Throughout all of the friendship rekindling and awkward Zoom reunions over the past year the questions I got most were “Where are you and are you still doing that nuclear thing?” To the second question, the short answer is yes. Considering my last newsletter was sent 14 months ago — arguably an anti-growth strategy for readership — I realized it was time to share a personal update and some commentary on the exciting things that have been happening in the nuclear energy and climate world(s).
In January I finally began a master’s program in nuclear engineering at the University of Michigan in Ann Arbor with an expected graduation date of December 2022. “Finally” is in reference to the time and preparation this process has taken, which started at the beginning of 2017 after I had become sufficiently consumed by the range of possibilities and conflicts associated with nuclear power as a solution to climate change. My undergraduate degree in Political and Social Thought was a formative experience but it turns out that comparative political theory doesn’t help much when calculating integrals.
The entire process officially began at the end of 2016 when I looked up the U.S. News academic program rankings for “nuclear engineering” and cold emailed the top 25 programs that were listed. My message was simple:
- This is who I am
- These are the classes I plan to take to prepare
- Will I be considered?
Responses ranged from “Yes” to my personal favorite:
I’m not sure how to respond to your email. If you submit an application it will be reviewed by faculty. Students from other disciplines have been admitted to [program] but not politics.
None of the responses was a “no”, which was good enough for me and that March I embarked on a part-time post-baccalaureate in mechanical engineering that would prepare me for graduate coursework. I chose classes based on where they were cheapest and would fit into my work schedule, so three years and six transcripts later I had successfully built Frankenstein’s Monster in the form of a grad school application. Last April I accepted an offer at the University of Michigan.
As a graduate student pursuing a Master of Science in Nuclear Engineering, my education is paid for by two organizations that are interested in the research I’m doing alongside my coursework. These organizations are the National Reactor Innovation Center (NRIC) at Idaho National Laboratory and the Fastest Path to Zero initiative within the UMich nuclear engineering department (NERS).
NRIC was founded in September of 2018 by the passage of the bipartisan Nuclear Energy Innovation Capabilities Act of 2017 (NEICA). As a U.S. Department of Energy program, its mandate is to provide nuclear energy startups with the resources needed to build and demonstrate their technologies, which for now exist almost entirely as computer models. The director, Dr. Ashley Finan, is my former boss at the Nuclear Innovation Alliance and the deputy director of NRIC, Nick Smith, played football for the New York Jets briefly before becoming an engineer and working in the power sector. NRIC is entirely focused on the ways in which nuclear power can be done better in the 21st century. This includes empowering young companies designing innovative nuclear energy concepts, being proactive about the environmental and social impacts of nuclear, addressing cost and market concerns, and more actively engaging with stakeholders throughout the construction and operation of nuclear power plants.
The Fastest Path to Zero Initiative at UMich is built on the understanding that there is no one-size-fits-all approach to community-scale climate solutions. The program offers a variety of assessment, siting, and reporting tools to help communities transform their energy systems while adapting to a changing climate. The Founding Director, Dr. Todd Allen, is the dean of the nuclear engineering department and has driven a lot of the change in the advanced nuclear sector through his roles in the U.S. federal laboratory system and academia. Suzy Baker is the Creative Director and throughout her career has built initiatives and tools to empower communities engaged with nuclear power technologies. She is also one of the co-founders of Good Energy Collective, a progressive nuclear energy think tank that’s been featured recently in the the New York Times and Vox.
These two initiatives are defining their roles against the backdrop of increased attention being placed on nuclear power as a climate solution. The Biden Administration’s COVID relief bill back in March invested heavily in the climate response and the proposed American Jobs Plan could be critical for jump-starting a prolonged transformation of our fossil-fueled economy. Support for the demonstration and commercialization of advanced reactors continues to be featured alongside investments in other next generation zero-emission technologies.
