That's what Kirk Sorensen, of Flibe Energy, answers when people ask him if nuclear energy is safe. When explaining the benefits of the Liquid Fluoride Thorium Reactor (LFTR) in the video above, he makes the point that there are many more technologies available to produce electricity from nuclear energy. LFTR is one of these and is different from traditional nuclear energy in use today in that is utilizes a liquid thorium fuel instead of solid uranium fuel that needs to be cooled by water.

Thorium is four times as more common in the Earth's crust than uranium and can also be utilized more efficiently in a reactor. The safety issues in traditional pressurized water reactors stem from the fact that the solid uranium fuel must be cooled by water that is kept at a high pressure. Because of this, safety systems are needed to cover the core with water and cool it in case of an accident.

The LFTR utilizes fluoride salt as a nuclear fuel and therefore doesn't use water for cooling and doesn't have to operate at a high pressure. This means that the core will not 'meltdown' in the case of an accident.
 
Although the current commercial nuclear reactors in operation around the world are safe, there are more advanced nuclear technologies that are even more safe and efficient. We are currently operating only the second generation of nuclear reactors. Imagine if we were still using the second generation of other technologies, like the car or the cell phone? It's time to invest in and develop these advanced nuclear technologies to meet the world's growing energy needs in a clean and sustainable manner.

By Lenka Kollar

During my MBA at INSEAD, I've had the chance to take classes at the Abu Dhabi campus and do projects related to the UAE's move towards a knowledge-based economy. In order to have a sustainable industry based on technology and innovation, a trained workforce is needed to feed it. Science, technology, engineering, and math (STEM) education is crucial to foster a culture of innovation. Students have to gain interest in STEM at an early level to then choose to study it at university and form a career in STEM.

While in Abu Dhabi last week, I participated in the Google STEM Forum, also hosted by the Al Bayt Mitwahid Association. The was event aimed at bringing policymakers, technology companies, educators and non-profits together to promote innovation in science and technology through partnerships in education, programs, and research. (Read more about the event here.)

My INSEAD classmate, David Nothacker, and I had the opportunity to present our class project on STEM, in which we analyzed the culture, education, infrastructure, incentives, industry, and governance of STEM in different countries. We derived best practices from each of these levers to gain insights for Abu Dhabi and the UAE in transitioning towards a knowledge-based economy.

We also learned about the STEM education initiatives of Google in the region. In particular, they established an innovation hub in partnership with Al Bayt Mitwahid that gives students an opportunity to gain hands-on experience with robotics. This fosters a culture of innovation and gets kids excited about studying science and technology and pursuing careers in these fields. The video below sends a very inspiring message.

This was a very exciting project and experience for me because I'm very passionate about revitalizing STEM education and I've worked on nuclear science outreach to students in the U.S. I'm primarily concerned about the diversity of students in STEM, especially women. It's great to see that the government, industry, and schools are working together to get kids excited about science.

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

Last month the European Commission announced their plan to integrate all 28 national energy markets of the EU, with the main goal of independence from energy imports (i.e. gas from Russia). The current fragmented system will be transformed into an "Energy Union" where gas and electricity are freely transported within Europe.

The EU as a whole is the largest importer of natural gas in the world and many member states are 100% dependent on Russia for gas. To alleviate this dependence, the EU plans to build a new “southern corridor” that will pump gas from the Caspian basin to Europe via Turkey.

An EU-wide regulatory framework will also call for a unified energy policy, which may prove to be a challenge. Will Germany and Austria be able to agree on a policy that includes nuclear energy? How will renewables be leveraged in a larger, more complicated market? The EU's target is to have nearly a third of electricity from clean energy by 2030. 

Each of the member states has different resources and different costs for producing electricity. A unified grid and gas network might mean that energy prices are reduced in some states at the expense of consumers in others. Formulating an energy strategy, taking into account all of the European stakeholders, will be complicated and likely involve intense negotiations between states. 

However, the benefits for an energy union are apparent: reduced dependence on gas imports, more options for consumers, and investment into a smarter grid to increase energy efficiency. And, maybe Germany will even reverse their nuclear energy phaseout mandate? 

