Clifford, C. (2022, June 3). The energy in nuclear waste could power the U.S. for 100 years, but the technology was never commercialized. Retrieved August 5, 2022, from https://www.cnbc.com/2022/06/02/nuclear-waste-us-could-power-the-us-for-100-years.html

The article highlights the possibilities of how nuclear waste can be used to create even more energy, further adding to Nuclear Power’s strength in reducing carbon emissions. The technology is not something new, it had been researched in the 60s in the United States. However, the technology for reasons not made clear had not been further developed to make it more economical to be used in a mass scale.  

The article saved some face from the previous articles. Nuclear power does have serious potential if there is a way to not only harvest clean energy from nuclear but use the waste to create even more energy. With the technology already existing, rather than moving the waste to places that could be subject to leaks, natural disasters, or other problems, why not use the waste to create more energy without needing to add CO2 to the atmosphere? Furthermore, according to associate laboratory director Jess C. Gehin, she says that  “There is enough energy in the nuclear waste in the United States to power the entire country for 100 years with clean energy, ” says Jess C. Gehin at the Idaho National Laboratory” (Clifford 2022). There is enough energy in the nuclear waste in the United States to power the entire country for 100 years with clean energy, says Jess C. Gehin at the Idaho National Laboratory. However, the main problem that I see with this is the lack of development in this technology. Climate change and the climate crisis is worsening faster than scientists thought, and with environmental disasters like record droughts occurring more often in places such as California, this technology would seem far too long to develop and produce to be effective in fighting against climate change.

Baram, M. (2022, February 28). Can nuclear renaissance be the answer to the Climate Change Crisis? Retrieved August 5, 2022,from 

https://fortune.com/2022/02/28/can-nuclear-power-solve-climate-change/

Joseph Hezir, a principal at the Energy Futures Initiative, among others,  claims that if startups that are working on creating micro reactors in the U.S. can be economical then it could be used at a larger scale to communities efficiently. The United States even plans to build and test one of these reactors by 2027  However, former Nuclear Regulatory Commission Chair Allison M. Macfarlane says a lot of the proposed solutions for nuclear power are simply on paper and a lot of the excitement about nuclear aiding in zero emissions comes from “…PR and lobbying.” 

This article brought to light some of the more logistical problems with nuclear power. With many of the proposed solutions to improve nuclear power and thus improve safety so that it could be produced on large scale still on paper, factored in with the time it takes to build such reactors, the environment may suffer already as we continue to wait to build energy alternatives. Furthermore, one thing that I have not seen many articles mention is the CO2 emissions of building such reactors. With many of the reactors needing lots of concrete, metals, and other materials to function, and with the time factored to build, nuclear power may not be the do-it-all solution to help fight pollution in the atmosphere. I think if there were more efficient ways to build nuclear facilities, then it could be more viable. Furthermore, more research and how nuclear energy production could be more efficient is likely needed if it is to compete with wind and solar as alternative sources of energy. 

Tuhus-Dubrow, R. (2022, May 11). What should America do with its nuclear waste? Retrieved  August 4, 2022, from

https://www.washingtonpost.com/magazine/2022/04/11/america-nuclear-waste-san-onofre/ 

Nuclear waste in America has been a growing concern as the pile continues to grow. For example, in southern California, when the San Onofre Nuclear Generating station closed, the waste continues to sit in the storage despite the risk of being close to fault lines, at risk from climate change, and erosion. This is a growing problem for several other nuclear facilities. Furthermore, there is a lack of dignified places to place commercial nuclear waste. The 1982 Nuclear Waste Policy act, one of few laws to address Nuclear waste, only identified one site to move commercial nuclear waste(with the idea later being scrapped). 

The article put into perspective that perhaps power meltdowns are ot the risk, but the risk of nuclear waste is. With a lack of places to put the nuclear waste and as climate disasters get more disastrous, what would happen if nuclear waste began leaking out into the environment? That could have horrific consequences for not only people but for ecosystems for hundreds of miles nearby these plants. I also feel like Nuclear waste is an overlooked part of Nuclear power because many want to find solutions to the climate crisis without considering the risk of each possible solution. If nuclear power is to become more integral to the climate crisis, then there have to be better ways of storing the fuel so that it does not pose a risk to people to the environment. I think the best way to go about this is to find ways how nuclear waste can be recycled or reform into something usable. However, the U.S. could also pass legislation that finds proper places to store nuclear waste in a safe place so that there can be some solution to this problem. 

