by Nicholas Thompson
Disclaimer: Any views here are purely my own. This article was originally posted on the ANS Nuclear Cafe.

“A Tale of Two Cities” begins with the famous phrase, “It was the best of times, it was the worst of times, it was the age of wisdom, it was the age of foolishness,” and I think in many ways, that truly captures the current state of nuclear energy.

It was the best of times:
With 60 reactors under construction in 15 different countries, it’s hard to argue that nuclear isn’t undergoing a renaissance, although it’s not the renaissance many had predicted. Most of these reactors are being built in growing, energy hungry countries like China and India. Additionally, four reactors are under construction in the US, and Watts Bar 2 is now finished, has gone critical, and is producing electricity.

It was the worst of times:
In the US and Germany, nuclear reactors are being shut down. While in Germany this is primarily occurring due to politics, in the US, reactors are shutting down primarily due to economics. Kewaunee shut down in 2013, Vermont Yankee in 2014, and now Fort Calhoun will be closing this year, FitzPatrick and Clinton are scheduled to shut down in 2017, Quad Cities in 2018, with Pilgrim and Oyster Creek in 2019. Even closures of San Onofre and Crystal River 3 were related to economics, in that it would take too much money to fix the plants. There are other facilities which are also at risk of closure, including Ginna and Nine Mile Point Unit 1. Additionally, Diablo Canyon, the last nuclear energy facility in operation in California, has decided it will not seek a relicense for its two units, meaning they will close in 2024 and 2025.

It was the age of wisdom:
Given all that, it does seem the federal government and  certain states are starting to wake up to the realities of the impacts of closing nuclear facilities. The Department of Energy recently held a large Summit on Improving the Economics of America’s Nuclear Power Plants, where Senators, Representatives, industry leaders, regulators, scientists, advocates, and even the Secretary of the Department of Energy spoke about the value and importance of nuclear, and what policies could be enacted to keep these facilities running. Additionally, N.Y. state has proposed a plan to help struggling nuclear facilities by providing them zero emissions credits, which could be sold on a market.

It was the age of foolishness:
It’s quite clear that man made climate change is a major problem, and the vast majority of ANS members agree. ANS has collaborated with 39 other nuclear societies around the world and made a clear statement, “Nuclear energy is a part of the solution for fighting climate change.” And yet, nuclear facilities, which provide 60% of the low carbon electricity in the US, are still being shut down, primarily because of the cheap price of fossil fuels. Deciding to close these critical pieces of infrastructure at a time they are needed the most is foolish, as making permanent decisions based on short term economic situations usually are. But it is hard to place all the blame on the company making the decision – companies need to make money, and it’s hard to justify keeping a plant open when it is losing money.
​
That’s why we as Young Members must start advocating for solutions. ANS’ Special Committee on Nuclear in the States recently published a Toolkit of these solutions, which is available here. If we do not act, more nuclear facilities will close.

By Lenka Kollar

A summary of the Joint Comprehensive Plan of Action (JCPOA) between Iran and the E3/EU+3 (China, France, Germany, Russia, UK, US, and EU Foreign Affairs and Security Policy) is shown in the image below. 

The technical measures in the JCPOA limit Iran's nuclear program to peaceful uses, as allowed by the Nonproliferation Treaty, and enhance transparency with oversight by the International Atomic Energy Agency (IAEA). Sanctions are lifted simultaneously with further actions in 8 years, including the possible opening of commercial nuclear trade between the US and Iran. 

This is a plan of action based on a set of measures overseen by an international agency (the IAEA). It is not based on trust, like a treaty would be. It does, however, provide steps in the right direction to form a better relationship between Iran and the US, EU, and the UN Security Council. The politics are complicated, and won't be easily resolved by an agreement. However, this plan of action is feasible because both sides agreed to it and it contains tangible technical measures than can be implemented and monitored. 

By Lenka Kollar

Remember the interim deal reached with Iran a few months ago? According to President Obama's speech (above) last week, it's been successful and the United States, along with the rest of the P5, have negotiated a framework for a permanent agreement that will lift sanctions on Iran while deterring their nuclear program.

The key parameters of a Joint Comprehensive Plan of Action (JCPOA) regarding the Islamic Republic of Iran’s nuclear program include:

• Reduction in uranium enrichment capability
• Increased transparency and inspections
• Suspension of reprocessing research (for plutonium)
• Lifting of nuclear-related sanctions on Iran

As I always say, according to the Nonproliferation Treaty, Iran has the right to peaceful nuclear energy, but it needs to assure the absence of a nuclear weapons program through transparency. Iran has faltered on its obligations to the International Atomic Energy Agency (IAEA), and therefore, that justifies sanctions by the UN Security Council. 

