By Lenka Kollar

Congressmen have long disagreed on global warming and the need for clean energy but the two sides of of the isle finally came together on legislation that will drastically reduce carbon emissions. The game-changer is actually the oldest form of energy used by man: wood-burning fire. 

Greenpeace heavily advocating for the passing of this bill because when trees are grown sustainably and burned for heat, the process is carbon-neutral. "This is the cleanest form of energy we've got," says President Obama, "Forget windmills and solar cells, the people in the dark ages had it right. This bill is our first step to fighting climate change."

The new Clean Energy Act calls for phasing out of all electric power plants by 2020 and requirements for all new construction to contain fireplaces. The Department of Energy is also working on an efficient wood-burning engine for cars and long-lasting candles for indoor lighting. The EPA estimates that carbon emissions should decrease back to pre-industrialization levels by 2040 and that climate change will no longer be an issue. 

Rumors on the Hill also indicate that bills for demilitarization and outlawing marriage are being negotiated.

Happy April 1st!

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

Chicago-based Exelon is one of the biggest nuclear energy providers in the United States with 10 nuclear power plants, 6 of them in Illinois. Low natural gas prices and subsidies for renewables have driven down the price of electricity. Because of this, Exelon may need to shut down nuclear power plants in order to remain profitable. 

Although the uranium fuel is not expensive, nuclear plants are more expensive to run than other types of plants because of the high costs associated with strict federal regulations. Nuclear plants need more security and highly-trained employees and also pay high fees to be licensed by the Nuclear Regulatory Commission (NRC). Natural gas and coal plants do not require the same measures and licenses and therefore are cheaper to operate, even if nuclear fuel is very cheap.

It seems like a complete waste to shut down a nuclear power plant because natural gas prices are low, right now. Natural gas prices have been extremely volatile in the past and there is absolutely no guarantee that they will remain low in the future. The federal government is also inhibiting nuclear energy by providing subsidies for renewables. Nuclear energy also emits no greenhouse gas emissions and should have access to this funding if it is provided to other "green" forms of energy.

Many people argue that the United States is a free market and that the government should not choose favorites by providing subsidies to some forms of energy and not others. This is a very controversial subject, especially in the debate of climate change and trying to reduce carbon emissions.

People in the nuclear community say that existing nuclear power plants are assets to this country because of the high initial investment, reliable baseload power, and number of jobs that they provide. Exelon argues that it should be payed a higher price for baseload electricity over intermittent electricity from wind and solar generators. 

Should the government intervene by subsidizing nuclear power plants to stay open or let the "free market" take over?

By Lenka Kollar

The nuclear deal with Iran negotiated last November goes into effect this week. Iran has stopped enriching uranium above 5% U-235 at the Natanz and Fordo facilities and has begun downblending its stockpile of 20% enriched uranium. This is all in exchange for relief from some US and EU sanctions that could amount to about $7 billion in petrochemical exports. However, most of the sanctions that began in 2006 will remain in force. (Read more on BBC News.)

Inspectors from the International Atomic Energy Agency (IAEA) have are also gaining access to the Iranian enrichment facilities this week to perform inspections to ensure that Iran is not enriching uranium above normal (commercial) amounts. These inspections are required by the Non-Proliferation Treaty to which Iran is a signatory. Iran has a history of not giving inspectors full access and thus raising suspicious about their nuclear activities. (Read more on NPR.)

The enrichment program of Iran has been suspicious because even though they claim it is for uranium production for their commercial nuclear energy plant, they have enriched uranium above needed commercial levels and also not allowed the IAEA full access (as required by the treaty). Under the same treaty, Iran absolutely has the right to enrich uranium for peaceful nuclear energy production. However, they must remain transparent in their program.

In my personal opinion, I think that in their initial motivation, Iran did want to enrich uranium for both ensured nuclear fuel supply and the ability to break out into developing nuclear weapons if tensions in the region worsened. Now, I think that Iran is suffering under the sanctions and wants to adhere to the treaty but is not willing to give up it's enrichment program. What do you think?

