Read the discussion prompt and carefully write your response. Remember: 

• What you type here is public. A good rule of thumb is to only post things here that you would be comfortable communicating in person.

• Responses should be well written (use a spell-checker) and clearly address the issue being discussed. You may wish to write your response in a word processing program, and then copy and paste it into the topic response box.

• Your teacher will review postings regularly. Any postings containing foul language or inappropriate topics will be removed, and the posting student will be referred to the administration. If you are in doubt about whether something is appropriate to post, either ask your teacher first, or just don’t post it. 

I need help with the directions and the questions

What is the main ideas reflected in these sources?

• a)

• b) It was for all the members of the Cabinet relief. Never before had a declaration of war been welcomed with such satisfaction. France having done all that was incumbent upon her to maintain peace and war having nevertheless become inevitable, it was a hundred times better that we should not have been led, even by repeated violation of our frontiers, to declare it ourselves. It was indispensable that Germany, who was entirely responsible for the aggression, should be led into publicly confessing her intentions. If we had had to declare war ourselves, the Russian alliance would have been contested, national unanimity would have been smashed, it would probably have meant Italy would have been forced by the clauses of the Triple Alliance to side against us.
• c) "I am not a man who believes that we Germans bled and conquered thirty years ago...in order to be pushed to one side when great international decisions call to be made. If that were to happen, the place of Germany as a world power would be gone for ever, and I am not prepared to let that happen. It is my duty and privilege to employ to this end without hesitation the most appropriate and, if need be, the sharper methods."

Nuclear Power: Trust the Science

A sleeping giant in the energy debate
In the northernmost part of the United States, having the lights on and a heating unit running keeps sub-
zero conditions just outside the door. Without them, the black night of the Alaskan winter can quickly
become a matter of life and death for the state’s residents, many of whom still depend on diesel
generators to keep the power on in rural communities. If Alaskans can more confidently throw the
switches in their homes by implementing cutting-edge nuclear power, State Rep. James Kaufman says
he’s open to the idea.
“If we don’t have energy, our houses freeze and the pipes freeze. It’s not just a simple, ‘I’m going to be
uncomfortable.’ It’s a much bigger issue,” Kaufman told WORLD. “The promise of the micronuclear
package is that you can have reliable output from it that isn’t dependent on external conditions,
especially in areas that don’t have other options.”
Kaufman, who sits on the state’s energy committee, is referring to the development of “small modular
reactors” (SMR) which aim to condense the source behind nuclear plants, their iconic steam cooling
towers, and their sprawling campuses into portable devices about the size of a pair of refrigerators. In
theory, these devices could power a small town—or, as the military hopes to do by 2027, part of the
Alaskan Eielson Air Force Base. That’s a development Kaufman says could offer rural communities in
Alaska life-changing technology. The state’s legislature has considered measures to make its
implementation easier.
But it’s not a solution you’re likely to hear about in politics.
Alaska’s neck-and-neck Senate race between Kelly Tshibaka and Republican incumbent Sen. Lisa
Murkowski, a contest that has largely focused on energy policy, has left nuclear power clean out of the
picture. Its absence prompts a question about nuclear power’s place in the energy conversation in
Alaska and more broadly in the United States as a whole: In a year with soaring gas prices and inflation,
why aren’t more politicians drawing attention to innovation in nuclear power?
“What they’re afraid of is that, if there’s an accident, that radiation from a nuclear plant will harm them
or their kids. But if you ask nuclear scientists if they are happy to live near a plant, overwhelmingly they
all say ‘yeah sure,’” said Calvin Beisner, president of The Cornwall Alliance for the Stewardship of
Creation.
Still, local communities might see the allure of power but aren’t keen on getting too close. Such is the
case with fierce opposition from Nevada’s Attorney General Aaron D. Ford to a longstanding proposal
for a nuclear waste storage site at Yucca Mountain in Nevada. The site would provide permanent
storage for the concrete cylindrical containers that house depleted radioactive fuel rods.
Ford contends that the size, geography, volatility, and accessibility of the mountain are all reasons not to
keep spent nuclear fuel there.
The only nuclear power plant currently under construction in the United States has faced stringent
regulatory and legal challenges that have stalled its development for a decade. Two reactors at the
Vogtle power plant near Waynesboro, Ga., were approved for construction in 2012. It has cost the

