Search

Begin New Search Topic Nuclear Energy Political Geography North America

1. Fueling the Future: Recommendations for Strengthening U.S. Uranium Security

Author:
Gracelin Baskaran and Meredith Schwartz
Publication Date:
02-2025
Content Type:
Policy Brief
Institution:
Center for Strategic and International Studies (CSIS)
Abstract:
Uranium is a crucial mineral for energy and national security—it fuels the nuclear energy that underpins today’s economy and is key to propelling future growth to meet the surge in energy demand from artificial intelligence. However, supply chain vulnerabilities and dependencies on foreign adversaries challenge U.S. leadership in the sector and create national and energy security risks. Russia and China are rapidly expanding their offtake of mined uranium from international partners, uranium enrichment capabilities, and nuclear infrastructure. To strengthen uranium and nuclear fuel supply chains, the United States must work with allies, implement conducive trade and tariff policies, and invest in both domestic enrichment capacity and uranium ore production abroad.
Topic:
Security, Defense Policy, Geopolitics, Economic Security, Uranium, Nuclear Energy, and Critical Minerals
Political Geography:
Russia, Central Asia, North America, and United States of America

2. Improving the Efficiency of NRC Power Reactor Licensing: Environmental Reviews

Author:
Matt Bowen and Rama T. Ponangi
Publication Date:
04-2025
Content Type:
Special Report
Institution:
Center on Global Energy Policy (CGEP), Columbia University
Abstract:
Achieving net-zero emissions in the United States by mid-century requires the rapid buildout of low-carbon energy infrastructure. One challenge to this rapid buildout is the environmental reviews required by the National Environmental Policy Act (NEPA), which are part of federal approval processes for new energy projects. This process has increasingly caused significant delays and added costs, and the Fiscal Responsibility Act (FRA) of 2023 was passed by Congress in part to address these issues through amendments to NEPA that impose timelines on environmental reviews. For nuclear power, a low-carbon energy source that has a role in many US net-zero scenarios, environmental reviews are conducted by the US Nuclear Regulatory Commission (NRC) as part of its reactor licensing process. Because this process has at times been lengthy and costly, Congress passed the 2024 ADVANCE Act in part to require the NRC to implement its responsibilities under NEPA more efficiently. During the 2000s and 2010s, most of the environmental impact statements (EISs) these reviews produced would not have complied with NEPA’s new FRA timeline (two years or fewer) and page limit (150, or in extraordinary cases 300). More recent NRC environmental reviews for test reactor deployments have been somewhat quicker and had shorter review documents, perhaps a recognition by the agency that the efficiency of this process needed improvement. This report, part of a series of publications on nuclear licensing reform at the Center on Global Energy Policy at Columbia University SIPA, focuses on how the NRC can fulfill the new legal mandates on time and page limits for environmental reviews and in general improve the efficiency of these reviews. The report demonstrates that earlier (1970s–80s) environmental reviews for nuclear power reactors licensed under the 10 CFR 50 licensing pathway took less time and generated shorter review documents than those conducted under 10 CFR 52 during the 2000s and 2010s. The latter reviews—all of which were for large light water reactor projects—also utilized substantial NRC resources, thereby incurring significant costs to the applicants. None of these reviews found that the reactor projects were expected to create what the NRC calls “large adverse” environmental impacts, which could destabilize environmental resources. Although some “moderate adverse” impacts were identified, they typically came from unavoidable elements such as new transmission lines and traffic that would result from any large construction project. And beneficial impacts always came in the form of jobs and taxes. At the very least, these findings raise questions about the allocation of time and resources to various aspects of the NRC’s environmental review.
Topic:
Environment, Regulation, Carbon Emissions, Nuclear Energy, and Permitting
Political Geography:
North America and United States of America