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

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

By Lenka Kollar

On September 7, 2011, the U.S. Department of Energy (DOE) issued a notice of proposed rulemaking to propose the first comprehensive updating of regulations concerning Assistance to Foreign Atomic Energy Activities (10 CFR Part 810) since 1986. After a comment and review period, DOE published a supplemental notice of proposed rulemaking on August 2, 2013. The first public meeting on the supplemental notice was held on August 5 and then a second public meeting on November 15. Since I was in Washington, DC, last week, I had the chance to attend the second public meeting.

The issues discussed in the Nuclear Undone blog post earlier this week on nonproliferation versus nuclear trade were the same issues discussed at the public meeting. How can the government promote nuclear trade while meeting nonproliferation goals and obligations? Government officials from DOE, State Dept., Dept. of Commerce, and Nuclear Regulatory Commission gave presentations and answered questions. Present at the meeting were representatives from different U.S. nuclear companies and non-government organizations, such as the American Nuclear Society. 

"Part 810" is a set of regulations that implements Section 57 b.(2) of the Atomic Energy Act 1954. In order for a U.S. entity to export nuclear or related technology, they must apply for a license through DOE. This process has been called "slow, opaque, and unpredictable." Industry officials claim that this it is one of the slowest and most involved export control processes in the world, and thus inhibits trade. Aside from the regulatory changes, DOE is planning to "fix the process and improve overall implementation," which includes developing an e-licensing system and creating a users guide. The goal is for the licensing process to take a maximum of 90 days.

These procedural improvements come in addition to the regulatory changes, including changes to the list of countries classified under Specific Authorization (SA) and General Authorization (GA). Licenses for exports going to specifically authorized countries require a more rigorous review than those going to generally authorized countries because of elevated proliferation risk. Usually countries that have a 123 Agreement with the United States are generally authorized. 

The proposed rulemaking includes a reclassification of 80 countries to specific authorization because they have no 123 Agreement and little or no nuclear trade with the United States. Three countries, Ukraine, United Arab Emirates (UAE), and Kazakhstan, will be reclassified for general authorization. An economic impact study (pictured above) of this proposed reclassification shows that the general to specific authorization (GA to SA) category of countries will have a very small fraction of future U.S. nuclear trade (0.67%), and thus no economic impact. However, the study also shows that 55% of U.S. nuclear trade will still be with countries that are speficially authorized and need a more rigorous license review. In particular, China, India, and Russia have 123 Agreements with the United States but require specific authorization under Part 810. The nuclear industry is concerned about this and wants to propose an "intermediate" category between specific and general authorization, allowing for robust trade with major nuclear partners. 

The general feel of the public meeting was that both the government and industry want to make the Part 810 export control license more transparent and robust. However, the industry's major concern is with how lengthy the process is , especially when a country is specifically authorized. You can read more about the Part 810 rulemaking and see slides and transcripts from the public meeting on the DOE/NNSA website. You can also learn more about the industry's concerns on the Nuclear Energy Institute website. 

The public comment period to the proposed Part 810 rulemaking is open until November 29, 2013. Click here for more information.

By Lenka Kollar

The commercial nuclear industry is unique in that it was essentially born out of weapons and military programs. The technology used to develop nuclear weapons was also found to be beneficial for energy production, and thus nuclear reactors to power submarines and then to produce commercial electricity were developed. Nuclear technology inherently has the risk of weapons proliferation and must be controlled. Most countries with nuclear industries, including the United States, have stringent export control laws that control the trade of nuclear (and related) technology. These laws control the international exports of things like nuclear reactor designs, nuclear fuel, and even accelerometers that could be used in a weapon missile. The nuclear industry often complains that the U.S. export control laws are too stringent, inhibiting trade. At the same time, those in the nonproliferation community often say that they are not strict enough, because of the historical cases in which countries have obtained nuclear technology and developed nuclear weapons.

It seems that nonproliferation and nuclear trade are often at odds with each other. Could both the nonproliferation regime and nuclear trade be strengthened if the "versus" was removed the the two sides worked together? A recent American Nuclear Society position statement makes the point that U.S. global nuclear leadership is strengthened through export-driven engagement. In other words, we have a better seat at the "nonproliferation table" if we are a leader in the nuclear energy industry. Right now, the United States is losing dominance of the global nuclear industry because of several reasons, one of which may be strict export control laws. In order for a country to do significant nuclear business with the United States, they must negotiate a so-called "123 Agreement." 

