Table of Contents

Introduction

Climate Change

One of the most significant crises facing our world right now is undeniably the accelerated heating of the atmosphere as a result of an increasing concentration of greenhouse gases, most notably CO2, into the atmosphere.

Since the industrial revolution, humans have become increasingly more dependent on electricity. Electricity generation is a major contributor to greenhouse gas emissions, producing more than 27.5% of all greenhouse gas emissions in 2017 (“Sources”).

While newer renewable energy generation sources like hydroelectric and solar power have become more common, the majority of the world’s electricity is still generated through the combustion of coal, oil and natural gas, which releases large amounts of greenhouse gases into the air (“Sources”).

Recently, there has been a rise in climate change awareness as the issue becomes more publicized, however governments and corporations are still slow to adapt. The risk of climate change is very real, and scientists warn the public that our world could soon collapse if much-needed change doesn’t come fast.

Nuclear Energy

Introduced in the early 1940s, nuclear reactors were brought about as a result of military projects like the Manhattan Project in the global race to gain nuclear supremacy. The first reactor was built on December 2, 1942, in Chicago (“Outline”).

By the end of WWII, the whole world had seen the devastating capabilities that nuclear weapons possessed and there was a general fear of nuclear technology. However, some people saw a bright and promising future powered by this new technology. In the 1960s and 70s, there was a wave of nuclear reactors being built all over the world. However, as the public grew more and more fearful of nuclear war, development slowed. Additionally, the skyrocketing cost of this new technology turned many people away. Incidents in places like Three Mile Island and Chernobyl slowed the development even further. Deterred by the many disadvantages and risks that nuclear power presented, it fell into a slump and remained relatively unexplored for the next few decades (“Outline”).

However, recently, as a result of conflict in the Middle East and rising oil prices, there has been increasing pressure to find a new sustainable source of energy, and nuclear power has gained traction and consideration as a viable alternative energy source (“Outline”).

Today, groundbreaking research is being made in the field of nuclear energy, with new reactors that are more efficient, safe and affordable than ever being discovered. However, the public remains split–proponents of nuclear energy argue that it is a sustainable energy source that would significantly reduce carbon emissions, while opponents argue that it poses significant threats to both people and the environment and that it is far too expensive to implement.

The Question

As a result of the rapidly accelerating pace of Climate Change, we must seriously consider nuclear energy as an alternative energy source and determine if it is a viable way to offset the effects of climate change and provide enough power to meet the world’s energy needs. Three of the United Nation’s Sustainable Development Goals relate to this issue–“affordable and clean energy”, “sustainable cities and communities”, and “climate action”–which shows just how urgent and important this problem is (“United”).

However, we must view the problem and solution through an interdisciplinary lens. Not only do we need to look at the scientific aspect of the issue, whether or not nuclear energy will effectively offset current emissions enough through its entire lifespan, but also at the political and social aspect, the political impact of the development of nuclear reactors on international relations and domestic politics and the societal impact on the people in the regions where the reactors are being developed. To explore social and political viability, a specific case study will be examined–the Kashiwazaki-Kariwa Nuclear Power Plant in the Niigata Prefecture, Japan.

Thus, we arrive at the question: “How viable is the use of nuclear power, scientifically, socially and politically, in combatting climate change?”, which can be split into several components. The word “viable” can be separated into its constituent parts of the viability scientifically (environmentally/economically) and politically/socially. The word “combatting” asks how effectively nuclear power can counteract the sources (rather than the impacts/effects) of climate change, as it can’t remove greenhouse gases from the atmosphere, but instead outputs less harmful emissions than its traditional alternatives. Hence, this problem will be approached and examined with a scientific and a political/social lens to develop a cohesive argument and arrive at an accurate conclusion.

