With this lesson, we begin our survey of energy industries, based on energy sources. In this lesson, we will review the nuclear energy industry. Additional energy sources will be considered in future lessons.
By the end of this lesson, you should be able to...
The table below provides an overview of the requirements for Lesson 5. For details, please see individual assignments.
Please refer to the Calendar in Canvas for specific time frames and due dates.
REQUIREMENT | SUBMITTING YOUR WORK |
---|---|
Read Lesson 5 content and any additional assigned material | Not submitted. |
Weekly Activity 5 | Yes—Complete Activity located in the Modules Tab in Canvas. |
Case Study-work with others on your Team to prepare Case Study, following course guidelines | Check Canvas calendar for all Case Study Due Dates. |
Nuclear energy is the energy that holds the protons and neutrons together in the nucleus of an atom. This energy can be released through fusion or fission. All operating nuclear power plants get their energy from fission, but we actually use energy from fusion more (the sun uses fusion to generate radiant energy). Fusion is still in the laboratory phase, and there are no commercial fusion reactors. There is an old adage that "fusion is always a decade away," which is a pithy way of saying that despite decades of attempts, humans have not been able to figure out how to make it work well enough to deploy.
In nuclear fusion, two light nuclei combine to form a single larger nucleus. It takes less energy to hold the larger atom together, and the excess nuclear energy is released as light and heat. (This is how the sun works--hydrogen atoms combine to form helium, releasing light and heat.) To get the atoms to fuse, however, requires a great deal of energy because there is an electrical repulsion that works to keep the similarly charged nuclei apart. The three requirements for a successful thermonuclear reactor are high particle density, high temperature, and a container that can maintain the temperature and density long enough for the fuel to be fused (Source: Oracle ThinkQuest [1]).
Currently there are no deployed nuclear fusion reactors, but experiments continue around the world. A consortium including China, the European Union, India, Japan, Korea, Russia, and the United States is working on a project called ITER [2] with the aim of providing each member with the know-how to produce its own fusion energy plant.
Visit the ITER website [2]
Fusion releases nuclear energy when lighter nuclei join (or fuse) to form heavier nuclei. Fission, on the other hand, releases nuclear energy by splitting atoms into smaller ones. The extra energy is released as heat and radiation.
In fission, a uranium-235 isotope absorbs a bombarding neutron, which causes the uranium nucleus to split into two atoms of lighter weight. This reaction releases heat and radiation, as well as more neutrons. These neutrons then bombard other uranium atoms, which then split and release more energy and neutrons, This happens over and over again in a chain reaction.
Note that both fission and fusion generate heat, but do not involve combustion. In other words, the atoms are split or fused, not burned. This is why neither of them emit carbon dioxide or other gases that are associated with the burning of fossil fuels or other carbon-based fuels like wood. (More on the byproducts of combustion in a future lesson.)
The uranium fuel cycle includes all the steps of using uranium to generate electricity (fission), from mining to disposal/storage. These steps are described below.
Uranium ore is mined--much like coal--from underground mines or surface mines. In the USA, a short ton of uranium ore usually contains about 3 to 10 pounds of uranium. The process of separating the uranium from the ore is called milling. In this process, the ore is crushed and mixed with an acid (typically) that dissolves the uranium out of the ore. This solution is separated out and dried, leaving a powder called "yellowcake." In addition to yellowcake, uranium recovery operations generate waste products called byproduct materials that contain low levels of radioactivity.
The next step is to convert the yellowcake into uranium hexafluoride (UF6), a gas suitable for use in enrichment operations. In this process, the uranium (yellowcake) is combined with fluorine to create the UF6 gas. This gas is pressurized and cooled to a liquid, then poured into large cylinders, and then cooled for about 5 more days until it solidifies.
Currently, there is one conversion plant operating in the United States (Honeywell International Inc., Illinois). Canada, France, United Kingdom, China, and Russia also have conversion plants.
The conversion process involves strong chemicals to convert the yellowcake into soluble forms, leading to possible inhalation of uranium, and producing extremely corrosive chemicals that could cause fire and explosion hazards.
When uranium is mined, it is nearly all in the form of the isotope uranium-238. All uranium atoms have 92 protons in their nucleus (that's what uranium is!), but they may have different numbers of neutrons. When this happens, the atoms are called isotopes. Uranium-238 has 146 neutrons (92 protons + 146 neutrons = 238, the "atomic mass"). Uranium-235 has 143 neutrons. This form, uranium-235, is commonly used for energy production because the nucleus splits apart easily when it is hit (bombarded) by a neutron.