Penn, I. (2022, July 5). Nuclear power gets a new push in the U.S., winning converts. Retrieved

August 4, 2022, from https://www.nytimes.com/2022/07/05/business/energy-environment/nuclear-energy-politics.html

The Biden Administration proposed a fund April 19, 2022 where 6 billion in funding is needed to maintain nuclear plants and 2.5 billion is needed for creating new plants. While support in government for nuclear plants is increasing, the debate among the science community remains mixed. The former president of the American Nuclear Society argues that funding needs to be pushed because wind and solar alone cannot bring the U.S. to zero emissions. Other nuclear engineers argue that nuclear power plants are just “uneconomical nukes” because of the high costs of maintenance and catastrophic failures that may occur. 

The article sheds some light on the mixed beliefs of the government pushing for nuclear power. On one hand, proponents like Gundren argue that there is a massive problem of building facilities for nuclear waste making sure none of it leaks and destroys the nearby environment. Furthermore, governments have been careless with nuclear power plants, which had led to many nuclear disasters like the Fukushima meltdown, causing irrevocable damage to the environment and fish populations nearby.On the other hand, many argue that nuclear power is one of the best ways to get “clean power” to reduce emissions and thus find sources of energy that do not contribute to climate change. This article showed me the complexity of incorporating nuclear power as clean energy in a large-scale form because the consequences of failure are enormous and horrific, yet the benefits serve to reduce damage being done to the environment. One argument brought up in the article is the usage of maintenance and construction for nuclear power plants. With such a high cost of spending, how would we know that all of it is being used to make sure that the plants do not fail? History has shown that when it comes to nuclear power plants, safety features can be overlooked, and maintenance can be half-heartedly done to reduce the cost of operations, thus leading to a disaster of some kind. I think that if nuclear power were to be incorporated to reduce CO2 emissions at a large scale, people need to see where the money for funding is going, and how the nuclear plants are being thoroughly maintained. 

Article 5 “Climate Change is Shifting State Views on Nuclear Power” 

Citation: Brown , A. (2022, June 15). Climate change is shifting state views on nuclear powerA. The Pew Charitable Trusts. Retrieved August 3, 2022, from https://www.pewtrusts.org/en/research-and-analysis/blogs/stateline/2022/06/15/climate-change-is-shifting-state-views-on-nuclear-power 

Summary: 

This article talks about the push for Nuclear Power and continuing to keep older nuclear power plants running in order to have a stopgap for renewable energy, because it takes more time and resources to create renewable energy as opposed to the nuclear power grid. The article then quotes several different politicians’ views on nuclear energy and how a majority of them believe that nuclear energy is the lesser of two evils. They then go on to talk about how people are incredibly fearful of nuclear energy, and how that is unjustified. 

Relevance: 

This article is relevant to environmental science as it discusses the uses of nuclear power in order to slow down progression of climate change as a “stop gap” while there’s a further transition towards renewable energy. It also talks about how some groups are against nuclear reactors because of the waste they cause and claims that they slow down implementation of renewable energy. I think these people are dumb.

Article 4: “Enriching uranium is the key factor in how quickly Iran could produce a nuclear weapon – here’s where it stands today” 

Citation: Samore Professor of the Practice of Politics and Crown Family Director of the Crown Center for Middle East Studies, G. (2022, July 15). Enriching uranium is the key factor in how quickly Iran could produce a nuclear weapon – here’s where it stands today. The Conversation. Retrieved August 3, 2022, from https://theconversation.com/enriching-uranium-is-the-key-factor-in-how-quickly-iran-could-produce-a-nuclear-weapon-heres-where-it-stands-today-186985 

Summary:
 

The article details the progression of Iran’s nuclear program following the 2015 Nuclear Deal, a deal that is summarized in allowance of Iran to work on enriching uranium in exchange for no longer being internationally sanctioned. The article then discusses the enrichment process, as well as the different types of machines and the most viable Isotopes for both nuclear energy and warheads. The article discusses how the Iranians recently disabled the cameras installed to be monitored by the nations of the deal, and how they have not created 90% enriched uranium, which the author theorizes is due to fear of retaliation by Western Nations either with sanctions or a full-scale invasion of Iran. 