By Lenka Kollar

My International Political Analysis class (above) at INSEAD ended in a bang today with an unlikely partnership between the United States and Russia. The class is all about the non-market environment in business and for the last two weeks, we've been doing a simulation centered around the nuclear energy industry, which is notorious for these non-market issues. In the nuclear industry, we are faced with challenges from all sides: policymakers, regulators, media, and the public. You can have the best technology in the world at the best price and still not be able to sell it because of political or public opinion issues. Therefore the nuclear industry was the perfect industry to learn about non-market strategy.

The simulation is centered around a bid for a new nuclear power plant in India. Classmates play different stakeholders, including the Indian Prime Minister and Cabinet, companies vying for the bid, heads of state, media, anti-nuclear activists such as Greenpeace, and civil society. I was allocated the CEO of Rosatom, not my first choice but it turned out to be quite an interesting role.

Our strategy in the simulation included positioning Rosatom as the nuclear company that could provide all services and leveraging the existing relationship between President Putin and Prime Minister Modi. We issued press releases and lobbied the Indian Ministers. It was certainly fun for me to have so much existing knowledge to add to the game and many of my classmates came to me to ask me about nuclear energy and the strategies they should deploy.

After two weeks of back and forth emails and chats between the stakeholders and posts by media in the simulation, we held a mock "World Economic Forum" in class where our aliases were revealed and the companies made their cases for the bid. Modi wanted to be on the good side of both the U.S. and Russia so he asked us to bid together. A Rosatom/Westinghouse partnership would of course be very unlikely (and illegal due to sanctions) but our proposal was still very attractive for India.

After questions from the press and deliberations by the Cabinet, our Rosatom/Westinghouse proposal was selected for the nuclear plant! This was exciting for me, obviously, but I did have an advantage over the others as a nuclear policy expert. It was a great chance for me to talk to the world's future business leaders about nuclear energy.

Some interesting things that came out of the simulation were that the companies were very eager to partner with each other and form consortiums for a nuclear power plant bid. This doesn't really happen in reality because of differing technologies by different companies. However, the rest of the simulation was quite reflective of the real business world with backdoor dealings between politicians, probing questions from media, and protests by Greenpeace. 

Even though my degrees are in nuclear engineering, I've focused on policy and public opinion issues in nuclear energy because they are what really drive the industry. All of the new reactor technologies are advanced and safe but need political and public support to be commissioned. With further analysis, you can see that the "Atoms for Peace" mentality is still very much alive because countries are using commercial nuclear reactors as a means for forging political relationships. This is evident by the recent agreements made between the U.S. and India on commercial nuclear energy. 

So if nuclear weapons are the currency of power, are nuclear reactors the currency of peace?

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 Lenka Kollar

Vote for my essay on Sustainable Urbanization in the Masdar Engage blogging contest here!

I had the chance to tour a unique development while visiting Abu Dhabi with INSEAD. As I wrote in my earlier posts, Wealth Before Development and Beyond the Oil Era, Abu Dhabi is investing in diversifying its economy from oil. One of these initiatives, sponsored by Mubadala, is Masdar City. This development is completely sustainable and carbon-neutral and currently houses the Masdar Institute of Science and Technology, in partnership with MIT. The following are some pictures and things I learned from the tour.

The entrance into Masdar City, you can already see the unique building structures and solar panels.

Many of the structures in the city are based on how previous generations kept their settlements cool before development. The artistic panels on the student dormitories provide privacy and shield the sun. The wind tower directs the cooler upper-level winds into the square below.

Looking out from Masdar City, you can see the 10 MW solar power plant (above) that feeds the grid. Because the plant produces more electricity during the day than the city needs, it does not directly power it. The first company to move into the city is Siemens, with its regional headquarters sustainable building shown below.

One of the original ideas was to have personal self-driving vehicles (shown below) to transport people around the city. However, the system ended up being to expensive and only a few vehicles were made to transport people from one end of the city to the other. They use magnets to keep the cars in line, but I bet that Google's GPS self-driving technology would be more effective.

Once completely constructed, Masdar City will be 6 sq. km and host 50,000 people for working and living. The model (shown above) includes sections for offices, living, education, and leisure. The research institute is already developing technologies revolved around sustainability and renewable energy. The UAE is actually the only OPEC national currently exporting both hydrocarbon and renewable energy. 