The purpose of the enriching process is to increase the proportion of U-235. There are three processes for doing this: gaseous diffusion, gas centrifuges, and laser separation. The only commercial enrichment facility currently operating in the USA is a gaseous diffusion plant in Paducah, Kentucky.
In a gaseous diffusion plant, safety risks include the chemical and radiological hazard of a UF6 release and the potential for mishandling the enriched uranium, which could create an inadvertent nuclear reaction (how's that for a phrase you never want to hear uttered?).
At a fuel fabrication plant, enriched uranium is prepared for use as fuel in a nuclear reactor. The uranium is heated back into a gas and then chemically processed into a powder that is processed into fuel pellets. A single uranium fuel pellet (about the size of a fingertip) contains as much energy as 17,000 cubic feet of natural gas, 1 short ton of coal, or 149 gallons of oil, according to the Nuclear Energy Institute [6]. The pellets are sealed into metal tubes called fuel rods. Groups of rods are bundled together into fuel assemblies.
There are numerous fuel fabrication facilities in the USA. Safety risks at fuel fabrication facilities are similar to those at enrichment plants.
A nuclear reactor is the equipment used to initiate and sustain a controlled nuclear reaction. The fission process takes place in the reactor core. This core is surrounded by a reactor pressure vessel. To prevent radiation leaks, both the core and the vessel are housed in a containment building. It is an airtight structure, made of steel and concrete and several feet thick.
The fuel assemblies are placed in the core where the reaction takes place.
Just like burning coal, oil, or gas, the heat from the nuclear reaction is used to boil water and create steam. The steam turns a turbine generator to produce electricity, and then the steam is condensed back into water, often in a structure at the power plant called a cooling tower.
There are several types of commercial nuclear power plants. Currently, commercial operations in the US use either pressurized water reactors or boiling water reactors to generate electricity.
Because waste products build up on fuel rods, making fission (the chain reaction), more difficult, operators of nuclear generation facilities have to replace the used fuel rods on a regular basis. To keep the plants in continuous operation, usually about one third of the fuel rods are replaced every 12 to 18 months.
Called used (spent) fuel, the rods taken out of the reactor contain radioactive waste products and unused fuel. There are two acceptable storage methods for spent fuel after it is removed from the reactor core:
Since 1982, a law has been in place requiring the Department of Energy to build and operate a deep underground facility (repository) for storing nuclear waste. But this has not yet happened. At one point, Yucca Mountain, Nevada was approved as a site for such a facility, but that application was withdrawn in 2010. Currently, nuclear power plants in the USA store all used fuel on site. The Yucca Mountain storage proposal was revived [7] in the spring of 2019 by the Trump Administration, but has not been approved.
Reprocessing separates unused fuel from waste products in spent fuel rods, so that the fuel can be used again. Currently, reprocessing is more expensive than just making new fuel from uranium ore. Reprocessing is not currently done in the USA, but France, the UK, Russia, and Japan have reprocessing capacity, according to the World Nuclear Association [8].
When spent fuel assemblies are removed from a reactor, the fission process has stopped, but the assemblies still generate significant amounts of radiation and heat. Because of the residual hazard, spent fuel must be shipped in containers or casks that shield and contain the radioactivity and dissipate the heat. Currently, most spent fuel shipments are between different reactors owned by the same utility to share storage space or to a research facility. When an underground waste repository is built, the number of these shipments by road and rail is expected to increase.
Many regional government agencies and regulatory bodies have oversight authority for nuclear energy activities within their borders. Additionally, numerous international agencies also work to advance the safe and peaceful use of nuclear energy. Several of the more prominent ones are described below.
Nuclear as share of total electricity production by country, 1965 - 2021 [22]. Note that you can change the data displayed (remove/add countries, change time span [up to 2021], view a map instead of a chart).
Source: Our World in Data [23], CC BY 4.0 [24].
As you can see, some of the top countries have decreased their overall generation, largely due to Covid. China increased its meteoric rise, increasing over 38%, this was after an increase of 30% from 2017 to 2018! Germany has continued to wind down its nuclear program after Fukishima, going from 80,100 million kWh in 2017 to 65,444 million kWh in 2021, and that was a drop from about 91,800 in 2017.
