By Mark Reed

While researching an obscure topic related to my doctoral thesis, I happened upon multiple references to a 1969 paper in Kernenergie - an academic journal published in the Deutsche Demokratische Republik (DDR), or East Germany.

Typically, this is every academic’s nightmare – an obscure paper published behind the Iron Curtain a quarter century before the internet in a country that no longer exists. Fortunately, I had an inroad. I emailed a German relative who lives in Weimar and manages IT at the University of Jena. He walked into the library basement and scanned me a copy!

Not only was the paper valuable for my research, but it also made me think; Kernenergie. English, or Anglo-Saxon, is a Germanic language. Kern is the root of kernel, as in a kernel of corn. So in German, “nuclear” is “kernel”.

My next thought was, “Well, that’s interesting. I’m sure kern(el) has different overtones in German, but the English connotation is just so weaksauce – such a contrast with the fearsome connotation of nuclear. Hey, what if we started referring to ‘nuclear energy’ as ‘kernel energy’?”

Nuclear energy has a perception problem, and a large swath of that problem stems from the word nuclear – its place in our history, its media hype, and its resulting connotation. The word has been poisoned. So what if we simply chose a more benign (but equally suitable) word? How would that one superficial alteration – a mere word – change public perception of “kernel technology”?

Instead of imagining bombs and mushroom clouds, people would think of popcorn. If it sounds like something we put it in our mouths, it can’t be that bad. How much more would the public approve of new “kernel plants”? 

Some may view such rebranding as nothing more than cynical politics – manipulating words to “trick” the public. I don’t disagree, but unfortunately, this is how the game is played. Whether we like it or not, nuclear energy is a political issue, and in politics, every word is poll-tested. There’s a reason why “civil unions” preceded “marriage”, and there’s also a reason why “nuclear energy” is more popular than “nuclear power”. Words matter.

Of course, there would inevitably be drawbacks. “Kernel engineering” wouldn’t be nearly so sexy. The “danger” would be gone. We nuclear engineers would lose some of our debonair, James-Bond-like charm - the hallmark of our profession. Nevertheless, even the most prolific “nuclear rakes” would be compelled to sacrifice some of their charisma for the betterment of mankind through clean, sustainable energy.

By Lenka Kollar

The Nuclear Security Summit is ongoing this week at The Hague in Netherlands and one of the biggest successes is that Japan has agreed to allow the United States to take over a stockpile of weapons-grade nuclear material in Japan. This material is at the Fast Critical Assembly at the Japan Atomic Energy Agency and was used/produced in research for fast reactor development, not for nuclear weapons. However, the material is weapons-grade and thus its security is a concern.

President Obama's goal has been to secure nuclear material around the globe, mainly to protect from theft by non-state actors (e.g. terrorists). However, the Administration's recent decision to cut funding for the MOX Fuel Fabrication Facility (read post) does not show commitment to nonproliferation goals. 

This agreement with Japan says that the United States will remove and dispose of the nuclear material. Having a MOX facility to put weapons-grade plutonium into commercial fuel and burn it in a reactor is the best way to dispose of it because it becomes too radioactive to use in a weapons. What is the point of taking control of the nuclear material in Japan if we can't dispose of it?

By Lenka Kollar

In the fiscal year 2015 federal budget request, funding for the  MOX Fuel Fabrication Facility at the Savannah River Site (SRS) was cut and now South Carolina is suing the U.S. Department of Energy (DOE) to bring the project back. The facility is 60% complete and employs about 1,800 workers. The project is over budget and DOE says that the resources aren't there to continue. However, stopping the project would violate a nonproliferation treaty with Russia to get rid of weapons-grade nuclear material.

The purpose of the MOX Project is to covert excess weapons-grade plutonium into commercial fuel for nuclear power plants. MOX stands for "mixed oxide" fuel, mixed because the fuel contains uranium oxide and plutonium oxide, instead of just uranium oxide. Uranium is a naturally-occuring element that is mined from the ground but plutonium is not naturally-occuring. The U.S. produced a stockpile of plutonium for nuclear weapons, but the plutonium can also be used for nuclear energy. Because some uranium in a nuclear reactor turns into plutonium, it is already a proven fuel for nuclear energy. Once used in a reactor, the plutonium fuel becomes too radioactive to use in a weapon.

The MOX Project is a great idea both for getting rid of weapons material and for using existing material to produce electricity. However, the project has taken more resources than expected and thus the DOE has run out of funding. 

Do you think that the federal government should continue to fund the MOX Project?

By Lenka Kollar

Dr. Patrick Moore was there for the beginnings of Greenpeace and then later co-founded the CASEnergy Coalition, which is a pro-nuclear energy organization.  Moore's testimony before a senate committee earlier this year spiked some controversy. You can read the highlights here but I think the most striking thing about his testimony was the following:

This statement is in reference to the climate change movement and how we are acting like we are the absolute enemies to the Earth and will cause its, and our own, destruction. 

