it is very tedious for governments to approve of repositories for nuclear waste, as countries such as Sweden are struggling to get past their government bureaucracy. However, environmentally, there may be a solution to storing nuclear waste deep underground. The article states that in southern Ontario, the “repository would be in a clay-rich limestone, which is appealing due to its strength and low permeability. There is also a tight shale layer directly above the limestone that acts as an added barrier to further delay the migration of any escaped radioactive material toward the surface” (Braden and Macfarlane, 2023). Therefore, finding low permeable but high strength rock to store nuclear waste underground would be a a decent solution to storing nuclear waste and avoiding the contamination of valuable resources such as groundwater. 

India’s long-term development strategy sees nuclear expansion. India’s long-term development strategy sees nuclear expansion : Energy & Environment – World Nuclear News. (n.d.). Retrieved January 29, 2023, from https://www.world-nuclear-news.org/Articles/India-long-term-development-strategy-sees-nuclear

The article talks about India’s consideration and development of increasing nuclear energy production for its expanding population and its ever growing need to power all the homes that are being built to house millions of families. Furthermore, the country’s leaders have been spying attention to the effects of climate change alongside the issues (the article mentions that India was motivated that the shift towards more nuclear power because by only providing 3% of electricity generation, the country would be saved of 41 million tonnes of CO2)  of dependence on energy from other countries. India’s submitter plan to the United Nations Framework Convention on Climate Change also includes the usage of small modular reactors to further increase the production of nuclear energies. 

It is interesting how countries like India with massive populations are going about providing their people with energy, especially during a time where fossil fuels are becoming less available and more harmful to the environment. However, something that caught my attention was the goals of the years that they wanted nuclear goals to be met. For example, the article mentions how it wants to triple nuclear capacity by 2032, but is that enough time for the impact of reduced carbon emissions to actually make an impact? 

However I do agree and like the fact that the country is concerned with sustainability, because it seems that nuclear will give the country the best option to reduce its impact on the environment as it continues to industrialize and grow its production of goods in the economy. 

Statistics explained. Statistics Explained. (December 2022). Retrieved January 29, 2023, from https://ec.europa.eu/eurostat/statistics-explained/index.php?title=Nuclear_energy_statistics

  The article has many sub parts, but the primary idea is that many countries in Europe have increased their production of nuclear energy. Furthermore, in the European Union alone, 25.4% of energy was produced by nuclear energy. However, the trend has decreased overall from the late 1900s with countries such as Germany having the sharpest decrease in nuclear energy production. This likely comes from public fears regarding nuclear catastrophes regarding nuclear power but it shows a differing view in Europe as to if nuclear power is a clean energy source that everyone is comfortable switching to meet climate goals. 

I found the trends in data to be interesting and its relation to environmental science. Countries such as Germany have had a near 60% decrease in nuclear power production and a massive increase in coal production. However, countries such as Romania have increased the production of nuclear energy. Though the article does not mention specific reasons as to why, it is a concern that many countries in the EU are slowing down their energy production from nuclear power plants, the concern was actually large enough for the EU to draft the Commission Delegated Regulation (EU) 2022/1214 in order to include nuclear power in its solutions to meet its decarbonization goals (this occurred in early 2022). The European Union is likely seeing effects of extreme weather (especially what occurred this recent winter in Europe with 2022 being the warmest year on record) and is attempting to steer the religion to produce cleaner energy. I agree with this approach as the world (not just Europe) ought to find fast solutions to our issue of emissions from energy production so that we can mitigate the effects of climate change from increased carbon in our atmosphere.

Brumfiel, G. (2022, December 13). U.S. reaches a fusion power milestone. will it be enough to save the planet? NPR. Retrieved January 29, 2023, from https://www.npr.org/2022/12/13/1142208055/nuclear-fusion-breakthrough-climate-change

Due to the war in Ukraine, Germany has faced hard decisions regarding its energy shortage. One of the ways to ensure its citizens do not freeze in the winter is to continue maintaining the nuclear power plants. However, trying to build more nuclear power plants to reduce the usage of coal will need to take convincing of the German public, despite the fact that nuclear power is “5.6 percent” of Germany’s power supply and poses less health risks compared to fossil fuels. 

Seeing how Germany has dealt with the energy crisis has been interesting. It shows the future of nuclear power as long term, it does provide a relatively clean source of energy. However, in the article, it mentions how Germany’s energy supply is “29.4 percent coal” which presents Germany’s grapple with switching to cleaner energy sources such as nuclear or pleading the majority of the population by continuing to use energy sources that many think are safer but are significantly more dangerous than nuclear. However, I agree with the main argument of the article: Germany’s best route out of a dependency on other countries for fossil fuels and to meet its climate goals is to increase the presence of nuclear power as an energy source. 

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.

Lewis, M. (2022, July 7). Wind and solar produce more electricity than nuclear for the first time in the US. Retrieved August 15, 2022, from

https://electrek.co/2022/07/07/wind-and-solar-produce-more-electricity-than-nuclear-for-the-first-time-in-the-us/

While short, the author writes that “electrical generation by clean energy – which included biomass, geothermal, and hydropower and was driven by strong solar and wind growth – accounted for almost 30% of total US electrical generation…” (Lewis 2022) and that renewables surpassed energy production of nuclear reactors by 37.8%, with wind and solar combined producing 17.86% more energy than nuclear. Combined, solar and wind grew by 25.4% in energy production, whereas nuclear energy production dropped by 1.8%. 

For me, this article showed that nuclear power may not be the most economical and fast renewable option if it is being outpaced by renewables. With solar and wind energy beating nuclear production in terms of nuclear energy, it shows the public and others like myself that we should not be pursuing nuclear as the primary source of clean energy. I also think that with nuclear power, though advancing, it is clearly being beaten by the cleaner, safer, easier to maintain and that is also renewable and are also advancing their energy production. In terms of the environment, it is making less sense to expand or to go with nuclear power as a clean energy source alternative, simply because renewables are advancing faster and producing more than nonrenewable like nuclear.