Ambient office = 91 nanosieverts per hour

Ambient outside = 73 nanosieverts per hour

Soil exposed to rain water = 70 nanosieverts per hour

Red bell pepper from Central Market = 67 nanosieverts per hour

Tap water = 74 nanosieverts per hour

Filter water = 67 nanosieverts per hour

Part 1 of 2 Parts
     European states want to free their energy supply from all Russian influence. In order to do that, they will have to detach themselves from Russian nuclear supplies in the long run.
     The European Union (E.U.) has imposed a wide range of sanctions on Russia since it invaded Ukraine in February of 2022. Since the invasion, the E.U. has managed to almost entirely free itself from the need to import Russian gas and oil.
     However, there is one part of the energy sector that has remained virtually untouched. That is nuclear power. Rosatom is the Russian state-owned nuclear energy company. It is one of the few Russian companies that is still operating in the E.U. despite the fact that in January 2023, news broke in the western media that Ukrainian intelligence had uncovered documents that proved that Rosatom was planning on sending sanctioned goods to the Russian military. Utilizing its legal operations in the E.U., Rosatom can provide the Russian arms industry with much needed technology and fuel.
      In spite of E.U. efforts to quit importing Russian fuels and the Ukrainian calls for sanctions on Rosatom, numerous E.U. member nations have opposed banning the company. They cite serious energy supply concerns.
     Nuclear energy accounts for about a quarter of the E.U. total energy consumption. However, the percentage is much higher in countries such as Bulgaria and Hungary which rely on Soviet-era reactors. As would be expected, in March of 2023, both countries along with France, opposed sanctions on Rosatom.
     The Russian nuclear industry is huge. Russia produces about eight percent of the world’s raw uranium supply and about thirty eight percent of uranium converted to nuclear fuel. In addition, Russia is also home to about forty eight percent of the world’s uranium enrichment capacity.
     The E.U. receives about twenty percent of its natural uranium from Russia. It also sources about twenty percent of its enrichment services. These numbers are based on data from the World National Association.
     There are eighteen nuclear power plants in the E.U. which are based on Russian designs and rely on Russian imports. All of these plants would be affected by E.U. sanctions on Rosatom which continues to supply nuclear fuel rods.
     This is especially challenging in nations with a high consumption of nuclear power such as Slovakia (fifty-four percent), Hungary (forty-six percent), Bulgaria (thirty seven percent) and Czechia (thirty-six percent).
     Some E.U. members have tried harder than others to eliminate Rosatom technology and services. Bulgaria and Czechia have both recently signed contracts with Westinghouse to replace nuclear fuel imports over the next three years.
     According to data compiled by Politico, the value of Russian nuclear imports to Bulgaria and Czechia fell  by forty-seven and twenty-six percent respectively in 2022.
     Bulgaria laid out a new energy strategy in January of 2023 which included plans for two new reactors at its Kozloduy plant and two more new reactors for a new plant near the island of Belene.
Please read Part 2 next