Progressive environmental groups are also changing their stance on the technology. A recent letter to the Biden administration written in support of a “Clean Electricity Standard” that implicitly includes technologies like nuclear was signed by groups including the Center for American Progress, Data for Progress, Environmental Defense Fund, League of Conservation Voters, Sierra Club, Sunrise Movement, and Union of Concerned Scientists. For the first time in over 50 years, the Democrat’s Party Platform supports a technology-neutral approach to addressing climate change, which includes zero-carbon technologies like nuclear power. Support for nuclear has increased largely in light of events like the recent closure of Indian Point nuclear power plant, located 35 miles north of New York City. In its first month after the plants closure, New York’s carbon emissions increased significantly:
While the increased support is welcome, the advanced nuclear industry has a lot of work to do this decade: it will need to make up for the last half-century in which the sector has not innovated. This period of stasis has resulted in obsolescence on nearly all fronts: technologies, business models, social license, public policies, regulations, and public awareness. One exception may be the development of record-breaking power plant decommissioning capabilities.
The need for low-carbon energy presents nuclear power with an unlikely second chance, but the work required to rise to the occasion is fundamentally different from the first period of nuclear innovation in the mid 20th century. Energy markets and social appetite have each shifted significantly and unresolved issues like the management of nuclear waste on both the front and back ends of the fuel cycle as well as construction costs for new plants continue to place a ceiling on public trust in the sector.
In the latest edition of Issues in Science and Technology, the academic journal put out by the The National Academies of Sciences, Engineering, and Medicine, some of my colleagues at UMich contributed to a trio of articles on these specific issues. This includes the potential for nuclear power to become more local and democratically-managed, nuclear waste’s geographical and environmental equity and justice implications, and a critique of the nuclear engineering discipline itself. The positive responses I’ve seen suggest that there’s a community of people within the sector who are willing to engage with the complex reasons that nuclear energy technologies are not popular. This was one of my favorite quotes from the nuclear engineering piece:
We are two academics trained within this discipline who do not identify with either side of the anti-pro nuclear divide. Nor do we necessarily even share with each other the same vision of the future and fate of nuclear technologies. Yet we agree (as do many nuclear professionals today) that the past and present dilemmas of our field — technical, social, political, economic, and ethical — are profound, and cannot be solved by simply picking a side and working within it. We also agree that in order to engage with the discontents of our field in a meaningful, productive way, we nuclear engineers must, irrespective of the future of the field and its technologies, learn to engage with its contradictions much more attentively than we have in the past — even if these contradictions ultimately remain unresolvable.
Working with this team at Michigan has been inspiring and has elevated my research, which examines stakeholder engagement and environmental justice considerations for the siting of advanced nuclear power plants.
Siting is focused on the question of “where do we build this thing?” In the case of a power plant, this problem is traditionally approached in the same way as an engineered system. It includes optimizing for factors like local workforce availability or identifying required geophysical conditions like proximity to bodies of water to feed cooling systems. Socio-political factors, while of equal importance to the success of a power plant project, are less understood and as a result often overlooked. The result has been a siting process known as “decide-announce-defend”, in which groups of experts oversee top-down decision making and public management and minimize public and stakeholder participation.
In the best cases for developers, this can lead to a speedy and expeditious siting and permitting process. One private wind energy developer I interviewed explained that project success generally relied on being hyper-prepared for mandatory public hearings so as to answer all questions and preclude any future or prolonged public events. In the worst cases, this approach can be disastrous. In response to public opposition, the Shoreham Nuclear Power Plant on Long Island, New York was forced to shut down in 1989 at a cost of over $6 billion after completing construction and operating for less than three years.
Anti-democratic vibes aside (for now. I look forward to examining this topic more), these types of aggressive siting strategies introduce unnecessary risk to infrastructure projects. When siting energy facilities in communities, there are a range of assurances that community members need to have. This includes an understanding of how the project will benefit and impact them as well as the knowledge that they are not being singled out and targeted. There are emerging public engagement models within the energy sector that demonstrate how trust can be built in these situations. My focus is on adapting these to the needs and nuances of nuclear power facilities in the 21st century.