Because virtually all nuclear reactors operating today rely on very similar principles and underlying technologies, the scientific aspect of this issue can be examined in a more general manner. In Part 1, I will examine and describe the basic technologies used in these reactors and look at the general economic and environmental effects, as well as comparing nuclear power to other forms of energy generation. The specific region of Japan and the role nuclear energy has played there as well as the social/political effects will be examined in Part 2.

Part 1: A Scientific and Factual Lens

1.1 Types of Nuclear Reactors

1.1.1 Fission

All nuclear reactors operating today are fission reactors, with the vast majority of them being light-water reactors (LWRs). LWRs operate similarly to fossil fuel-fired plants but use a radioactive core in controlled decay rather than burning material to create heat (Zarubin). The core consists of a uranium isotope which decays slowly when neutrons are fired at it. Water is used as a coolant and to transfer thermal energy and is used in conjunction with control rods to moderate the radioactive decay (“The Fission”).

While the only waste product continually produced in the actual energy production process is water vapor, the core eventually decays completely. The spent core consists of an isotope of plutonium, created by the decaying uranium. While this core can be “recharged”, it is often very expensive and inefficient to do so. These cores are almost always disposed of and must be safely stored in either “fuel pools” or safer “dry casks” for many decades, a process that takes a lot of time and money (“Safer”). Although the cores are spent, they still contain highly radioactive material that takes thousands of years to decay, so they must be stored properly so that the radiation does not contaminate the atmosphere or earth (“Processing”).

1.1.2 Fusion

Nuclear fusion is a much newer technology and offers many advantages to (relatively) outdated nuclear fission, which hasn’t seen much innovation since its introduction in the 70s. With fission, atoms (usually hydrogen and helium) are put under immense pressure and heat, forming a superheated plasma. As a result of the increase in energy, the subatomic particles collide so fast that instead of bouncing off one another, they fuse together, creating a new atom with an additional neutron (“Nuclear Fusion”). The process generates a significant amount of energy, in the form of radiation, which can be used for energy generation (McDonald).

Another advantage of fusion is that both the fuel and waste products of the reaction are clean and renewable. Even seawater can be used in the reaction, with the waste products of water vapor, helium, and oxygen. Ever newer fusion technologies are being researched, like thorium reactors, that can produce millions of times more energy per ton of fuel compared to coal (“Nuclear Fusion”).

However, these new fusion-based technologies are still in the very early stages of development, and it may take decades before the technology is ready for widespread use. According to the World Nuclear Association, there are currently 442 operable reactors (“Reactor”). However, “as of now, there are zero useful fusion reactors” that are actively producing reliable energy (Allain). While they may play a major role in energy production in the future, they are not currently viable (McDonald). Thus, this essay will mainly discuss the merits and viability of fission reactors. Depending on fusion reactors as an alternative energy source right now is not a feasible option because, by the time fusion reactors are ready for widespread use, greenhouse gas levels may have already risen too far.

1.2 Environmental Impact of Nuclear Power Plants

1.2.1 Emissions

While the process of nuclear power generation doesn’t generate carbon emissions, a significant amount of greenhouse gases is produced through the processes of mining the fuel, constructing the reactors, and transporting materials. If the emissions produced while implementing nuclear reactors are too great, the technology will not be viable, despite its other benefits. 

1.2.1.1 Obtaining the Nuclear Fuel

The process of mining uranium ore and refining it from its raw state can result in a significant amount of greenhouse gas emissions (“U.S.”). The emissions produced vary based on the purity of the uranium (how much usable uranium ore there is per unit weight of raw rock). Over the past decades, much of the uranium-rich rock has already been used up, and some scientists believe that “the amount of ²³⁵U in ores that can be mined and milled profitably (in energy terms) is simply too small to make nuclear energy a long-term solution” (Roberts). Uranium reactors were originally intended to be a placeholder until much more efficient and powerful plutonium reactors became feasible. However, because of various reasons, plutonium reactors never gained traction, and nuclear reactors still rely on “temporary” uranium. An issue arises as “rich ores are exhausted, the energy needed for the exploitation of leaner ores will require more input energy from fossil fuels that the nuclear power-plant will provide” (Roberts). Essentially, we will be putting in more energy into the process than we will be getting out.

