shades fills you in

Splitting uranium atoms creates nuclear power. This process is called “fission.” It doesn’t produce carbon emissions, but it does create nuclear waste

And it’s on the cusp of a renaissance, says Oilprice.com. After decades of decline, countries around the world now see nuclear power as an important part of their energy mix

The Christian Science Monitor says the shift happened because people think we need nuclear for the climate and to stop relying on Russian gas and oil

Yup, says a WSJ Op. It has a similar carbon footprint as wind and solar, but it’s more reliable. It should be a key part of our fight against climate change

Bloomberg agrees: Climate change and the Ukraine war are why people are thinking more about nuclear. Still, it’s an uphill battle. Nuclear power only supplies 10% of the world’s electricity today -- it was 18% in the 90s

Yes. Says The WSJ nuclear energy is easier said than done. After decades of decline, we no longer know how to build reactors

For this reason, several countries decided to keep aging nuclear reactors open after Russia invaded Ukraine -- says France24

The WSJ says the industry looks like it’s betting on a comeback. In October, a major nuclear power services company signed a deal with a big uranium fuel supplier. It could be what most plants need to get up and running

Deutsche-Welle says that even Germany is rethinking nuclear. It’ll keep two of its three remaining reactors online (for now). That used to be politically unthinkable. But then came the Ukraine invasion

The WSJ says nuclear power’s bounce-back is causing drama within environmental groups. Some are very anti, but the younger generation is into it as safe and clean

And The Economist says that the arguments against nuclear power have changed in the past year or so. Now, people are less concerned with safety and far more worried about cost and delays

New York Magazine says we can’t meet climate goals without nuclear energy. Governments need to invest more and get rid of so much red tape. Renewables alone won’t do it -- they’re inconsistent and still too expensive

A Stanford professor disagrees. Nuclear doesn’t work unless the government massively subsidizes it. Renewables can get us all the energy we need, so why not spend the money on renewables instead?

The International Energy Agency says this isn’t an either/or situation: Nuclear power can and should co-exist with renewables!

There’s also the problem of storing its waste -- no one wants it. For example, back in 2021, the Biden administration asked for volunteer communities to host waste stranded at power plants all over the U.S. -- Bloomberg

Nuclear power also isn’t renewable, like solar and wind -- you need nuclear fuel. The Verge reports we get a good chunk of fuel (i.e., enriched uranium) from Russia. And when we sanctioned Russia, we didn’t sanction its uranium

And of course disasters can still happen -- at Fukushima, at least 16 were injured and dozens were exposed to radiation

But a WSJ Op says the risk of harm from a nuclear disaster is minimal. If we want to fight climate change -- which is a much bigger threat -- we need nuclear energy