Roundtables | Bulletin of the Atomic Scientists

Moving beyond the nuclear option

Jill Marie Parillo — Tue, 23 Dec 2008 12:10:11 -0800

Roundtable Topic: Managing the global growth of nuclear energy

President-elect Barack Obama has shown with his political appointments, campaign statements, and energy plans that his administration's take on nuclear power won't be a complete revolution from the Bush era, but rather a thoughtful series of evolutionary steps.

Let's get serious about nuclear waste management

Alan Hanson — Mon, 22 Dec 2008 11:28:24 -0800

Roundtable Topic: Managing the global growth of nuclear energy

A primary driving force behind the Global Nuclear Energy Partnership was to incentivize countries to voluntarily forgo building sensitive fuel-cycle facilities. Hence the twin ideas of a multinational or international fuel bank and cradle-to-grave fuel leasing (including spent-fuel take back). While progress is being made on the concept of a nuclear fuel bank, the same can't be said for take-back schemes. The main issue with the latter revolves around concerns over nuclear waste disposal.

Current nuclear technology isn't a cost-effective solution to U.S. energy, climate change, and security needs

Thomas B. Cochran — Wed, 10 Dec 2008 10:16:10 -0800

Roundtable Topic: Managing the global growth of nuclear energy

Miles Pomper and Stephen Goldberg have made several good suggestions regarding how the Obama administration should focus its nuclear energy efforts--i.e., encouraging developing countries that are considering nuclear power to forgo proliferation-sensitive uranium enrichment and spent fuel reprocessing facilities; using enhanced computer simulations to develop and qualify advanced high-burnup nuclear fuels for existing reactors; and promoting "smart grids," plug-in hybrid vehicles, and electric vehicles.

An international cap-and-trade system has flaws

David Weisbach — Mon, 24 Nov 2008 14:19:14 -0800

Roundtable Topic: Carbon tax vs. cap-and-trade

It's good to see the discussion turning to international issues, where it seems we have some disagreements and the most difficult issues arise. So far, the discussion has been noteworthy more for consensus than anything else. Although we learn from consensus, focusing on where we disagree is a better way to make progress. I suspect that part of the reason for our broad agreement is that none of us represents the major effected industries. In the political arena where these ideas ultimately have to pass muster, things won't be so easy.

An opportunity to explore nontraditional solutions

Stephen M. Goldberg — Fri, 21 Nov 2008 12:49:57 -0800

Roundtable Topic: Managing the global growth of nuclear energy

The International Energy Agency (IEA) recently published the latest edition of its World Energy Outlook. The report states that nuclear capacity must grow to at least 1.8 times current capacity by 2030 if global temperature increases are to be kept to 2 degrees Celsius. "[Political action] is urgently needed to ensure secure energy supplies and to curtail rising emissions of greenhouse gases," according to IEA Executive Director Nobou Tanaka in November.

How U.S. nuclear energy priorities change with an Obama administration

Miles A. Pomper — Wed, 12 Nov 2008 13:01:50 -0800

Roundtable Topic: Managing the global growth of nuclear energy

Last week's presidential election opens the door to new thinking when it comes to U.S. policies for managing the global growth of nuclear energy.

A cap-and-trade system would promote broad international participation

Gernot Wagner — Fri, 07 Nov 2008 10:46:58 -0800

Roundtable Topic: Carbon tax vs. cap-and-trade

We gladly take on David Weisbach and Jane Milne's challenge to focus on the international dimension. David argues that a tax dominates on this count. We strongly disagree. A cap-and-trade system allows for the creation of a global carbon market. Such a market would provide the mechanisms and flexibility necessary to achieve the environmental goals at the lowest cost and the incentives for other countries to join. A tax does neither, while requiring much more harmonization across countries.

We need a workable policy on nuclear waste and nonproliferation

Jill Marie Parillo — Fri, 07 Nov 2008 08:49:29 -0800

Roundtable Topic: Managing the global growth of nuclear energy

I disagree with Stephen Goldberg and Alan Hanson--just being at the table won't ensure our influence over new nuclear states. The Global Nuclear Energy Partnership (GNEP) puts U.S. international nonproliferation and nuclear safety objectives at risk.

Slow, measured nuclear energy growth is already happening

Alan Hanson — Fri, 31 Oct 2008 08:35:26 -0700

Roundtable Topic: Managing the global growth of nuclear energy

The extent to which Miles Pomper and I agree is greater than he realizes, as my underlying assumption is not that nuclear power is certain to undergo a "rapid" global expansion. While I'm certain that there will be an expansion and that it will be global--because it has already started--I'm equally certain that it won't be rapid.

We shouldn't assume that carbon taxes are less feasible than cap-and-trade

Janet E. Milne — Thu, 30 Oct 2008 07:18:58 -0700

Roundtable Topic: Carbon tax vs. cap-and-trade

We're developing a good list of criteria for assessing the pros and cons--environmental effectiveness, the relative risks of bad design, costs, simplicity, political feasibility, and implications for an international regime. David Weisbach raises a good point about the need to look at what might work internationally, which I hope we can discuss more. For now, though, I'd like to focus on environmental effectiveness and political feasibility, where carbon taxes may be getting short shrift.