1.2.1.2 Construction of Nuclear Reactors

Nuclear reactors are made from concrete and steel rebar to provide reinforcement. The emissions produced when producing the necessary materials and building reactors must not be ignored (“U.S.”). If we want to fully implement nuclear reactors into our energy grid, they will need to be built at a large volume at a relatively rapid pace. Unless more compact reactor technology or cleaner building materials are developed, a scalable and low-emission production method will have to be integrated.

1.2.1.3 Transportation of Materials

The transportation of materials used for construction, fuel cores to the reactors, and spent nuclear cores to storage sites will also produce emissions in the form of greenhouse gases. Although nuclear energy itself may produce very little emissions, the reactors will still need to utilize traditional infrastructure for development (construction) and maintenance (transportation).

1.2.2 Public Health and Safety

While nuclear reactors are safe if the highly radioactive cores are disposed of carefully, issues can arise if they aren’t. Radiation can travel through the air, water, and food with potentially lethal side effects, so scientists must devise a safe and scalable way to store spent nuclear cores for thousands of years far away from human civilization while the remaining radioactive material slowly decays (“U.S.”). Research has shown us the harmful effects radiation can have on the human body, so it must be managed properly for nuclear power to remain viable.

1.2.2.1 Nuclear Disasters

Perhaps the biggest argument against nuclear power comes from a general fear of nuclear disasters. These fears are not unfounded either–over the years, there have been several instances of nuclear disasters, from Three Mile Island to the 1986 Chernobyl Accident to the recent Fukushima disaster, in which small malfunctions had drastic effects on surrounding areas. Radioactive material can quickly contaminate large swaths of land, leaving them uninhabitable for thousands of years. In addition to posing significant health and safety risks, the evacuations following the incidents can significantly disrupt daily life for a large segment of the population.

Nowadays, most of these incidents are caused by natural disasters, and modern-day reactors are built with thousands of safety features to prevent disasters like those in the past and ensure reliable and consistent operation (“Energy”), and especially to provide safeguards against natural disasters like earthquakes and floods. Nevertheless, as new technologies are invented and introduced, the possibility of nuclear incidents only grows and presents a significant barrier to the widespread implementation of nuclear power.

1.1 Economic Practicality

1.1.1 Cost and ROI

The capital cost of a nuclear reactor or power plant is usually measured in cost per Watt/Kilowatt of energy. This measures how much money was spent on the reactor to produce a certain energy output. By finding the $/KW cost for a reactor, it can easily be compared to other sources to see how cost-effective it is (Parsons).

Examining the Return on Investment (ROI) helps us determine how much money will be saved over time. Because nuclear fuel is so energy-dense, the amount of electricity that can be produced per unit weight of fuel is much higher than conventional sources (“Economics”), and thus, it has a much higher ROI than these conventional sources.

1.3.1.1 Cost of Construction/Implementation

If implementing nuclear reactors doesn’t make financial sense, then companies are unlikely to want to use them, despite their environmental benefits. This could also drive up the price of electricity for consumers, which would result in significant pushback from the public. (“Economics”).

It is estimated that, in the United States, the average capital cost of building a nuclear reactor is $5,495 per KW. The initially high entrance cost for nuclear reactors goes down, however, as the supply chains and regulatory processes develop and improve (“Economics”).

1.3.1.2 Cost of Operation

The cost of operation considers the cost of refining and processing the fuel, transporting the fuel to the plant, fuel storage, labor, and the proper disposal of nuclear waste. Below is a table that shows the average cost per kilogram of uranium (“Economics”).

1.3.2 Scalability/Distribution

Since nuclear reactors only account for a small percentage of the current global energy production, the number of nuclear reactors would need to be significantly increased to offset current emissions. The technology used would have to be scalable enough that many nuclear power plants could be rapidly produced and implemented in various around the world.

