By Lenka Kollar

I'm currently participating in the Abu Dhabi Action Learning Module sponsored by INSEAD and the UAE. We have a great group of 45 students from all over the world, some of which have worked in the region and others, like me, that have no experience here but are very interested.

The UAE was founded in 1972 by a conglomeration of seven emirates with Abu Dhabi as the capitol. The economy predominately depends on oil exports and has thus created a tremendous amount of wealth in the country. Unlike other prosperous nations, the wealth came before industrial development and the UAE is now using the wealth created by a resource-based economy to diversify into the industrial and technology sectors.

Mubadala is a government mandated investment fund to diversify the UAE's industry from oil and gas for a sustainable future economy. The fund represents about 10% of the wealth from oil resources. One sector that Mubadala has focused on is aerospace manufacturing. The Strata plant produces parts for Airbus and employs many local employees, 85% of which are women. Global partnerships bring industry to UAE. The Siemens regional headqaurters, for example, is in the new Masdar City, which is the first fully sustainable city in the world. The Masdar Institute conducts research in sustainability and renewables.

Other Mubadala investment projects include renewables, utilities, healthcare, and other segments of the oil industry. Under a separate mandate, the UAE is also investing in nuclear energy.

The Women Matter report focusing on women in the GCC (Bahrain, Kuwait, Oman, Qatar, Saudi Arabia, and the UAE) found that a few key women have made it top leadership roles in companies and that it needs to go "from the first to the norm."

An action plan for doing this includes:

• Top management commitment to gender diversity by making it a strategic priority
• Leadership development programs that support women in finding their path towards leadership
• Providing training in recognizing and overcoming biases
• Collective enablers and policies that formally reinforce this change

While the path to changing women's influence and status in the workplace is long and difficult, we are well on the way and need to keep building the momentum to facilitate change. We recognize the need and now we need to implement concrete steps within organizations and make sure that they are fully realized.

By Lenka Kollar

Disruptive technologies are constantly changing our lives and the way society functions. It used to take decades for new technologies to be adopted nationwide or worldwide but now it is taking only 5-7 years for full adoption, according to an analysis by the McKinsey Global Institute (MGI).

Dr. Jacques Bughin of MGI recently gave a presentation on disruptive technologies at INSEAD. He discussed the top new technologies that are or will soon be disrupting the economy (read the MGI report here). They include:

• Advanced materials
  
• Advanced robotics
  
• Advanced oil and gas exploration and recovery
  
• Energy storage
  
• Next generation genomics
  
• 3D printing
  
• Mobile internet
  
• Automation of work
  
• Internet of things
  
• Cloud technology
  
• Autonomous vehicles
  
• Renewable energy

Of course, I would like to focus on the disruption occurring in energy. There is clearly a natural gas exploration boom occurring, especially in the United States, that is disrupting the electricity sector with very low prices. This has caused numerous nuclear power plants to close or consider closing because of the high relative cost. In addition, subsidies for renewable energy are also making it less expensive. But is the government choosing which technologies to subsidize and which not, is it really economically disruptive?

When energy storage, both on the small and large scale, is perfected, it will surely be disruptive to the energy sector. More efficient small batteries will revolutionize personal device usage. Medium-sized batteries for are becoming more and more utilized in vehicles but still have limitations. Large scale energy storage technology for electricity will allow wind and solar energy to be more viable. More efficient electricity transition would also disrupt the energy sector.

In my operations class at INSEAD, Prof. Karan Girotra argues that it is not new technologies but innovative business models that disrupt the economy. For example, the innovation of the iPhone would have been nothing without the efficient production capacity and marketing of Apple. Keeping this in mind, I think that advanced nuclear technology has the potential to disrupt the energy sector but needs better business models to bring it to life. Small modular reactors can be a game changer but must be efficiently manufactured, shipped, and installed in order to capitalize on the large scale. We have the nuclear technology to disrupt the energy sector but now we need proper implementation.

By Lenka Kollar

Unprecedented catastrophes can happen in many industries, from energy to transportation to space. Some are caused by man-made errors while others by severe weather or other uncontrollable conditions. Regardless of the cause or magnitude, any perceived major crisis will get media attention and likely have a negative affect on that industry and/or company. 

The economic affects on a company or industry after a severe accident are generally dependent on the status of the industry before the event, according to a study by The Boston Consulting Group (BCG) on the Deepwater Horizon disaster (pictured above). Industries and companies with positive public perception and economic growth before a catastrophic event will be able to better bounce back afterwards. While sectors with a negative perception are more likely to experience very negative affects or even die out after a crisis.

While governments attempt to respond to these accidents, regulations and policy changes are usually quite limited and very local. In addition, BCG states that the impact on the industry largely depends on the existence of economic alternatives and public perception. The huge amounts of effort that firms put into risk identification and mitigation could perhaps be better spent on preparing better crisis response.

This theory can be applied to the nuclear industry because severe accidents, such as at Fukushima Daiichi in Japan, are extremely unlikely and difficult to predict, especially if they are caused by uncontrollable conditions. More preparation can be spent on the response effort required after an accident. Nuclear power plants in the United States already have robust emergency planning involving the community, state, and country that can go into effect immediately during an accident. But these response efforts should be reevaluated and possibly redesigned to make sure that they do not cause panic in the community and include accurate information dissemination to the media and public. The accident at Fukushima can be used as a case study to come up with more effective methods in dealing with an unpredictable crisis in a way that keeps the public safe and the industry functioning after.