According to the World Nuclear Association [25], as of September 2022, there were about 467 nuclear power reactors operating throughout the world. 440 reactors provide about 10% of the world's electricity. Fifteen countries relied on nuclear energy to supply at least 20% of their electricity in 2021. France leading the way at (69%), Ukraine (55%), Slovakia (52%), and Belgium (50%) all derive 50% or more of their electricity from nuclear sources (source Nuclear Energy Institute [26]).
To Read Now
Visit the World Nuclear Association and explore Nuclear Power in the World Today [25]
Visit the World Nuclear Associations and explore Plans For New Reactors Worldwide [27]
Visit the U.S. Energy Information Administration and read about the U.S. Nuclear Industry [28]
In Supply of Uranium [29], the World Nuclear Association describes the challenges and subjectivity of estimating uranium reserves. Following are some selected passages from this discussion.
Uranium is a relatively common element in the crust of the Earth (very much more in the mantle). It is a metal approximately as common as tin or zinc, and it is a constituent of most rocks and even of the sea...
Total world resources of uranium, as with any other mineral or metal, are not known exactly. The only meaningful measure of long-term security of supply is the known reserves in the ground capable of being mined.
An orebody is, by definition, an occurrence of mineralisation from which the metal is economically recoverable. Orebodies, and thus measured resources – the amount known to be economically recoverable from orebodies – are therefore relative to both costs of extraction and market prices. For example, at present neither the oceans nor any granites are orebodies, but conceivably either could become so if prices were to rise sufficiently. At ten times the current price, seawater, for example, might become a potential source of vast amounts of uranium. Thus, any prediction of the future availability of any mineral, including uranium, which are based on current cost and price data, as well as current geological knowledge, are likely to prove extremely conservative...
The question of uranium supply clearly does not have a simple answer! One could say, that how much we "have" depends on how badly we want it--how much we are willing to pay. (This is true for estimating other types of reserves as well, or as WNA states, "any other mineral.")
With these caveats in mind, the WNA provides the table below (as of May 2023).
Country | tonnes U | Percentage of World |
---|---|---|
Australia | 1,684,100 | 28% |
Kazakhstan | 815,200 | 13% |
Canada | 588,500 | 10% |
Russia | 480,900 | 8% |
Namibia | 470,100 | 8% |
South Africa | 320,900 | 5% |
Niger | 311,100 | 5% |
Brazil | 276,800 | 5% |
China | 223,900 | 4% |
Mongolia | 144,600 | 2% |
Uzbekistan | 131,300 | 2% |
Ukraine | 107,200 | 2% |
Botswana | 87,200 | 1% |
USA | 59,400 | 1% |
Tanzania | 58,200 | 1% |
Jordan | 42,500 | 1% |
Other | 266,600 | 5% |
World Total | 6,078,500 | 100% |
The Council on Foreign Relations, Global Uranium Supply and Demand [31] (2010) adds more perspective to our understanding of uranium reserve estimates (FYI, "grade of uranium ore" is the percent of ore that is actually uranium)
Still, the overall amount of uranium is less important than the grade of uranium ore, according to a 2006 background paper by the German research organization Energy Watch Group. The less uranium in the ore, the higher the overall processing costs will be for the amount obtained. The group contends that worldwide rankings mean little, then, when one considers that only Canada has a significant amount of ore above 1 percent--up to about 20 percent of the country's total reserves. In Australia, on the other hand, some 90 percent of uranium has a grade of less than 0.06 percent. Much of Kazakhstan's ore is less than 0.1 percent.
Toni Johnson. (2010). Global Uranium Supply and Demand [31]. Retrieved November 2022.
As of December 2020, the World Nuclear Association [32] offered this conclusion about supply and demand:
The world's present measured resources of uranium (6.1 Mt) in the cost category less than three times present spot prices and used only in conventional reactors, are enough to last for about 90 years. This represents a higher level of assured resources than is normal for most minerals. Further exploration and higher prices will certainly, on the basis of present geological knowledge, yield further resources as present ones are used up.