1.3.2.1 Location

Geographical location is also important–the reactors need to be located close enough to population centers so that power can be distributed efficiently, but far away enough so that there are no significant health or safety risks. Like traditional coal and fossil-fuel-burning plants, the reactors are usually placed in relatively remote locations, however, modern-day reactors can be placed closer to large cities as a result of their relatively safe byproducts (assuming radiation is dealt with properly). However, reactors placed closer to population centers could increase the human toll if accidents were to occur.

Additionally, due to their high entrance price, nuclear reactors would likely not be viable in developing nations or areas suffering from poverty. In the mission to reduce global carbon emissions, implementing reactors in developing regions would be an important focus.

1.3.3 Sustainability/Renewability

The biggest question posed when looking at viability is “how sustainable is nuclear (fission) energy?” Some scientists believe that it is very unsustainable, that “if we theoretically only used nuclear to provide all of the world’s energy needs, there would only be enough uranium to last four years.” (Roberts) However, in the real world, nuclear reactors would be implemented slowly, over time, and wouldn’t be the sole method of energy generation. As more are gradually introduced, there would be more research and innovation in the field that would lead to the discovery of new nuclear technologies that are more sustainable.

It is because the field of nuclear energy has been relatively abandoned that nuclear innovation has stagnated for so long. With renewed interest and our current technological progress, we could arrive at a breakthrough in less than a decade.

1.1 Comparison to Other Energy Sources

1.4.1 Traditional Energy Sources

We must establish the assumption that nuclear power plants will produce fewer emissions than their fossil fuel counterparts. Because it is virtually impossible to calculate the exact emissions output of the average nuclear reactor and compare it to traditional sources in an investigation of this scale and because many sources conclude that nuclear energy is far better for the environment than traditional sources (Kharecha & Hansen), I will treat the average nuclear power plant as producing fewer emissions that fossil fuel-fired power plants.

1.4.2 Renewable/Clean Energy Sources

The most common renewable energy sources in the US are hydroelectric, wind, solar and biomass (wood, biofuels), accounting for 25, 21, 6, and 45 percent of all renewable energy generated, respectively (“Renewable”). There are roughly 2,300 hydroelectric dams in the US (Rosenkranz), a number more than 23 times the number of nuclear reactors in the US (“How”). However, all together, renewable sources contribute roughly 11% of the United States’ energy production, only 3% more than nuclear (“Renewable”).

This shows that while traditional renewable energy sources may be able to produce some amount of energy, the scale that they would need to be developed to run a country solely on renewable sources would be far greater than nuclear power. Thus, while they would still act as a great supplementary source, they are still far too inefficient and weak to meet the world’s energy needs. In terms of physical scalability, nuclear power is much more viable.

Part 2: A Political and Social Lens

To properly assess the viability and effectivity of nuclear energy in combatting climate change, we must also look at the social aspect of the issue. Political and societal issues are far more unpredictable/variable than scientific barriers but are equally as important.

To do so, I will examine Japan and their usage of nuclear power with a focus on combatting climate change, in a more focused context, looking at a specific reactor and a more general one, looking at the role that nuclear power has had on Japanese politics and society.

2.1 Background

Japan is one of the most industrialized nations in the world, with the 5^th highest energy consumption and the 7^th highest greenhouse gas emissions. To reduce their impact on the climate, they rely on nuclear power to contribute a large percentage of their energy production., with a goal of nuclear power contributing at least 20% of their energy supply by the year 2030 (Yurman) as part of the “Basic Energy Plan” (“The Stalled”).

