By Lenka Kollar

This post is part of the Masdar Engage blogging contest for Abu Dhabi Sustainability Week 2014. Vote here for my entry! (Click on the rating stars on the top of the page.)

Access to electricity generated by clean energy sources is one of the most pressing issues concerning sustainable development for the future. How can the increasing energy demand due to developing nations and growing world population be addressed sustainably? Nuclear energy can play a valuable role in meeting energy demand with carbon-free base load electricity. Cities can especially play a unique role in deploying nuclear energy because large metropolitan areas need an electricity supply that is ample and dependable. In addition, the World Bank estimates that half of the population today lives in urban areas and that that number will increase to 67% by 2050. Deploying both energy conservation and clean electricity generation will allow for sustainable development in urban areas.

Energy conservation must become a focal point of a city’s sustainable development plan because conservation can help offset the growing energy needs of an increasing population. Access to electricity is directly correlated with quality of life. Citizens should never be denied electricity because of shortage or the need for sustainability. Instead various steps can be taken by urban areas to use electricity more efficiently. For example, buildings and communities can be designed in such a way that they reduce energy usage, have a smaller environmental footprint, and use water more efficiently. The Leadership in Energy & Environmental Design (LEED) program in the United States provides a design and construction rating system for green buildings. In 2011, the U.S. Department of Energy found that LEED-certified buildings had 25% lower energy usage than the national average and also reduced operational costs by 19%. These buildings are not only green but also save consumers money, which mitigates any extra up-front construction costs. I can attest to this concept because I lived in one of the first LEED-Gold certified residential buildings in Chicago and my utility and electricity costs were a small fraction of what they were in a slightly older apartment building. The LEED concept can be used as a model for the rest of the world and cities should require all new construction to be green and sustainable.

Even with energy conservation, electricity demand will only grow in cities as more people move to urban areas and the population increases overall. To meet this demand without fossil fuels, more nuclear energy must be deployed as a base load electricity source. Nuclear energy is safe, clean, and reliable. Nuclear energy already provides 11% of the world’s electricity and with negligible greenhouse gas emissions.  A single uranium fuel pellet, about the size of a coin, contains as much energy as 480 cubic meters of natural gas, 807 kilograms of coal, or 149 gallons of oil. A very large metropolitan area, like Chicago, consumes about 85 billion kilowatt hours of electricity per year. A mere ten nuclear reactors at 1000 megawatts each, could power an entire large urban area. This huge power density compared to other forms of energy is what makes nuclear energy so important for sustainable development.

Providing enough reliable and clean electricity is a defining issue for sustainable development now and in the future. Population centers and large metropolitan areas need to take action to develop sustainably and become smart cities to ensure quality of life in the future. Energy conservation and nuclear energy for base load electricity are vital to sustainable growth plans for cities across the world.

Don't forget to vote for my entry!

Sources
http://www.usgbc.org/articles/leed-facts
http://www.world-nuclear.org/Nuclear-Basics/
http://www.cntenergy.org/media/Chicago-Regional-Energy-Snapshot.pdf

By Lenka Kollar

In today's economy, it is easy to convince someone to become an engineer just by telling them that they will find a stable job and make a good income. However, this argument does not work for everyone, particularly women. Most women are not motivated by their paycheck, but rather by their accomplishments and the people they help along the way. Women are much more likely to choose careers in which they are directly helping people, such as nursing, teaching, and social work. While these are good and important careers, the science, technology, engineering, and math (STEM) fields are missing out on the talents of women and their motivation to help people.

I've organized and participated in many nuclear science and STEM outreach events to young students, including female-only events such as "Introduce a Girl to Engineering Day" and Girls Scouts nuclear science badge events. In our career presentations we always make the point of the stable and high-paying jobs that the STEM fields can provide, but we miss making the connection to the huge humanitarian and social impact that an engineer or scientist can make. 

One of my friends recently told me a story of a brother and a sister who wanted the same goal of impacting the world in a positive way. The sister was concerned about the impact of oil drilling on the environment and studied policy in college and then worked for a think tank trying to change the policies for oil drilling. She worked hard but was only mildly successful. Her brother, on the other hand, studied engineering in college and ended up working for an oil company where he developed a tool that allowed oil to be more efficiently extracted with less environmental impact. Inadvertently, he had a much bigger influence on the very problems his sister was trying to solve with policy. His sister could have easily also used her talents and motivation to solve environmental problems technically instead of with policy. 

This story is a perfect example of how women do not realize that they can impact people's lives in a positive way with a technical degree and job. This is probably due to the fact that the creators of a technology do not usually experience the impact of their technology on people's lives as you do in a career where are are directly working with the customer, such as in nursing. But the problems that engineers solve and the things that they create help people everyday. Bridges, planes, medicine, computers, electricity all improve people's lives. But the connection between the actual people (not company) that made the technology and the users of the technology is missing, which is why women don't realize how much they can help humanity in the STEM fields.