Georgia Power Company more than $30 billion to build and is expected to start generating power in
March 2023.
While environmental safety has historically provided most of the opposition to nuclear development,
Beisner says it might also be what brings it back into the picture.
“A growing number of people in the environmental movement are beginning to embrace nuclear energy
reluctantly because they see it as the best way to mitigate carbon dioxide emissions. Nuclear power
does not contribute at all to carbon dioxide emissions,” Beisner said.
Using nuclear power to produce electricity to power electric vehicles would produce a real net savings in
carbon emissions unlike the shell game of using fossil fuel plants to produce electricity for electric
vehicles. Even so, popular opinion on nuclear power remains very mixed. The Pew Research Center
released polling results in March of this year that found that 35 percent of adults say the federal
government should encourage nuclear growth while about 26 percent believe the government should
discourage its production. The lack of enthusiasm makes nuclear energy an unlikely topic for political
candidates.
But back in Alaska, Gov. Mike Dunleavy is going against the tide. In February, he called on the state
legislature to pass three new bills which focus on energy diversification. According to Dunleavy, one of
those bills, “will allow interested communities in Alaska to explore exciting new opportunities related to
microreactors—a new and extraordinarily safe form of energy that could provide relief from high diesel
and heating oil costs.”
Instead of outright funding or implementing nuclear power at the state level, the bill aims to cut down
on the red tape that has ensnared productions like the one at Vogtle, making Alaska more fertile ground
for microreactor technology. Dunleavy has also set up Alaska’s first-ever Sustainable Energy Conference,
which is set to take place in October of 2023 and carries the financial support of Ultra Safe Nuclear—a
U.S.-based developer and provider of nuclear fuel.
Congress’ 2022 Infrastructure Bill names micronuclear reactors under Title III, Subsection C, “Nuclear
Energy Infrastructure.” The text calls for the evaluation of how microreactors may be used for the
purposes of national defense. It also calls for their implementation in isolated communities and in the
event of a power grid failure.
Although Kaufman hopes nuclear power can become a part of the energy makeup in Alaska, he says he
hopes Alaska won’t overextend itself. Part of the danger of being at the forefront, he warned, is being
the first to try an untested solution that might need replacing in the near future. In addition to nuclear
energy, he hopes to spread the weight of Alaska’s energy needs on the state’s rich resources of natural
gas and oil. He doesn’t see those options as mutually exclusive.
“With some of these renewable technologies like wind or solar, if you’re not careful you could buy into
something that’s not quite up to snuff with the latest technology,” Kaufman said. “[With nuclear] I think
we need to tread carefully. I’m a big fan of using what we know works and what’s economically viable
and lean on that while also being open to new technologies.”

Despite voting 25 pieces of legislation into law during its five-month session, the Alaska legislature in
2022 did not pass a bill supporting micronuclear power. Kaufman says he expects a similar bill to be
introduced when the legislature reconvenes next year.


What is a “shell game” in context with this article? Would you play? (AND NO WALNUTS)
a.
b.

How does nuclear power work?
a.

What are some of the greatest advantages that its advocates list?
a.
b.
c.

Why does the governor of Alaska want to include nuclear power innovation as part of his state’s energy
supply?

a.
b.

Why do some people oppose it? Do you think their fears are justified? Why or why not?

a.
b.
c.

Why does Mr. Beisner cite nuclear scientists? What is the purpose of his claim?
a.
b.

What are the advantages and disadvantages of being on the “cutting edge” of this new technology?
a.
b.

Why might people be more willing to embrace the microreactors than the large plants of the past?
a.
b.

If you were on Alaska's legislature, would you vote for or against a bill supporting these microreactors?
Why?
a.
b.

How does the concept of Not In My Backyard (NIMBY) apply to this article?
a.
b.

For the past two years we have been bombarded with “trust the science” on COVID. Shouldn’t we
“trust the science” when it comes to nuclear power? Why/why not?
a.
b.