First opened in 1980, the Kashiwazaki-Kariwa Nuclear Power Plant is the largest nuclear power plant in the world and is located in the Niigata Prefecture on the coast of Japan. It cost around 390 billion Yen (3.6 billion USD) to construct (“Kashiwazaki-Kariwa”). The 4.2 square-kilometer site contains seven reactors, all variations of the Light-Water Reactors that run on low-enriched uranium. The power plant has a net capacity of 8,212 Megawatts and provides electricity to over 16 million households. (Detailed statistics on energy output and the reactors themselves are in the appendix.) The reactors use water from the Sea of Japan for cooling (“Kashiwazaki-Kariwa”).

Because Japan is prone to frequent and large earthquakes, the Kashiwazaki-Kariwa plant was built to withstand tremors and vibrations. However, after the 2007 Chetsu offshore earthquake, it was reported that radioactive substances were leaked into the surrounding area and “1,200L of contaminated water escaped into the sea.” Despite these issues, the plant was reopened in 2009 (“Kashiwazaki-Kariwa”).

On March 11, 2011, a 9.0-magnitude earthquake and massive tsunami hit the coast of Japan, crippling much of Japan’s infrastructure. It also caused significant damage to the cooling system (Oskin) and three of the reactors at the Fukushima Daiichi Power Plant, which resulted in three of the cores entering meltdown and releasing large amounts of radioactive material over the span of four days (“Fukushima”)

After the cores were brought back to a stable state, all reactors, not just in the Fukushima plant, but across numerous other reactors (including the Kashiwazaki-Kariwa plant) throughout Japan, were shut down as a precautionary measure.

This measure has significantly hindered progress towards nuclear power goals, and Japan’s sizable impact on the climate certainly wasn’t reduced (“The Carbon”). However, it isn’t so clear why many of the reactors have yet to be put back into operation–and why some may never produce electricity again.

2.2 Analysis of Social and Political Viability

Since the 2011 incident, the Nuclear Regulation Authority (NRA), Japan’s nuclear regulation agency, set strict new guidelines regarding reactor protocols and safety. Tokyo Electric Power (Tepco), the company that owns both the Fukushima and Kashiwazaki-Kariwa plants, has struggled with passing through the new regulations. Due to the Fukushima disaster, the decision was made to decommission all reactors at the Fukushima plants, and many others across Japan (“The Stalled”). However, Tepco has struggled in resuming operation at the newer Kashiwazaki-Kariwa plant, despite there being “no significant damage to key facilities” (Hayashi) at the plant and scientists agreeing that proper countermeasures have been put in place, due to stringent NRA restrictions and pushback from local governments (“The Stalled”).

In 2017, Tepco finally gained permission to resume operation at two of the Kashiwazaki-Kariwa reactors, but “it could take years for the Kashiwazaki-Kariwa reactors to go back into operation”. This decision also drew a lot of criticism from Japanese citizens living near the plant and many anti-nuclear campaigners (McCurry). Because of strong social and political opposition and the intensive NRA screening process, no reactors have since been restarted (“The Stalled”).

2.3 Key Takeaways

Tepco and other Japanese power companies have sent requests to the NRA for 27 reactors to be restarted since 2013, but only 15 have passed through the rigorous safety regulations, and 6 of the 15, including the two reactors at the Kashiwazaki-Kariwa plant, have yet to resume operation. 21 other reactors across the nation were less fortunate and were completely decommissioned (“The Stalled”). The fact that only 6 of the 15 reactors that passed the NRA regulations have been put back into service shows that even when reactors are deemed “safe” by government agencies, public opinion and local governments can prevent progress in nuclear energy.

Because of the shutdowns, Japan is even further from reaching its nuclear goals, with nuclear power contributing only 3% of all power generated in 2017. Even if all 27 reactors awaiting approval are put back into operation, they will only “supply 18% of the power demand.” With the reduction in energy supply from the decommissioned and halted nuclear reactors, Japan has been forced to rely even more on traditional fossil fuel-fired plants. Many scientists doubt Japan’s ability to reach their goal of a least 20% of all energy being provided by nuclear power by the year 2030, as there are no plans to implement new reactors and existing reactors are unable to get through the complicated process to get restarted (“The Stalled”).