This connection of helping people needs to be made in order to convince girls to become engineers. The propaganda above is taken from the front page of the White House initiative for Women in STEM. Salary should not be a focus for getting more women into STEM. It's not that women don't care about money, it's that salary isn't their number one motivator for picking a career. Women want to have careers in which they can improve people's lives. We need to show young girls just how much you can change the world for the better as an engineer or scientist.

I chose to be a nuclear engineer because I wanted to impact the world in a positive way by solving our energy needs. Why did you chose your current career?

What do you think of when you imagine a nuclear engineer? I bet you don't think of a winemaker.

Meet Joey, the winemaker nuclear engineering. In his research, he tracks the winemaking process by analyzing the elements in each stage, from the soil, to the grape, to the wine. In order to figure out what elements are in each phase, he takes samples and then bombards them with neutrons, thus making the samples radioactive. The gamma rays from the samples are then measured and since each radioactive isotope has a unique gamma signature, you can then figure out what elements are in that sample. Learn more about Joey and his research in the video below.

The I'm a Nuke campaign was formed to change the image of the nuclear engineer and show the public that we are real people with diverse interests. We all became nuclear engineers for different reasons and have done many different things with our degrees and careers.

What questions do you have for Joey?

By Lenka Kollar

For 20 years, Russia has been shipping uranium from dismantled nuclear warheads to the United States to be used as fuel for commercial nuclear reactors. The weapons-grade uranium that has a very high concentration of uranium-235 (over 90%) is down blended to 3-5% uranium-235 so that it is usable in reactors. This program provided about 50% of the uranium supply in this country, which means that nearly 10% of total U.S. electricity has come from old Soviet weapons in the past 20 years. How amazing is that?! Not only have 20,000 nuclear weapons been dismantled, but they've been used to provide electricity for millions of people for two decades.

Unfortunately, the 20-year agreement for the Megatons to Megawatts program ends at the end of this year. The last shipment of uranium from Russia arrived in the United States this week. Why is it ending? Back when the deal was made in the early 90s, Russia needed the money that the United States would pay for the dismantlement of weapons. Russia made about 17 billion from the U.S. government and U.S. companies profited from the uranium, as well. Read/listen to more in this NPR story.

The Megatons to Megawatts program was one of the greatest diplomatic and disarmament achievements ever. No other countries have taken such big steps to disarm nuclear weapons (albeit the United States and Russia have the most, by far). There are more agreements currently in place to dispose of weapons-grade material. The United States will mix surplus weapons-grade plutonium with uranium to create MOX (mixed-oxide) fuel for commercial reactors (read more). When plutonium and uranium are irradiated in a reactor, the resulting spent fuel is unusable for weapons. Getting rid of weapons material and using it to produce electricity at the same time is really the most efficient way to move towards disarmament goals.

How do you feel about recycling nuclear weapons material for electricity production?

Thorium is an element that is more abundant in the Earth's crust than uranium and could also be used for nuclear energy. In case you are wondering, it was named after Thor, the Norse god of thunder. The initiative Energy from Thorium claims that it is the solution to our energy needs, and they make a good case. Thorium reactors produce less waste than uranium reactors. The weapons-grade material in a thorium reactor (uranium-233) is also more difficult to extract and use for a clandestine weapons program. The video below outlines the benefits of energy from thorium.

As it explains in the video, the reason we don't use thorium is because the nuclear industry was built on uranium light water reactor designs developed for military submarines. Since the technology was well developed for this purpose, it made sense to base our commercial energy industry on the same concept. It would take many changes to the nuclear industry to have thorium reactors and a thorium fuel cycle. This would involve significant investment from industry (electricity consumers) or the government (tax payers). 

In addition, the current fleet of reactors in the United States is not as unsafe as the video makes them out to be. They are still the safest form of energy and largest producer of carbon-free electricity that we have. If we want to have a high quality of life and live with electricity, we have to accept that there is risk in any technology. 

There are many innovative reactor designs, in addition to thorium reactors, that the United States and other countries have researched in the past or are researching now. However, the U.S. Department of Energy funding for these research projects is generally scarce. The current administration is much more focused on other forms of renewable energy. 

Do you want to see our aging fleet of nuclear reactors replaced by newer, safer, and more efficient reactor designs? Tell your congressmen to fund these innovative research projects through the Department of Energy and national laboratories. 