I believe that humans, even in an industrialized society, can work with "mother nature" and not destroy the Earth. And, the very notion that this is possible is something that we should consider. I think that many people think that in order avoid climate change, or any man-made effect on the Earth, we need to drastically reduce our population and go back to "caveman days." However, there is an equilibrium that we can reach to not destroy our environment. Reliable and clean base-load electricity should be part of the plan and nuclear energy can play a big role.

How do we move towards a more sustainable future?

By Lenka Kollar

One of my Facebook friends posted the above question and I thought it was a very valid thing to ask. In a world where we have to fill up our cars once (or more) a week, replace phone batteries after two years, and receive a constant supply of electricity to our homes, it's hard to imagine that a spacecraft that was launched in 1977 still has power.

The instruments on Voyager I are powered by three radioisotope thermoelectric generators (RTGs). An RTG contains a plutonium-238 source, which decays by alpha particles thus and produces heat. This heat is converted by thermocouples and a generator into electricity. An RTG isn't a nuclear reactor because the isotope is not fissioning, but this is a great alternative use of nuclear technology.

Voyager I was just reported to leave the solar system, the first man-made object to do so. The spacecraft measures cosmic rays and magnetic fields and sends the data back to Earth to be analyzed by NASA scientists. They will continue to receive data form Voyager I until the power runs out in 2025. 

Three years ago today a 9.0 magnitude earthquake happened off of the Pacific coast of Tohoku and Japan is still recovering. The earthquake and subsequent tsunami resulted in 15,884 people dead, 2633 people missing, and 6148 people injured, with a total of over 400,000 buildings half or full collapsed (as of March 10, 2014). The tsunami also resulted in accidents and damage to three reactors at the Fukushima Daiichi nuclear power plant. No deaths or injuries to the public have occurred from the radioactive contamination.

In the United States and around the world, we often talk about the accident at the Fukushima Daiichi nuclear power plant but forget that the other damage from the earthquake and tsunami was far, far more catastrophic. The earthquake was the strongest ever recorded in Japan and also the costliest natural disaster in world history. The NY Times provides an interactive side-by-side look at some of the damaged areas.

The February meeting of the American Nuclear Society Chicago Local Section featured Senior VP of Exelon, Amir Shahkarami. He has nearly 30 years of experience in the nuclear industry and provided some valuable insight to ANS members about the national and global nuclear industry. Shahkarami is also the CEO of Exelon Nuclear Partners, which focuses on providing operational expertise to the worldwide nuclear industry, both in countries with existing nuclear power programs and newcomers to the industry planning and constructing plants right now.

There are 70 nuclear power reactors under construction in the world today (only 4 in the U.S.) and 100+ are expected in the next wave. With the largest and longest-running nuclear industry, it is important for the U.S. to share expertise in construction, operation, and safety. Shahkarami explains that plants with the same proven technology can function differently because of human performance. Safety culture is imperative to successfully running a nuclear power plant.

Sharing operating experience allows the U.S. to be involved in international nuclear power programs even without directly selling technology, which is limited to countries that have negotiated 123 Agreements with the U.S. While boosting our own economy we can also ensure that other plants are built and operated in a safe manner.  Proposed changes to nuclear export control procedures are hopefully going to streamline the process of working with other countries. An accident at a plant anywhere in the world affects the entire industry.

In his own opinion, Shahkarami says that closing nuclear plants in the U.S. for economic reasons is a national security issue in terms of dependable energy supply. This started a discussion between ANS members at the meeting. Low natural gas prices are causing many utilities, including Exelon, to close or consider closing nuclear plants. The problem is that utilities are paid the same rate for electricity, regardless of the source and without consideration for how dependable that source is. Read more on this topic in my recent post.

Amir Shahkarami was a great speaker for the ANS Chicago Section and inspired important dialogue between members. It’s not often that you get to talk to an industry CEO that is doing important work around the world.

By Lenka Kollar

A colleague of mine sent me this excerpt from an interview with John McCain on TIME.com and I felt compelled to share it with my readers. McCain talks about many political issues in his interview but this struck me as so honest, and frankly, sad.

McCain did used to be very engaged on the issue of climate change and I remember him talking about building 45 nuclear reactors by 2030 during his 2008 presidential campaign. My fellow nuclear engineering students at Purdue were so excited about this prospect.

According the quote above, McCain basically gave up on his nuclear dreams because the people on the left are going to reject it, even though they are the ones primarily concerned about climate change. This kind of thinking has to stop for us to make any progress climate change. Politicians shouldn't be making these technical decisions but instead taking the advice of the research scientists and engineers at the U.S. Department of Energy to make effective policies. I don't agree with McCain moving on the other (easier) issues because we need practical people like him on the right side of aisle. 

What do you think will make Congress move forward on effective climate change legislation?