The role of NGOs in addressing concerns about neuroscience

Christopher Green — Wed, 29 Oct 2008 09:13:32 -0700

Roundtable Topic: The military application of neuroscience research

In their initial essay, "The Security Impact of the Neurosciences," Margaret Kosal and Jonathan Huang raised four questions:

Reframing the cap-and-trade dialogue

Kenneth R. Richards — Mon, 27 Oct 2008 12:38:56 -0700

Roundtable Topic: Carbon tax vs. cap-and-trade

As we wrap up the second round of our discussion, it might be useful to provide a way of framing our dialogue. Each of us has offered observations about the relative advantages and disadvantages of taxes versus cap-and-trade. But how do these differences relate to the (often implicit) goals in choosing a strategy for a climate change program?

We must focus on alternative energy technologies that can mitigate climate change in the near-term, not nuclear power

Thomas B. Cochran — Wed, 22 Oct 2008 15:04:55 -0700

Roundtable Topic: Managing the global growth of nuclear energy

Stephen Goldberg argues that the United States must have a robust research and development program to create and deploy advanced reprocessing technologies and fast reactors in order for us to influence how other countries manage their nuclear fuel and waste. I'm reminded of early nineteenth-century parliamentary debates in Britain about the slave trade, where it was argued that the country should remain in the trade to guarantee the humane treatment of slaves.

A foundation on which to assess neuroscience's military potential

Margaret E. Kosal — Tue, 21 Oct 2008 12:49:18 -0700

Roundtable Topic: The military application of neuroscience research

Much of our discussion during the last three months has revolved around the challenges of developing norms, ethical frameworks, and new security models for the neurosciences. As my colleague Jonathan Huang and I noted in our initial article, the challenges of emerging sciences, such as neuroscience, are unlikely to be addressed adequately or wholly by traditional arms control treaties.

A carbon tax dominates in an international context

David Weisbach — Fri, 17 Oct 2008 13:03:20 -0700

Roundtable Topic: Carbon tax vs. cap-and-trade

If I'm reading the arguments made here correctly, the lay of the land is as follows: We agree that in theory a cap-and-trade system and a tax can be designed to be similar with respect to their coverage, their effects, and, to some extent, their administrative costs. For example, both can be equally imposed upstream or downstream, equally grandfather existing emissions, raise the same revenue, and, at least roughly, provide the same level of price certainty and emissions certainty. But this all depends on how well the systems are designed.

To influence the debate, we must be part of the global nuclear energy discussion

Stephen M. Goldberg — Thu, 16 Oct 2008 13:11:42 -0700

Roundtable Topic: Managing the global growth of nuclear energy

I just returned from the Middle East and it's abundantly clear that U.S. influence in that part of the world is receding. The financial meltdown that’s going on is also contributing to an international lack of confidence in U.S. policies and is affecting our ability to influence day-to-day events around the world.

Even if simplicity is the only criterion, cap-and-trade might still be the best bet

Gernot Wagner — Fri, 10 Oct 2008 06:47:18 -0700

Roundtable Topic: Carbon tax vs. cap-and-trade

Any system clearly needs to be well-designed. On that point, we all agree. The question then becomes whether a cap-and-trade system or a tax would allow for the best possible system to be put in place. We've already argued that a cap would be much more preferable on environmental grounds. So now we'll turn to simplicity.

Tough governmental decisions must be made if nuclear is to expand

Miles A. Pomper — Wed, 08 Oct 2008 08:32:24 -0700

Roundtable Topic: Managing the global growth of nuclear energy

As much as I appreciate Alan Hanson's support for my argument, I don't share his underlying assumption--or Stephen Goldberg's--that nuclear power is certain to undergo a rapid global expansion. Obviously, nuclear industry proponents would like this to be the case, but there are many impediments to nuclear energy's growth.

A carbon tax may look better when considering the current economic climate

Janet E. Milne — Tue, 07 Oct 2008 13:34:32 -0700

Roundtable Topic: Carbon tax vs. cap-and-trade

We seem to have fairly broad agreement that carbon taxes and cap-and-trade programs share similarities, and as David Weisbach and Ken Richards suggest, each is worth its salt only if it's well designed. And I assume we agree that price matters. Just through the market-driven increases in gas prices, Americans traveled 12.2 billion fewer vehicle miles in June than 12 months earlier, a 4.7 percent drop. As others have stated, a fundamental difference between carbon taxes and tradable allowances revolves around certainty of price versus certainty of quantity.

We must take responsibility for the entire nuclear fuel cycle

Jill Marie Parillo — Thu, 02 Oct 2008 14:11:29 -0700

Roundtable Topic: Managing the global growth of nuclear energy

Nuclear energy is very exciting: It's going to solve the energy crisis, end U.S. reliance on oil and the rogue states that sell it, and help developing nations meet their doubling energy demands. This is all possible, we're told, because the U.S. Energy Department, industry, and the national laboratories will develop new technologies, new policies, and new international regimes to facilitate the sale of nuclear reactors and fuel using proliferation-resistant technologies, all the while following nonproliferation codes of conduct.