However, they provide the following insight at a subsequent point in the same article (emphasis added):
This focus on rates of depletion suggests that one of the dimensions of economic sustainability of metals has to do with their relative rates of depletion. Specifically, it suggests that economic sustainability will hold indefinitely as long as the rate of depletion of mineral resources is slower than the rate at which it is offset. This offsetting force will be the sum of individual factors that work against depletion, and include cost-reducing technology and knowledge, lower cost resources through exploration advances, and demand shifting through substitution of materials.
Estimating the amount of nuclear fuel left is complicated! How long nuclear energy is used for will certainly depend on a variety of economic, technological, societal, and political factors, all of which will occur on a global scale. Much of it will likely depend on some of the issues addressed on the following page.
In the previous lesson of this course, we introduced the idea of externalities--the effects that a transaction has on parties that are external to the transaction and not integrated into the cost. We can think of externalities as the "side effects" that commercial activity has on other parties in a way that isn't reflected in the cost of the goods or services.
For the nuclear industry, major negative externalities have to do with the hazards of radioactive waste and the potential use of nuclear fuel for warfare, though it also has the positive externality of having near-zero lifecycle greenhouse gas emissions.
The Fukushima nuclear disaster in Japan in 2011 was a stark reminder of the risk posed by nuclear energy, and had a major impact on how many countries view nuclear energy. Though it happened more than 10 years ago, its political and energy policy impacts reverberate today.
In the immediate aftermath of the March 2011, Fukushima nuclear disaster in Japan, the Washington Post ran an editorial by Anne Applebaum entitled, "If the Japanese can't build a safe reactor, who can?" [40] Without using the word "externality," the author describes these "costs to others" well,
But as we are about to learn in Japan, the true costs of nuclear power are never reflected even in the very high price of plant construction. Inevitably, the enormous costs of nuclear waste disposal fall to taxpayers, not the nuclear industry. The costs of cleanup, even in the wake of a relatively small accident, are eventually borne by government, too. Health-care costs will also be paid by society at large, one way or another. If there is true nuclear catastrophe in Japan, the entire world will pay the price.
I hope that this will never, ever happen. I feel nothing but admiration for the Japanese nuclear engineers who have been battling catastrophe for several days. If anyone can prevent a disaster, the Japanese can do it. But I also hope that a near-miss prompts people around the world to think twice about the true "price" of nuclear energy, and that it stops the nuclear renaissance dead in its tracks.
One could argue however, that to be fair, if these external costs are to be included in the price of nuclear energy, then similarly the costs of externalities, including global climate change from greenhouse gas emissions, should be included in the price of fossil-fuel energy sources. How do the risks compare? These arguments juxtapose the extreme externalities of nuclear generation: the risks of catastrophe from a nuclear accident versus the benefits of emissions-free electricity generation. This juxtaposition is at the heart of the nuclear discussion today among those concerned with climate change and the environment. Opinion is very much split on the matter.
Patrick Moore, for example, who 40 years ago helped found Greenpeace as an anti-nuclear group, had a change of heart ten years ago, after he left Greenpeace. In a post -Fukushima NPR interview [41], he explained that nuclear plants can produce dependable power 24-7 and don't produce greenhouse gases, so they can replace the coal-fired power plants that spew so much climate change pollution. And, they have a great safety record compared with other sources of electricity. "In the United States, for example — 104 nuclear reactors operating now for 50 years — no member of the public has ever been harmed by them," he says. "You can't say that about oil or gas or coal."
The articles below provide a good synopsis of the saga of the Vogtle nuclear power plant expansion in Gerogia. The construction process has been anything but smooth, as you will see. This provides insight into some of the complexities of deploying nuclear power, but also of utility policy in general.
Not mentioned in the exchange above is the risk of nuclear proliferation and terrorism. This externality was addressed in a 2010 Department of Energy Report to Congress, Nuclear Energy Research and Development Roadmap [49] (Amazon Kindle). The report included four R&D objectives, one of which is "Understand and minimize the risks of nuclear proliferation and terrorism." This objective (page vii) is described,
It is important to assure that the benefits of nuclear power can be obtained in a manner that limits nuclear proliferation and security risks. These risks include the related but distinctly separate possibilities that nations may attempt to use nuclear technologies in pursuit of a nuclear weapon and that terrorists might seek to steal material that could be used in a nuclear explosive device. Addressing these concerns requires an integrated approach that incorporates the simultaneous development of nuclear technologies, including safeguards and security technologies and systems, and the maintenance and strengthening of non-proliferation frameworks and protocols. Technological advances can only provide part of an effective response to proliferation risks, as institutional measures such as export controls and safeguards are also essential to addressing proliferation concerns. These activities must be informed by robust assessments developed for understanding, limiting, and managing the risks of nation-state proliferation and physical security for nuclear technologies. NE [DOE Office of Nuclear Energy] will focus on assessments required to inform domestic fuel cycle technology and system option development. These analyses would complement those assessments performed by the National Nuclear Security Administration (NNSA) to evaluate nation state proliferation and the international nonproliferation regime. NE will work with other organizations including the NNSA, the Department of State, the NRC, and others in further defining, implementing and executing this integrated approach.