The details of this framework take into account all parties interests and it is a good deal, overall. The international community can ensure the lack of nuclear weapons development in Iran while Iran keeps its peaceful nuclear technology, used for nuclear energy and research and development. Premier scientific programs and advanced electricity generation are important and a source of pride for Iran.

While this framework meets stakeholder interests and legitimizes those options, the negotiation was conducted using power from the side of the U.S. and the rest of the P5. As President Obama says, it is not based on trust. Because of this, I am concerned for the sustainability of the deal. 

Successful negotiations are built on good relationships and open lines of communication. The transparency portion of this deal will be the most important as it will build mutual trust and thus make the relationship between Iran, the IAEA, and international community stronger. A deal based on trust will be more sustainable and even eliminate the need for a "deal."

As a nuclear nonproliferation expert, I think this is a good framework, and my Iranian classmate agrees. I urge the U.S. Congress and other policymakers to support it.

By Lenka Kollar

Last week, INSEAD hosted the Ukrainian Minister of Economy for a dialogue with MBA students on reforming the Ukrainian economy. Aivaras Abromavicius has been in the office for just over three months and already set an aggressive plan in place to repair and expand the economy.

In addition to repairing the recent crisis, Abromavicius wants to undo bad policies from the last 20+ years. This involves deregulation, privatization, tax reform, and restructuring the ministry. Instead of dissolving the ministry completely, he hired a new leadership team, only keeping half of the employees, and drastically cutting the bureaucracy, or "fat," of the ministry and associated processes. 

Abromavicius is bringing in an international team and benchmarking other countries in initiatives such as tax reform and privatization. One of the primary hurdles is addressing the culture of corruption rampant in the nation. I liked the idea of joint customs control at the border to alleviate this issue.

Many of my Russian classmates were concerned about the current relations, political and economic, between Ukraine and Russia. I echo their concerns because Ukraine has a very important geopolitical position between Russia and the EU. Major gas pipeline from Russia to the EU run through Ukraine and the EU is reducing its dependence on energy from Russia. 

Abromavicius' reforms may be controversial but drastic policies are often needed in times of crisis. Outside perspective from foreigners and the private sector can bring value but do they really have what is in the best interest of Ukrainian citizens? Can we learn from a country in crisis to implement economic reforms elsewhere?

By Lenka Kollar

In my International Political Analysis class at INSEAD this week, we analyzed the shifting of power in the world, specifically the rise of China and India. This being a business school, the focus of the conversation was on economic sources of power. While a strong economy and large GDP are important for maintaining power in this globalized world, political power is not necessarily determined by economic factors.

Towards the end of our class discussion, I finally brought up the issue of nuclear weapons. I think that my generation often forgets the political power provided by nuclear weapons because we did not live through the Cold War. However, we do live in a time where the world order is determined by nuclear arms. The P5 of the UN Security Council are the five official nuclear weapons states (United States, United Kingdom, France, China, and Russia) recognized by the Nonproliferation Treaty, to which almost every single country is a signatory. Other than that, only three other countries have nuclear weapons and there is significant international effort spent to prevent more countries from having nuclear arms.

Therefore, despite the evolving economic powers, I don't see political power changing unless nuclear weapons become obsolete or the P5 do actually disarm. However, there is a chance of more countries joining the "nuclear club" and perhaps diluting the power of the P5.

For a deeper discussion, read Nuclear Weapons as the Currency of Power.

By Nicholas Thompson

The Environmental Protection Agency has proposed a rule for regulating carbon emissions, or to be more precise, average carbon emissions per power produced. There is a fundamental difference between these two things, which will have a large impact on whether or not emissions actually decrease, and by how much.

What the Clean Power Plan proposes is setting emissions targets for each state based on a formula that calculates pounds of CO2 emissions per megawatt-hour of energy produced. To use an analogy, imagine you ran a delivery service and had a fleet of delivery vehicles; this regulation would be looking not at the total emissions of those vehicles, but the average miles per gallon across the fleet. Retiring old vehicles (coal) that don’t get as good mileage and replacing them with better ones (natural gas) would be one way to reduce the fleet’s average miles per gallon. To extend the analogy though, the best way to reduce the miles per gallon of the fleet would be to switch to electric vehicles (nuclear and renewables), since they consume no fuel. This is where the problem begins with the Clean Power Plan.