By Lenka Kollar

The "Middle East Flashpoints" event, organized by The Chicago Council on Global Affairs, involved ample discussion about the current state of the region. The seminar was centered around the Israeli-Palestenian conflict but included some talk about the "nuclear situation" in Iran. Speakers included Shai Feldman, director of the Crown Center for Middle East Studies, Khalil Shikaki, director of the Palestinian Center for Policy and Survey Research, and the moderator, Rachel Bronson of The Chicago Council.

The most interesting point made by the speakers was that the conflict concerning Iran's nuclear program could actually unite some other states in the Middle East because they have a common issue to deal with. Although Israel and Saudi Arabia are not necessarily on the same side of the Iran issue, they could work together to develop a solution. In addition, critics of the new nuclear agreement with Iran say that even though it changes the direction of the nuclear program, the leverage of sanctions is lost.

The chart below was provided at the seminar and is taken from the 2012 Chicago Council Survey of American Public Opinion and U.S. Foreign Policy. It seems that most Americans want the UN Security Council to pressure Iran to stop enriching uranium. The recent deal does have this provision but it is only for enriching up to weapons-grade uranium, not commercially-usable levels. Iran does have a right to enrich uranium for commercial nuclear energy use under the Nonproliferation Treaty. Most Americans probably don't know that.

The results from the poll also show that Americans want tighter sanctions imposed on Iran but are torn on authorizing a military strike. Since the new agreement eases economic sanctions, it would be interesting to see an update for this poll and learn how the public feels about the newest agreement. 

What are your answers to the poll above?

My Answers
1. Not pressure Iran to stop enriching uranium: somewhat support*
2. Continue diplomatic efforts to get Iran to stop enriching uranium: somewhat support*
3. Impose tighter economic sanctions on Iran: somewhat support
4. Authorize a military struck against Iran's nuclear energy facilities: strongly oppose

*I support the UN Security Council pressuring Iran to stop enriching weapons-grade (not commercial-grade) uranium

Written by Lenka Kollar

Emily Graslie is a science communicator and the Chief Curiosity Correspondent at The Field Museum. In her YouTube channel, The Brain Scoop, Emily explores everything fascinating at the museum and even dissects things! Her episodes are interesting, fun, and educational. She was recently asked about Women in STEM and made a video responding to abusive comments that she's received, including comments about her body and appearance. Comments like these discourage women from being in situations in which they can be scrutinized, especially in a male-dominated field. We want people to focus on our content and not looks. However, it is ingrained in our society that women are supposed to be attractive. 

Although women's rights have made major strides in the last century, sexism still exists, and men feel like they have nothing to contribute to this conversation. But as Emily says, "it starts with an acknowledgement from both men and women that these are serious issues that need to be discussed." Women in STEM are are a minority and technical women in the public setting are an even greater minority. How can we start the discussion of encouraging more women to study science and also educate the public?

Follow Emily Graslie and The Brain Scoop on Facebook and Twitter.

By Lenka Kollar

On December 2, 1942, the first fission chain reaction was sustained at the Chicago Pile-1 (CP-1) reactor at the University of Chicago. The team was lead by Enrico Fermi as part of the Manhattan Project to create a nuclear weapon for the United States. This was a significant event because the team proved that energy could be created and sustained from the fissioning, or breaking up, of the isotope Uranium-235. This fission chain reaction provided the basis for the technology used for nuclear weapons and nuclear reactors.

But what happened 71 years ago today on December 3, 1942? Did the CP-1 scientists wake up with a sense of excitement or foreboding for what they had created? According to the video below, the achievement of the chain reaction was full of excitement with applause and wine. The two scientists featured in the video, Harold Agnew and Warren Nyer, were actually there in 1942. 

In the video, Warren Nyer states there were two things that might follow from this discovery, "nuclear power for civilian purposes or what was really purpose of that time, a nuclear weapon." As we know now, both nuclear weapons and nuclear power were developed. And, nuclear weapons came first because that was the immediate need in 1942 to end the war.

What if, on December 3, 1942, Fermi's team had realized how destructive this technology could be and not allowed further research? Of course, their research was owned by the U.S. government so they didn't really have a say. What if the fission chain reaction was discovered 10 years earlier or later, not in the middle of a war? Would we only have nuclear energy and not weapons?

People have many different opinions about the discovery of fission and most of them are negative. It is very true that nuclear weapons cause mass destruction and could end the existence of humankind. But one can also argue that they ended a world war and have prevented subsequents wars. If Fermi's team didn't have the government military funding to do their research, the fission chain reaction may have taken much longer to develop, and we would be much further behinds on nuclear energy technology. Many great scientific achievements have come from government funding motivated by defense and war. Examples include aircraft, landing on the moon, and even GPS. As can be seen in the United States budget, funding is dominated by defense.

How would you have felt if you woke up on December 3, 1942, after achieving the first fission chain reaction at CP-1? I think I would have been excited, but nervous for things to come.