US Department of Energy. (2010). Nuclear Energy Research and Development Roadmap [49]. Retrieved November 2022.
A nonmarket action was taken/changed in January 2016 when the U.S., the European Union, plus China and Russia [50] negotiated and lifted sanctions on Iran after it agreed to largely dismantle its nuclear program [51]. This has a direct link to the externality of terrorism, and though opinions on the deal are mixed, it has had an impact on various aspects of world markets.
For an update on this topic, read "Six charts that show how hard US sanctions have hit Iran [53]" from the BBC (December 2019)
Please review Canvas calendar for all due dates related to your Nonmarket Analysis Case Study.
Complete "Weekly Activity 5," located in the "Weekly Activities" folder under the Modules tab. The activity may include a variety of question types, such as multiple choice, multiple select, ordering, matching, true/false, and "essay" (in some cases these require independent research and may be quantitative). Be sure to read each question carefully.
Unless specifically instructed otherwise, the answers to all questions come from the material presented in the course lesson. Do NOT go "googling around" to find an answer. To complete the Activity successfully, you will need to read the lesson, and all assigned readings, fully and carefully.
Each week a few questions may involve research beyond the material presented in the course lesson. This "research" requirement will be made clear in the question instructions. Be sure to allow yourself time for this! You will be graded on the correctness and quality of your answers. Make your answers as orderly and clear as possible. Help me understand what you are thinking and include data where relevant. Remember, numbers should ALWAYS be accompanied by units of measure (not "300" but "300 kW"). You must provide ALL calculations/equations to receive full credit - try to "talk me through" how you did the analysis.
This Activity is to be done individually and is to represent YOUR OWN WORK. (See Academic Integrity and Research Ethics [54] for a full description of the College's policy related to Academic Integrity and penalties for violation.)
The Activity is not timed, but does close at midnight EST on the due date as shown on the Calendar.
If you have questions about the assignment, please post them to the "Questions about EME 444?" Discussion Forum. I am happy to provide clarification and guidance to help you understand the material and questions (really!). Of course, it is best to ask early.
In this lesson, you learned about general types of nonmarket strategy and specific strategies for activities in non-government arenas (private politics). The case study, continued from the previous lessons and concluded here, developed a nonmarket strategy based on the outcomes of the nonmarket analysis. The Case Study introduced new concepts related to non-profit organizations and their role in the nonmarket arena.
You learned:
You have reached the end of Lesson 5! Double-check the list of requirements on the first page of this lesson to make sure you have completed all of the activities listed there.