We discussed before how the EPA's Clean Power Plan ignores nuclear and there's still time to submit your public comments by December 1st. It is important that the EPA here's from you that they should:

1. Treat existing plants equally by including 100% of their current output in the baseline CO2 calculation.
2. Allow states with new plants under construction to count their clean energy generation toward their EPA emissions target.

Submit comments to the EPA here!

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

It's been a year since I established Nuclear Undone and wrote the first blog post in order to educate the public and policymakers about nuclear energy and nonproliferation issues. In just the first year, we've been approached by many different clients to research and solve complex nuclear issues. We've also reached out to the public and grown in outreach efforts to policymakers. Thanks to all who have contributed and supported us!

What's next? As you may know, I'm currently studying at INSEAD in France/Singapore to obtain my MBA. During this time, I'm working on the strategic path forward for Nuclear Undone. If you have any ideas for outreach projects and how to fund them, or if you're interested in joining the team, please feel free to comment or contact us. 

Thanks again for following!

By Lenka Kollar

This is a follow up to the post on Nuclear Energy's Role in Sustainable Development, finalist in the Masdar blogging contest for Abu Dhabi Sustainability Week 2014.

Energy demand in the UAE is growing by about 9% per year and to meet this demand, the nation is one of the first in nearly thirty years to develop a new nuclear energy program. The Emirates Nuclear Energy Corporation (ENEC) estimates that a quarter of the UAE electricity supply will be produced by nuclear energy by 2020. The country is committed to developing a safe and secure nuclear energy program with assistance from current nuclear energy countries and the International Atomic Energy Agency (IAEA). 

There are currently four reactor units planned at the Barakah Nuclear Power Plant using the Korean (KEPCO) APR-1400 design, meaning that each unit will produce a total of 1400 MW of electricity. As of September 2014, the first unit (pictured above) is already over halfway constructed and is planned to open in 2017, with the other three units opening each year after that until 2020. 

The UAE and KEPCO-led consortium are working closely with the IAEA to ensure that the nuclear power plant is constructed and operated in a safe and secure way. Because of tensions in the region, some are concerned about nuclear weapons proliferation from the spread of nuclear technology. The IAEA institutes safeguards and inspections in all nuclear energy countries to detect the diversion of nuclear material and facilities into non-peaceful uses. The UAE is a signatory to the Nonproliferation Treaty and committed to working with the IAEA in the development of its nuclear energy program. The country even decided to forgo sensitive nuclear technologies (enrichment and reprocessing) and rely on outside fuel suppliers. 

As the first newcomer in nearly 30 years, it will be interesting to see how the UAE develops its nuclear energy program and leads the way for other nations in the region to follow.

Find out more about the UAE Nuclear Energy Program on the World Nuclear Association website.

By Lenka Kollar

While studying my MBA at INSEAD, I'm having the opportunity to learn about the nuclear energy program in France. Even though the United States has the largest number of nuclear power plants, France derives the largest portion of electricity from nuclear power in the world, at about 75%. France has a long-standing policy for energy security and even recycles their nuclear fuel for greater efficiency. 

France is the world's largest net exporter of electricity due to its very low cost of generation, and gains over 3 billion euro per year from this. Meanwhile, the neighboring country of Germany is shutting down its nuclear power program mainly due to public opposition, and is now, ironically, importing (nuclear) electricity from France.

It's interesting to see people's reactions here in France when I tell them that I'm a nuclear engineer, as compared to other countries. The French respect nuclear energy and are very positive about the technology and what it can provide. The positive public opinion is largely due to education. Young students learn about nuclear energy as part of their regular curriculum, as evidenced by my classmate Claire-Elise who grew up in France:

This quote proves that education is extremely important in the public perception of nuclear energy. Taking away the "fear of the unknown" is key for effectively communicating about nuclear technology.

By Lenka Kollar

Last month I was on a regional train from Trnava to Bratislava in Slovakia accompanying my aunt who makes this trip every day for work. The train is connected to an electric line above the track, which naturally got me thinking about energy. The Bohunice Nuclear Power Plant supplies most of the electricity in this region so I thought it was pretty neat that I'm using public transportation power by nuclear energy. A robust transportation system connected to an electric grid with dependable and clean nuclear energy can really reduce dependence on fossil fuels and cut carbon emissions, which is already being done in some areas, as evidenced by Slovakia.

My parents are from Slovakia and most of my extended family still lives there, so I visit quite often. Slovaks are very favorable of nuclear energy, probably because it provides about half of their electricity. It is dependable and cheap and the plants provide jobs. There are two power plants with a total of four nuclear reactors and two more under construction. A new reactor block at Bohunice is also planned.

When he still lived in Slovakia, my father actually worked on the district heating system from the Bohunice plant to Trnava. Large pipes transport excess heat (in the form of steam) from the power plant to the city and provide heat for large buildings. This is a very energy efficient and sustainable process and is prevalent in Eastern Europe and Russia. The steam line is usually the tertiary loop so it is not radioactive.

Energy independence in Eastern Europe is important and especially as tensions between the US/EU and Russia arise. Slovaks are also concerned about UN sanctions against Russia because their nuclear technology is Russian so they need to be able to work with Russian companies and buy Russian parts. Worldwide tensions can have serious implications on the energy sector in Europe.