In order to calculate the state’s target goal for emissions, all of the emissions from all sources are added up, and then divided by the sum of all the power produced by coal, oil, natural gas, renewables, but only 5.8% of the power produced by nuclear. This 5.8% number seems out of place; all other sources (except hydro) are fully accounted for, so why wasn’t nuclear?

The answer is not clear, but what is clear is that a number of environmental groups, most notably the National Resources Defense Council (NRDC) played a large hand in helping shape the new rule, according The New York Times (reports here and here). When an attorney for the NRDC was asked about this, he responded by saying,  

By Lenka Kollar

Engaging the public in an open dialogue can be one of the most essential elements in explaining complex scientific topics, such as nuclear science. Community and policymaker support are critical for the ongoing successful operations of nuclear plants and other nuclear facilities. Engineers and scientists are in a unique position to be credible leaders and effectively communicate about nuclear energy and technology. 

Organizations, such as the Idaho National Laboratory (INL), communicate with their surrounding communities in a proactive way rather than a reactive way responding only in emergency scenarios. Nicole Stricker, nuclear communications lead at INL, focuses on giving employees tools based on factual information that they can engage the public with. Scientists and engineers are trained to speak to the public to explain research and operations activities to the local community. 

Harsh Desai, ANS Congressional Fellow, noted that, “less than 2% of science is utilized in making a policy, so we need to make sure that that 2% is communicated correctly.” Policymakers have unlimited access to information and scientists and engineers should be actively reaching out to legislators with factual information on nuclear energy and other nuclear technologies. Desai encouraged scientists and engineers to form relationships with their Congressional representative, as well as their staff in order to be a credible source of information. 

The “Focus on Communications” panel was convened at the 2014 American Nuclear Society (ANS) Annual Meeting in Reno, NV.

By Lenka Kollar

There's been a lot of debate on the new Clean Power Plan proposed by the EPA last week. The plan outlines carbon reduction goals for each state that would cut carbon pollution by 30% by 2030, as compared to 2005 levels. Each state will come up with a plan to cut carbon emissions using the following mix of steps:

The bad news is that the coal industry is going to take a hit (see map of affected power plants above) and this may cause a rise in electricity costs. The good news is that the EPA is recognizing more than just the popular renewables, wind and solar, as "alternative" low-carbon generation. The word "nuclear" is mentioned 76 times in the proposed rule, mostly when talking about the current energy sector, but also as a solution to cutting carbon emissions. These statements about how states should meet carbon reduction goals are getting us really excited:

As the Atomic Power Review says, we've seen a complete change in the prospect of nuclear energy in the United States with this proposed rule. Utilities have been threatening to close nuclear plants because of economics (low energy prices caused by low natural gas prices and subsidies for solar and wind) but the EPA is now encouraging sates to keep nuclear power plants open and even build new ones.

This is great and all, but what will the policies to discourage premature retirement and encourage new construction of nuclear power plants look like? Does this mean subsidies for nuclear energy or maybe a reduction in the red tape associated with regulation? We have the technology to build new nuclear power plants and to keep existing plants running, but how do we address the economic and political issues?

By the way, as with any government rule-making, you can voice your thoughts at a public hearing or comment on the proposal online.

Watch this great TEDx talk about nuclear energy history and perception. Don Miley has worked at the Idaho National Laboratory for more than two decades. He gives tours of the Experimental Breeder Reactor I, the world's first electricity-producing nuclear power plant.

By Nicholas Thompson

The Nuclear Engineering Student Delegation (NESD) is a student run organization that brings students from around the country to Washington, D.C., for a week over the summer to talk with politicians and policymakers about nuclear engineering education funding, energy policy, and any other concerns nuclear engineering students may have. 

Delegates start the week with writing a policy statement expressing their concerns and interests, which is distributed in meetings throughout the week. Last year, delegates met with key governmental affairs staff at the Nuclear Energy Institute (NEI) and Areva, high level staff at the Department of Energy’s Office of Nuclear Energy (DOE NE), four of the five Nuclear Regulatory Commission (NRC) Commissioners (including the Chairman), non-proliferation experts at the Department of State, budget staff at the Office of Management and Budget (OMB), staff on the Natural Resources and Environment and Public Works Committees, and over one hundred congressional offices (including a few Representatives and Senators in person). The NESD gives students a voice in government and helps to inform policymakers about nuclear issues while simultaneously giving students an inside perspective on how government works and how to get involved.

Anyone who is interested in policy or government, or just wants to have their voice heard should apply on the website. The program is open to both undergraduate and graduate students. Applications are due on April 20th. Policy statements from the previous years can be found here and for more information or for answers to any questions, please contact NESD.