Links
[1] https://web.archive.org/web/20071123112408/http://library.thinkquest.org/3471/noNetscape/fusion.html
[2] http://www.iter.org/
[3] http://www.iter.org/mach
[4] http://energy.gov/ne/downloads/lesson-5-fission-and-chain-reactions
[5] https://need-media.smugmug.com/Graphics/Graphics/i-wQB55bt
[6] http://www.nei.org/howitworks/nuclearpowerplantfuel/
[7] https://www.wyomingpublicmedia.org/post/long-running-yucca-mountain-debate-still-center-nuclear-waste-fight#stream/0
[8] https://www.world-nuclear.org/information-library/nuclear-fuel-cycle/fuel-recycling/processing-of-used-nuclear-fuel.aspx
[9] http://www.iaea.org
[10] https://www.iaea.org/about/governance/list-of-member-states
[11] https://www.iaea.org/about/staff
[12] https://www.iaea.org/about/mission
[13] http://infcis.iaea.org/
[14] http://www.nea.fr/
[15] http://www.oecd-nea.org/general/about/
[16] https://www.oecd-nea.org/jcms/pl_36846
[17] http://www.world-nuclear.org/
[18] http://www.world-nuclear.org/our-association/who-we-are/mission.aspx
[19] http://www.world-nuclear.org/information-library.aspx
[20] http://www.world-nuclear-news.org/
[21] https://www.nei.org/Knowledge-Center/Nuclear-Statistics/World-Statistics/Top-10-Nuclear-Generating-Countries
[22] https://ourworldindata.org/grapher/nuclear-primary-energy
[23] https://ourworldindata.org/energy-production-and-changing-energy-sources
[24] https://creativecommons.org/licenses/by/4.0/
[25] http://www.world-nuclear.org/information-library/current-and-future-generation/nuclear-power-in-the-world-today.aspx
[26] https://www.nei.org/resources/statistics/top-15-nuclear-generating-countries
[27] http://www.world-nuclear.org/information-library/current-and-future-generation/plans-for-new-reactors-worldwide.aspx
[28] http://www.eia.gov/energyexplained/index.cfm?page=nuclear_use
[29] https://www.world-nuclear.org/our-association/publications/global-trends-reports/world-nuclear-supply-chain-outlook-2040.aspx
[30] https://www.world-nuclear.org/information-library/nuclear-fuel-cycle/uranium-resources/supply-of-uranium.aspx
[31] https://www.cfr.org/backgrounder/global-uranium-supply-and-demand
[32] https://www.world-nuclear.org/
[33] http://www.greenpeace.org/india/en/What-We-Do/Nuclear-Unsafe/email-hsbc-bnp-paribas-nuclear-is-a-bad-investment/
[34] https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=YBNFvZ6Vr2U
[35] https://www.forbes.com/sites/christopherhelman/2011/03/15/explainer-what-caused-the-incident-at-fukushima-daiichi/?sh=268cc89c6213
[36] https://www.e-education.psu.edu/eme444/sites/www.e-education.psu.edu.eme444/files/Explainer_%20What%20Caused%20The%20Incident%20At%20Fukushima-Daiichi.pdf
[37] https://www.worldnuclearreport.org/In-aftermath-of-Fukushima-triple-meltdown-Japan-s-nuclear-industry-faces-fierce.html
[38] https://www.e-education.psu.edu/eme444/sites/www.e-education.psu.edu.eme444/files/In%20aftermath%20of%20Fukushima%20triple%20meltdown%2C%20Japan%27s%20nuclear%20industry%20faces%20fierce%20headwind.pdf
[39] https://www.nature.com/articles/d41586-021-00580-4
[40] http://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-dyn/content/article/2011/03/14/AR2011031404806.html
[41] http://www.npr.org/2011/03/28/134863507/are-nuclear-plants-safe-environmentalists-are-split
[42] https://www.pbs.org/newshour/show/surveying-the-safety-wisdom-of-new-nuclear-reactors-in-ga
[43] https://grist.org/article/these-5-people-changed-their-minds-about-nuclear-power-are-you-next/
[44] https://www.nytimes.com/2017/08/31/business/georgia-vogtle-nuclear-reactors.html
[45] https://www.e-education.psu.edu/eme444/sites/www.e-education.psu.edu.eme444/files/The%20U.S.%20Backs%20Off%20Nuclear%20Power.%20Georgia%20Wants%20to%20Keep%20Building%20Reactors%20-%20August%202017.pdf
[46] https://www.powermag.com/lawsuits-raise-stakes-on-vogtle-nuclear-expansion-vote/
[47] https://www.ajc.com/news/state--regional/trump-official-vogtle-project-helps-make-nuclear-cool-again/za3qCJIFeYo82FNSysYliI/#
[48] https://www.reuters.com/business/energy/southern-delays-georgia-vogtle-reactors-startup-boosts-costs-2021-07-29/
[49] https://www.amazon.com/Nuclear-Research-Development-Roadmap-Congress-ebook/dp/B004XMYC78
[50] https://www.nytimes.com/2016/12/01/us/politics/iran-nuclear-sanctions-senate.html
[51] http://www.nytimes.com/2016/01/17/world/middleeast/iran-sanctions-lifted-nuclear-deal.html
[52] http://www.bbc.com/news/business-35317159
[53] https://www.bbc.com/news/world-middle-east-48119109
[54] https://www.ems.psu.edu/undergraduate/academic-integrity/academic-integrity-undergraduates