Political conflict only grows as “the prime minister, Shinzo Abe, has argued that reactor restarts are necessary for economic growth and to enable Japan to meet its climate change commitments” while “the newly formed Party of Hope … wants to phase out nuclear power by 2030” and “opinion polls show that most Japanese people oppose nuclear restarts” (McCurry). While the government has clear goals set for clean energy production, the general Japanese public seems to be largely against the reintegration of nuclear power. Some scientists are even pushing for the government to rethink its energy plan to refocus more on traditional renewable energy sources that are seen as safer and are much easier to integrate (“The Stalled”).

Conclusion and Evaluation

Analyzing the issue through an interdisciplinary lens has shown that while scientific advancements in nuclear power may make it viable in the future, social and political issues restrict how nuclear power can be implemented.

It will undoubtedly be difficult for the public, in Japan and around the world, to embrace nuclear energy with open arms, especially after recent incidents. However, I believe that by slowly trying to reintegrate nuclear energy back into our power grids in a sustainable, ethical and responsible way, scientists can slowly rebuild public trust. Research shows that even existing plants are far better for the environment than the fossil fuel-fired plants that produce the majority of our energy (Kharecha & Hansen). With gradual implementation around the world, there will be new research in the field through which we may discover more efficient, environmentally friendly, and powerful nuclear technologies that could offer significant advantages over existing methods (Goldstein).

Nuclear power in its current state may not be a completely viable alternative, but if the technology is completely ignored, one thing is for certain: very little progress will be made in this field.

Works Cited and References/Stimulus Material

Note: This list includes sources that were cited (in-text citations throughout the paper), as well as sources that acted as references (were used throughout the research process to inform and provide background knowledge, but were not used in the paper, and thus do not have in-text citations).

Allain, Rhett. “Nuclear Fission Works Fine, But Not Fusion. Here's Why.” Wired, 5 Nov. 2015, 12:36 PM, www.wired.com/2015/11/nuclear-fission-works-fine-but-not-fusion-heres-why/.

Bauer, Nico, et al. “Economics of Nuclear Power and Climate Change Mitigation Policies.” Proceedings of the National Academy of Sciences of the United States of America, vol. 109, no. 42, 2012, pp. 16805–16810. JSTOR, www.jstor.org/stable/41763442.

“Economics of Nuclear Power.” World Nuclear Association, World Nuclear Association, Sept. 2019, www.world-nuclear.org/information-library/economic-aspects/economics-of-nuclear-power.aspx.

“Energy and the Environment Explained - Where Greenhouse Gases Come From.” U.S. Energy Information Administration, www.eia.gov/energyexplained/energy-and-the-environment/where-greenhouse-gases-come-from.php.

Fackler, Martin. “Earthquake Stokes Fears over Nuclear Safety in Japan.” The New York Times, The New York Times, 24 July 2007, www.nytimes.com/2007/07/24/world/asia/24iht-japan.4.6808509.html.

“Fukushima Daiichi Accident.” World Nuclear Association, World Nuclear Association, Oct. 2018, www.world-nuclear.org/information-library/safety-and-security/safety-of-plants/fukushima-accident.aspx.

Goldstein, Joshua S., et al. “Nuclear Power Can Save the World.” The New York Times, The New York Times, 6 Apr. 2019, www.nytimes.com/2019/04/06/opinion/sunday/climate-change-nuclear-power.html.

Gottfried, Kurt. “Climate Change and Nuclear Power.” Social Research, vol. 73, no. 3, 2006, pp. 1011–1024. JSTOR, www.jstor.org/stable/40971865.

Harrabin, Roger. “Climate Change: Is Nuclear Power the Answer?” BBC News, BBC, 17 Jan. 2019, www.bbc.com/news/science-environment-46905416.