While Masdar could serve as a model for other sustainable cities, the types of buildings and processes needed drastically vary by climate. The sunny, dry heat of the desert of the desert in Abu Dhabi presents completely different challenges for saving electricity than the bitter cold winters in Chicago, for example. Because most of the growth in urbanization will happen in existing cities, Masdar should also research how to retrofit urban areas to make them more sustainable.

By Lenka Kollar

This post is written for Masdar's 2015 Engage Blogging Contest. See my post on Nuclear Energy's Role in Sustainable Development entered in last year's contest.

In the next 15 years, more and more people will move to cities as populations grow and countries expand from agriculture and resource based economies to technology and knowledge based economies. We can already see the strain that rapid urbanization has on existing cities as they struggle to keep up. Severe traffic and overcrowded public transportation is common. Housing is expensive and unavailable near city centers, where most of the jobs are. While it is relatively easy to build an efficient and sustainable city from scratch, retrofitting existing cities in a sustainable way to meet the demand for rapid urbanization will be the real challenge in the next 15 years.

Many older cities, such as in Europe, have done a good job providing public transportation by building extensive metro systems underground. Others have distributed the strain on transportation by creating industrial hubs outside of the city center. Some urban areas have designated plots of land for community gardens. These ideas from cities that have already changed to match growing urbanization can be used to inspire and plan for future growth in a sustainable way.

Multiple City Center Hubs
The classic commute into downtown in the morning and back to the suburbs is archaic and cities should rethink where and how they allow companies to establish offices and operations. One example is to designate industrial hubs within the city and suburbs. Having multiple “city centers” would distribute the commute and allow people to live closer to work. Clusters of companies in similar industry chains would allow them to still effectively do business with each other and also share industrial, community, and even human resources.

Smart Transportation
It is no doubt that personal vehicles are one of the biggest contributors to green house gas emissions and unsustainable practices within cities. While having multiple city centers may ease commute distance, urban areas need to completely rethink their transportation infrastructure to match rapid urbanization. Data and technology can be used to develop a smart transportation system that allocates supply to demand. For example, Google Maps can already tell you and compare what your options are for getting to your destination. This data can be used to plan individual routes that minimize travel time to ease the strain on transportation systems according to demand. Smart transportation planning can be very effective if used by everyone, and would be further enhanced by self-driving vehicles that talk to each other and plan the most effective routes as a whole system.

Functional Landscaping
Green space is important for the environment and the sanity of urbanites but it can come at a large cost of resources, such as water. Dry regions especially use significant resources to keeps lawns and parks green. Cities should work to match their landscaping to their climate by using indigenous plants. In addition, green spaces can serve many purposes, including growing fruits and vegetables, recreational areas, and animal habitats. Thinking of landscaping as functional instead of visual will allow for cities to make better use of green space and use valuable resources more effectively.

Rapid urbanization in the next 15 years will present many challenges to existing cities. They will need to look to the past to identify best practices in retrofitting for a new world. Major infrastructure evolutions in the past, such as in the change from horses to cars, have happened before. Urban areas can grow in a sustainable way but forward thinking and fresh ideas will be necessary.

The Abu Dhabi Economic Vision 2030 is an initiative to diversify the economy from oil and gas to other industrial sectors, as partly described in my earlier post on wealth before development. The UAE must diversify for fiscal, economic, socio-economic, and conservation reasons. The economy is vulnerable to oil prices and the oil industry itself does not create a lot of jobs within the country. 

The Khalifa Fund for Enterprise Development is funding small and medium businesses and has lent out over 1 billion dirhams to about 600 projects so far. Their idea is to foster an entrepreneurship culture within the UAE by identifying and encouraging citizens that are serious about starting a business and providing them with the necessary tools and funding. One interesting example is that Khalifa has funded artisans, mainly women, to design travel pouches for Etihad airlines.

Right now the economy is 70% resource (oil) based and 30% knowledge based. The Abu Dhabi Education Council is trying to flip this ratio. They've partners with top universities such as NYU and INSEAD to bring campuses to Abu Dhabi. In addition, only 20% of university graduates are in the STEM fields, but much more human capital in technology will be needed to support a knowledge-based economy.

One of the emerging sectors is renewable energy. The UAE is investing in renewable energy to diversify the energy supply, reduce carbon emissions, and create jobs. Renewables can also reduce water consumption for power generation by 19%. The International Renewable Energy Agency (IRENA) will actually have its new headquarters in Masdar City (pictured above).