Ambient office = 108 nanosieverts per hour

Ambient outside = 100 nanosieverts per hour

Soil exposed to rain water = 99 nanosieverts per hour

English cucumber from Central Market = 129 nanosieverts per hour

Tap water = 77 nanosieverts per hour

Filter water = 66 nanosieverts per hour

Part 2 of 2 Parts (Please read Part 1 first)
     The closure of U.S. commercial nuclear power plants in the past has caused an increased use of fossil fuels. The closure of reactors in Tennessee Valley in 1985 resulted in a surge in coal consumption. Shutdown of a nuclear power plant in California in 2012 caused an increase in natural gas usage. The phasing out of nuclear power in Germany led to a surge in power generation from coal plants. The MIT group noted these trends and wondered how the U.S. energy grid would respond if nuclear power were entirely phased out.
     Freese says, “We wanted to think about what future changes were expected in the energy grid. We knew that coal use was declining, and there was a lot of work already looking at the impact of what that would have on air quality. But no one had looked at air quality and nuclear power, which we also noticed was on the decline.”
     The MIT group utilized an energy grid dispatch model created by Jenn in the new MIT study. The model aimed to evaluated how the U.S. energy system would react to the shutdown of nuclear power. The model mimics the production of all power plants in the U.S. It operates continuously to estimate energy requirements per hour in sixty-four regions across the country. Reflecting the actual energy market in the U.S., the model considers costs when determining whether to raise or lower a plant’s production. Plants that produce energy at the cheapest price were prioritized over more expensive sources.
     The MIT group performed various simulations using the model. They included a scenario with no nuclear power, a baseline grid that includes nuclear power, and a grid without nuclear power but with additional renewable sources that are expected to be integrated by 2030. The researchers then coupled each simulation with an atmospheric chemistry model to study the movement of emissions and laid them over population density maps. The MIT group also calculated the risk of premature deaths for populations exposed to air pollution.
     The MIT researcher’s analysis uncovered a distinct trend. The absence of nuclear power resulted in an overall deterioration of air quality, predominantly affection regions on the East Coast that host most of the U.S. nuclear power plants. The group observed a rise in production from coal and gas plants in the absence of nuclear power which led to over five thousand pollution-induced deaths across the U.S. compared to the baseline scenario. The MIT study also estimated that more people are likely to experience premature death due to the effects of climate change resulting from the increased carbon dioxide emissions as the grid compensates for the lack of nuclear power. These additional carbon dioxide emissions could cause as many as one hundred and sixty thousand more deaths over the next century.
     Freese says, “We need to be thoughtful about how we’re retiring nuclear power plants if we are trying to think about them as part of an energy system. Shutting down something that doesn’t have direct emissions itself can still lead to increases in emissions, because the grid system will respond.”
     Selin adds, “This might mean that we need to deploy even more renewables, in order to fill the hole left by nuclear, which is essentially a zero-emissions energy source. Otherwise we will have a reduction in air quality that we weren’t necessarily counting on.”

Ambient office = 106 nanosieverts per hour

Ambient outside = 93 nanosieverts per hour

Soil exposed to rain water = 89 nanosieverts per hour

Blueberry from Central Market = 100 nanosieverts per hour

Tap water = 116 nanosieverts per hour

Filter water = 106 nanosieverts per hour

Part 1 of 2 Parts
     About one fifth of the electricity generated in the U.S. today is produced by commercial nuclear power plants. The country has ninety-two operating nuclear reactors. This is the largest nuclear fleet in the world.
     Unfortunately, many of these power reactors have passed their anticipated lifespans of forty years. This means that policy makers are currently trying to decide whether to retire these aging reactors or reinforce their structures to prolong their use.
     The debate centers around the status of nuclear energy as a low carbon alternative to fossil fuel such as coal, oil and natural gas. These fuels contribute to climate change. 
        The future of nuclear power in the U.S. may have another key consideration. This involves air quality according to new research by MIT. Nuclear power is a low-carbon alternative to fossil fuels. It also generates relatively little air pollution.
     MIT researchers studied what would happen if all the nuclear power plants in the country were shut down and how other energy sources such as coal, natural gas, and renewables would supply resulting energy needs for a year. They published their research in the journal New Energy.
     The MIT group found that shutting down all nuclear power plants in the U.S. could cause serious problems for air quality and human health. The researchers analyzed a scenario in which all nuclear power plants were shut down and replaced with other energy sources such as coal, natural gas and renewables. They estimated that the resulting increase in air pollution would lead to over five thousand additional pollution-related deaths in only one year.
     However, if more renewable energy sources become available to supply the electrical grid, then air pollution would be reduced but not entirely eliminated. Even with this optimistic scenario, the team found that some parts of the country would still experience a slight increase in air pollution. This would result in two hundred and sixty additional pollutions related deaths in one year.
     After reviewing the demographics most affected by the escalated pollution, the MIT group found that African American communities were most heavily impacted. These communities are disproportionately located near fossil-fuel plants.
     Lyssa Freese is the lead author of the MIT report. She said, “This adds one more layer to the environmental health and social impacts equation when you’re thinking about nuclear shutdowns, where the conversation often focuses on local risks due to accidents and mining or long-term climate impacts.”
     Noelle Selin is a co-author of the MIT report. She said, “In the debate over keeping nuclear power plants open, air quality has not been a focus of that discussion. We found was that air pollution from fossil fuel plants is so damaging, that anything that increases it, such as a nuclear shutdown, is going to have substantial impacts, and for some people more than others.”
     The rest of the authors of the study are affiliated with MIT. They include Principal Research Scientist Sebastian Eastham, Guillaume Chossière SM ’17, PhD ’20, as well as Alan Jenn from the University of California at Davis.
Please read Part 2 next

Ambient office = 95 nanosieverts per hour

Ambient outside = 93 nanosieverts per hour

Soil exposed to rain water = 97 nanosieverts per hour

Asparagus from Central Market = 73 nanosieverts per hour

Tap water = 138 nanosieverts per hour

Filter water = 128 nanosieverts per hour