Hayashi, Yuka. “In Japan, Resistance Rises To Nuclear-Power Plans.” The Wall Street Journal, The Wall Street Journal, 9 July 2008, 12:01 AM ET, www.wsj.com/articles/SB121554213823836415.

“How Many Nuclear Power Plants Are in the United States, and Where Are They Located?” U.S. Energy Information Administration, www.eia.gov/tools/faqs/faq.php?id=207&t=21.

 “Kashiwazaki-Kariwa Nuclear Power Station, Japan.” Power Technology | Energy News and Market Analysis, Power Technology, www.power-technology.com/projects/kashiwazaki/.

Kharecha, Pushker, and James Hansen. “Coal and Gas Are Far More Harmful than Nuclear Power.” NASA Global Climate Change, NASA, 22 Apr. 2013, climate.nasa.gov/news/903/coal-and-gas-are-far-more-harmful-than-nuclear-power/.

“Largest Nuclear Power Plants: Ranking the Top Ten by Capacity.” Power Technology | Energy News and Market Analysis, Power Technology, 18 July 2019, www.power-technology.com/features/feature-largest-nuclear-power-plants-world/.

McCurry, Justin. “Fukushima Operator Can Restart Nuclear Reactors at World's Biggest Plant.” The Guardian, Guardian News and Media, 4 Oct. 2017, 5:23 EDT, www.theguardian.com/environment/2017/oct/04/fukushima-operator-tepco-restart-nuclear-reactors-kashiwazaki-kariwa.

McDonald, Glenn. “Will Nuclear Fusion Energy Arrive in Time to Mitigate Climate Change?” Seeker, Seeker, 8 Nov. 2018, www.seeker.com/energy/will-nuclear-fusion-energy-arrive-in-time-to-mitigate-climate-change.

Meserve, Richard A. “Editorial: Global Warming and Nuclear Power.” Science, vol. 303, no. 5657, 2004, pp. 433–433. JSTOR, www.jstor.org/stable/3836049.

Meyer, Robinson. “There Really, Really Isn't a Silver Bullet for Climate Change.” The Atlantic, Atlantic Media Company, 7 Mar. 2019, www.theatlantic.com/science/archive/2019/03/why-nuclear-power-cannot-solve-climate-change-alone/584059/.

“Nuclear Explained - Nuclear Power and the Environment.” U.S. Energy Information Administration, www.eia.gov/energyexplained/nuclear/nuclear-power-and-the-environment.php.

“Nuclear Fusion.” Know Nuclear, ANS Center for Nuclear Science and Technology Information, nuclearconnect.org/know-nuclear/science/nuclear-fusion.

“Nuclear Plant Security.” Union of Concerned Scientists, 25 Feb. 2016, www.ucsusa.org/resources/nuclear-plant-security.

“Nuclear Power & Global Warming.” Union of Concerned Scientists, 22 May 2015, www.ucsusa.org/resources/nuclear-power-global-warming.

“Nuclear Power and Climate Change.” IAEA, IAEA, 13 Apr. 2016, www.iaea.org/topics/nuclear-power-and-climate-change.

Oskin, Becky. “Japan Earthquake & Tsunami of 2011: Facts and Information.” LiveScience, Future US Inc, 13 Sept. 2017, www.livescience.com/39110-japan-2011-earthquake-tsunami-facts.html.

“Outline History of Nuclear Energy.” World Nuclear Association, World Nuclear Association, Apr. 2019, www.world-nuclear.org/information-library/current-and-future-generation/outline-history-of-nuclear-energy.aspx.

Parsons, John. “What Does Nuclear Power Really Cost?” World Economic Forum, 26 May 2015, www.weforum.org/agenda/2015/05/what-does-nuclear-power-really-cost/.

Peltier, Robert. “What's the Price of Nuclear Power? (Probably Higher than You Think).” Master Resource, 10 July 2009, www.masterresource.org/nuclear-power/whats-the-price-of-nuclear-power-probably-higher-than-you-think/.