This research is challenging for a number of reasons, not least of which is the fact that the most recent nuclear power plant in the U.S. was sited and began construction before 1980. However, advanced reactor companies are developing a range of technologies in new shapes and sizes that increase the overall flexibility and adaptability of nuclear power. Several projects throughout the U.S. Rocky Mountain region demonstrate why this is important.
Utah Associated Municipal Power Systems (UAMPS) is a public utility serving communities in Utah, California, Idaho, Nevada, New Mexico and Wyoming. The utility’s Carbon Free Power Project is proposing to use small modular reactors (SMRs) built by Nuscale Power to help address increasing clean energy demand in the region. The process so far has been notable for its public engagement structure, in which cities have had the opportunity to opt in or opt out of the project at various points along the project timeline. This has ensured that communities have the power to make their own energy decisions based on their own risk/benefit calculations.
The private nuclear energy startup Oklo is currently developing its 1.5 MW “Aurora” micro-reactor, which is being proposed as a community-scale energy solution that can provide power and heat for roughly 1,000 homes. The company believe that the size, which is significantly smaller than conventional 1000 MW nuclear power plants, will for the first time give smaller communities the option of using nuclear for their energy needs.
Terrapower, the nuclear energy company founded by Bill Gates, made headlines last month by announcing that in partnership with the utility Rocky Mountain Power they will build their first commercial power plant in Wyoming at the site of a retiring coal plant. The siting approach is exciting because there are currently four candidate plants within the state and the final location will be decided via direct engagement with communities, labor unions, and other stakeholders. The strategy is also exciting as it provides an opportunity for fossil fuel communities and workers to transition into the clean energy economy without forfeiting their livelihoods. The project aims to retrain coal plant workers as reactor operators, one of the highest-paying power plants jobs in the U.S. At the national and international levels, this specific type of community-level energy transition is what could help to build broader political support for the accelerated transition to a zero-carbon power sector.
Some more interesting stories:
- It turns out that the parents of Zac Efron (the High School Musical one) met while working at Diablo Canyon nuclear power plant in San Luis Obispo County, California.
- I was recently invited by the International Atomic Energy Agency to speak on a panel titled Young Voices on Nuclear’s Contribution to a Net Zero World. My presentation focused on the potential for nuclear technology to support fossil fuel communities and you can find a recording here.
- The Energy Communities Alliance is a coalition made up of cities that host U.S. Department of Energy facilities. The group has started an initiative focused on actively soliciting the construction of advanced reactors in their communities.
- Finland Might Have Solved Nuclear Power’s Biggest Problem: Nuclear waste is a socio-technical problem that most countries have failed to address because they treat it as only a technical one. Finland’s nuclear waste program was successful in finding a location for their repository after establishing a national siting program in which multiple communities learned about the project and competed to become hosts. This video explains the nuclear waste problem as well as the Finns’ approach to addressing it.
- Migration issues on the U.S.-Mexico border have intensified over the last six months and This New York Times Magazine feature from last summer titled The Great Climate Migration Has Begun shines some light on the causes. A quote that stuck with me: “If we are going to die anyway,” he said, “we might as well die trying to get to the United States.”
- IEA: Net Zero by 2050: The International Energy Agency recently released a landmark report outlining a roadmap for the energy sector to achieve net zero emissions by mid-century. There’s an interactive page for the report that’s well-designed and helps to communicate the work that needs to be done over the next three decades.
- NDB, Inc. is developing a Nano Diamond Battery powered by nuclear waste that could keep your phone charged for 9 years straight.
- Painting Wind Turbine Blades Black Help Birds Avoid Deadly Collisions: A study from last year found the simple intervention reduced bird mortality by 72 percent
- Coca-Cola is putting CO2 captured from the air into its soft drinks. I don’t know if this is a solution to anything but it’s cute.
Music:
After enrolling at the University of Michigan I joined the student radio station WCBN-FM Ann Arbor and now have a weekly show on Saturdays at 5pm ET. You can listen live on their website or listen back to some of the recordings that I’ve posted on my soundcloud. It’s 98% music plus 2% me on the mic giving track IDs and 100% family-friendly as mandated by the FCC’s rules on broadcasting outside of safe harbor hours!