Article 3 “Nuclear Power Today” 

Citation: World Nuclear . (2022, July). Javascript required! Nuclear Power Today | Nuclear Energy – World Nuclear Association. Retrieved August 3, 2022, from https://world-nuclear.org/information-library/current-and-future-generation/nuclear-power-in-the-world-today.aspx 

Summary: 

This article begins by describing the nuclear fission process and the history of Nuclear Reactors first being used to produce waste for use in atomic and nuclear warheads, then transitioning into industrial uses in the 1960s in both the Western World and the Eastern Bloc. It then describes how now with the end of the Cold War and Globalization it has resulted in the process of getting enriched uranium has made it that most countries source different parts of the product globally, from South Korea to Australia. It then goes on to describe the percentages in energy gained in countries containing nuclear reactors. 

Relevance: 

This article is relevant to Environmental Science as it shows the power distribution across nations with how many nuclear power plants each nation has along with the percentage of its overall energy production and reliance on nuclear energy. It then talks about other reactors, such as those that produce nuclear isotopes used in the medical industry, as well as nuclear powered aircraft carriers, submarines, and icebreakers.

Article 2 “Nuclear Energy”

Citation: National Geographic . (2022, July 1). Nuclear energy. National Geographic Society. Retrieved August 3, 2022, from https://education.nationalgeographic.org/resource/nuclear-energy 

Summary:

This article describes the process of how a nuclear reactor works, by first establishing that the nucleus of an atom is densely packed with energy in order to keep the electrons stable and in orbit. When the atom is split, it causes a chain reaction, which releases much heat, usually into water, which then creates steam, which powers a turbine within the plant to create electricity. It then states that in 2011, that 15% of the world’s electricity, and the US’s total of over 100 nuclear plants spanning the country, and how countries like Lithuania and France and Slovakia rely mostly on Nuclear Power. It then continues on to describe how a majority of Uranium is sourced from Russia, Kazakhstan, Australia, and Canada. 

Relevance: 

This article is relevant because it describes the process of how Nuclear fission works and the economic aspects of Nuclear Energy and the disasters that staind its reputation. It then goes on to describe how Uranium is purchased and traded and how only certain countries may purchase uranium due to its use in nuclear weapons. 

Article 1: “Why Nuclear Energy is on the Verge of a Renaissance” 

Citation: Clifford , C. (2022, June 7). Why nuclear energy is on the verge of a Renaissance. CNBC. Retrieved July 26, 2022, from https://www.cnbc.com/2022/06/07/why-nuclear-energy-is-on-the-verge-of-a-renaissance.html 

Summary: 

This article is written by Catherine Clifford and is about how Nuclear Power has been feared by the American public and the world at large due to several incidents throughout the late 20th and early 21st century, and how with Nuclear energy’s ecological benefits through no Carbon emissions, it may experience a renaissance in the coming decades as global warming continually progresses into a dangerous level. Clifford states that due to nuclear energy’s obvious benefits and advancements since 2011, there should be a push to make nuclear power more viable through tax benefits for companies that switch to nuclear and other incentives. This along with new innovation such as thorium reactors and better safety protocols will make Nuclear Energy much safer. 

Relevance: 

This article is relevant to Environmental Science because it describes modern nuclear reactors and disasters and how they have affected the several countries views on Nuclear Power’s viability and safety, and how new and improved safety protocol and advancements within the field of nuclear science allow for a much safer and more environmentally friendly future, as spent uranium may be much more concentrated and seem more deadly than CO2, the increases in natural disaster and famine are much more of a concern then the rods which will be sealed in places like Yucca Mountain. 

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.