Phillips, Leigh. “The New, Safer Nuclear Reactors That Might Help Stop Climate Change.” MIT Technology Review, Massachusetts Institute of Technology, 23 Apr. 2019, www.technologyreview.com/s/612940/the-new-safer-nuclear-reactors-that-might-help-stop-climate-change/.

“Processing of Used Nuclear Fuel.” World Nuclear Association, World Nuclear Association, June 2018, www.world-nuclear.org/information-library/nuclear-fuel-cycle/fuel-recycling/processing-of-used-nuclear-fuel.aspx.

“Reactor Database.” World Nuclear Association, www.world-nuclear.org/nuclear-basics/global-number-of-nuclear-reactors.aspx.

Rebecca Lindsey. “Climate Change: Atmospheric Carbon Dioxide: NOAA Climate.gov.” Climate.gov, NOAA, 19 Sept. 2019, www.climate.gov/news-features/understanding-climate/climate-change-atmospheric-carbon-dioxide.

“Renewable Energy Explained.” U.S. Energy Information Administration, www.eia.gov/energyexplained/renewable-sources/.

Rhodes, Richard. “Why Nuclear Power Must Be Part of the Energy Solution.” Yale E360, 19 July 2018, e360.yale.edu/features/why-nuclear-power-must-be-part-of-the-energy-solution-environmentalists-climate.

Roberts, Simon. “NUCLEAR POWER AND CLIMATE CHANGE – BUT IS THERE ENOUGH URANIUM TO MAKE A DIFFERENCE?” Energy & Environment, vol. 17, no. 2, 2006, pp. 281–282. JSTOR, www.jstor.org/stable/44397051.

Rosenkranz, Alejandro. “Hydropower in the United States.” Stanford.edu, 7 Dec. 2015, large.stanford.edu/courses/2015/ph240/rosenkranz1/.

“Safer Storage of Spent Nuclear Fuel.” Union of Concerned Scientists, 27 June 2012, www.ucsusa.org/resources/safer-storage-spent-nuclear-fuel.

“Sources of Greenhouse Gas Emissions.” EPA, Environmental Protection Agency, 13 Sept. 2019, www.epa.gov/ghgemissions/sources-greenhouse-gas-emissions.

“The Carbon Brief Profile: Japan.” Carbon Brief, 25 June 2018, 8:00 AM, www.carbonbrief.org/carbon-brief-profile-japan.

“The Fission Process.” MIT Nuclear Reactor Laboratory, Massachusetts Institute of Technology, nrl.mit.edu/reactor/fission-process.

“The Future of Nuclear Energy in a Carbon-Constrained World.” MIT Energy Initiative, Massachusetts Institute of Technology, energy.mit.edu/research/future-nuclear-energy-carbon-constrained-world/.

“The Stalled Restart of Idled Reactors.” The Japan Times, The Japan Times, 20 Dec. 2019, www.japantimes.co.jp/opinion/2019/12/20/editorials/stalled-restart-idled-reactors.

“U.S. Energy Information Administration - EIA - Independent Statistics and Analysis.” Nuclear Power and the Environment - U.S. Energy Information Administration (EIA), www.eia.gov/energyexplained/nuclear/nuclear-power-and-the-environment.php.

“United Nations Sustainable Development Goals.” United Nations, United Nations, www.un.org/sustainabledevelopment/.

“World Energy Outlook 2016.” IEA, 2016, www.iea.org/reports/world-energy-outlook-2016.

Yurman, Dan. “Japan's Energy Goals Set Nuclear at 20%.” Energy Central, 16 June 2019, 1:25 AM GMT, www.energycentral.com/c/ec/japan's-energy-goals-set-nuclear-20.

Zarubin, Bobby. Introduction To Light Water Reactors. Stanford University, 7 Mar. 2016, large.stanford.edu/courses/2015/ph241/zarubin1/.