By Lenka Kollar


There is an embedded topical meeting on nuclear nonproliferation at the American Nuclear Society (ANS) conference in Washington, DC this week. A common theme among speakers and attendees is about how effective the nuclear nonproliferation regime has been. The regime includes many measures instituted by countries and international organizations to mitigate the spread of technology and material that can be used for nuclear weapons and to disarm the current fleet of nuclear weapons. 

The Non-Proliferation Treaty (NPT) is the cornerstone of this regime and signed by 190 countries. President John F. Kennedy said that this treaty was important because he warned that there would be dozens of nuclear weapons states by now. There are currently five countries recognized as "weapons states" by the NPT, including the United States, Russia, China, France, and United Kingdom. There are three countries commonly known to have nuclear weapons, India, Pakistan, and Israel, and they are not signatories to the NPT. Finally, there are a couple of countries that are accused of violating the treaty by attempting to develop nuclear weapons. Therefore, it can be said that the NPT has been successful because there are a total of 8-10 countries that have nuclear weapons, and not dozens, as was predicted in the 1960s.

Former U.S. Senator Sam Nunn (also founder of the Nuclear Threat Institute) was a speaker at the ANS conference opening plenary on Monday and shared his concerns about the nonproliferation regime. He stated that the biggest issue today is the security of nuclear materials and technologies from rogue and terrorist organizations. Currently there is no global regime for nuclear security but there are many measures being taken by the United States and other countries, as explained by Laura Holgate (Senior Director, National Security Council) during the nonproliferation opening plenary on Tuesday. 

In the same session, Rose Gottemoeller (Undersecretary for Arms Control and International Security) stated that the Non-Proliferation Treaty has been successful. She also highlighted that disarmament of nuclear weapons between Russia and the United States is moving along. Did you know that about 10% of the total electricity in the United States comes from old Soviet weapons? Russia actually dismantles nuclear weapons and downblends the uranium to a concentration that cannot be used for weapons. This uranium is then sent to the United States and fabricating into fuel for our commercial reactors. The fuel is the same as the regular fuel that is used in reactors, where the uranium is mined from the ground instead of downblended from nuclear weapons.

It seems that the government officials implementing policies and programs (Gottemoeller and Holgate) are more optimistic about the nonproliferation regime than those outside of the government that are advocating for more action (Nunn).

Do you think the nuclear nonproliferation regime is effective?

The American Nuclear Society (ANS) Winter Meeting in Washington, DC, is underway with the opening plenary this morning featuring prominent speakers from  industry, government, and congress (former). A common topic between some of the speakers has been climate change, which is surprising because the ANS has traditionally not addressed the issue of climate change because we are a technical organization for nuclear technology, and do not research climate science. However, many ANS members strongly believe that nuclear energy needs to be a large part of the energy mix in order to mitigate the effects of climate change.

The opening plenary featured current U.S. Secretary of Energy, Ernest Moniz (pictured above), who outlined the President's action plan for addressing climate change. The three pillars of his plan are mitigation, adaptation, and international cooperation. Most notably, the plan is based entirely on existing authorities and not new legislation. This means that organizations within the government can use their current authority to institute rules or procedures to achieve the goals in the climate action plan. For example, the Environmental Protection Agency (EPA) is making rules for power plants that include carbon capture. Also speaking in the opening plenary, James Rogers, the board chairman of Duke Energy (one of the largest nuclear power plant operators), has a different opinion. He states that addressing climate change should be the role of Congress and not the EPA and that new climate change and energy legislation is needed.

The American Nuclear Society recently issued a policy statement on Nuclear Energy's Role in Climate Change Policy which states:

Secretary Moniz cautions against usithe statement that the science of climate change is still maturing. We do not want to devalue the science that does exist and we need to make the point that actions on mitigating climate change need to happen now. Moniz also states that there is not one magic solution to meeting our energy needs and that we must take an "all of the above" approach. Low-carbon solutions will be different across the world and different in regions across the United States. What works for one area, like solar in the Southwest, will not necessarily work in other regions. The ANS also agrees that nuclear energy is not the solution, but rather that nuclear energy needs to be included in the energy mix in order to effectively mitigate climate change.

Do you think new legislation is needed to address climate change in the United States or are existing authorities (e.g. EPA rules) enough?