3. Revisiting GTCC and GTCC-Like Nuclear Waste Disposal in the United States

Author:
Matt Bowen, Maya Lameche, and Marine Gapihan
Publication Date:
07-2024
Content Type:
Special Report
Institution:
Center on Global Energy Policy (CGEP), Columbia University
Abstract:
While the United States (US) has facilities that can and do dispose of most low-level nuclear waste (LLW), it does not yet have a viable disposal pathway for two categories of waste: so-called greater-than-class-c (GTCC) nuclear waste, and nuclear waste with characteristics similar to it, or “GTCC-like.” These two categories essentially straddle the United States’ LLW inventory, for which disposal facilities are in operation, and high-level nuclear waste (HLW) inventory, for which no disposal capability exists. GTCC nuclear waste is produced by multiple sources: commercial nuclear power plants, medical procedures, industrial and research activities, and Department of Energy (DOE) missions, including those related to national security and the cleanup of legacy facilities. These activities carry with them an ethical responsibility to dispose of the nuclear waste they generate rather than pass it on to the next generation. Security task forces have also identified the lack of a disposal pathway for sealed sources of GTCC nuclear waste as a concern, given the potential for its theft and use in a dispersal device. This report, part of a series of publications on nuclear waste policy at the Center on Global Energy Policy, Columbia University SIPA, explores the history of DOE, Nuclear Regulatory Commission (NRC), and state efforts to develop disposal capabilities for GTCC and GTCC-like inventories. It explains why this gap merits greater attention from policymakers now and identifies measures Congress, the DOE, and the NRC could take, should they decide to address it. US government efforts to develop disposal capabilities for GTCC waste date back to 1985 when Congress made it a federal responsibility. For a time, disposal in the planned repository at Yucca Mountain, Nevada, was contemplated. But in the absence of appropriations to move that project forward since 2010, the federal government recently issued planning documents that identify generic commercial LLW disposal facilities and the Waste Isolation Pilot Plant (WIPP) deep geologic repository in New Mexico as preferred alternatives. Of the commercial LLW disposal facilities in operation, only the WCS facility in Texas has expressed interest in the GTCC disposal mission. The political climate for GTCC disposal in both New Mexico and Texas has darkened in recent years, though, casting doubt on the federal government’s plans. If the US government decides to prioritize the goal of establishing disposal capability for GTCC and GTCC-like nuclear waste, Congress, the DOE, and the NRC could take the following steps to help realize it in the near term.
Topic:
Regulation, Nuclear Waste, Nuclear Energy, and Energy
Political Geography:
North America and United States of America

4. The global future of nuclear energy

Author:
Matt Bowen
Publication Date:
08-2023
Content Type:
Special Report
Institution:
Atlantic Council
Abstract:
Energy supply is an integral and essential part of modern society. Since nuclear energy provides low-carbon, baseload power, it could play a larger global role in addressing growing energy demands while reducing the risks of climate change and air pollution. Russia’s unprovoked invasion of Ukraine has also highlighted energy security as a national imperative that nuclear power could help countries to achieve. Both preserving the existing fleet of reactors and building new advanced nuclear power plants could play a role in achieving deep decarbonization of electricity supply systems by mid-century. Public support, designs with greater inherent safety, licensing advanced reactors, and reasonable costs and schedules will be integral parts of this strategy. Nuclear power’s future would also benefit from national governments putting renewed emphasis on spent nuclear fuel disposition. This report by Matt Bowen discusses a number of actions that the United States, Japan, and other civil nuclear allies could pursue so that nuclear energy can play a larger role in overcoming the challenges related to energy demand, energy security, and associated environmental and public health risks.
Topic:
Security, Foreign Policy, Nuclear Energy, and Energy
Political Geography:
Russia, Japan, Europe, Ukraine, North America, United States of America, and Indo-Pacific

5. The Iran nuclear deal: consequences of moribund diplomacy

Author:
Mark Fitzpatrick
Publication Date:
02-2023
Content Type:
Policy Brief
Institution:
NATO Defense College
Abstract:
On 4 November 2022, United States President Joe Biden privately remarked that the 2015 Iran nuclear accord known as the Joint Comprehensive Plan of Action (JCPOA), was “dead”, but that the US would not formally say so.1 US working- level officials insist a return to the deal remains possible, but efforts to revive it are increasingly fraught. For months, Iran’s leaders have appeared uninterested in complying with the deal, instead conditioning their country’s return on unrealistic demands that the International Atomic Energy Agency (IAEA) cease investigation into signs of Iran’s past nuclear weapons development. Since mid-September 2022, Western attention has been distracted by other aspects of Tehran’s foreign and domestic policy, including the regime’s brutal crackdown of domestic protests against female veiling rules, its complicity in Russian drone attacks in Ukraine, and its dubious detention of US and European citizens. With political room for a diplomatic solution rapidly evaporating, and Iran’s “breakout period” for producing weapons- grade highly enriched uranium (HEU) shortened to a few days, NATO member states must anticipate that states like Israel could opt for a kinetic “Plan B” solution to Iran’s nuclear programme, with potential negative spill-over. With escalation likely before a UN ban on missile trade with Iran expires in October 2023, concerned states should intensify pursuit of peaceful alternatives.
Topic:
Diplomacy, Nuclear Weapons, Deterrence, JCPOA, and Nuclear Energy
Political Geography:
Iran, Middle East, North America, and United States of America

6. Improving the Efficiency of NRC Power Reactor Licensing: The 1957 Mandatory Hearing Reconsidered

Author:
Matt Bowen, Rama T. Ponangi, and Stephen Burns
Publication Date:
11-2023
Content Type:
Special Report
Institution:
Center on Global Energy Policy (CGEP), Columbia University
Abstract:
Nuclear energy can play a vital role in helping the US—and the globe—meet mid-century climate goals. But any such role for nuclear depends on overcoming the significant if underappreciated challenges posed by the current nuclear licensing process in the US. Put simply, getting a new nuclear project licensed is time-consuming and expensive. This report, part of ongoing research on nuclear energy at the Center on Global Energy Policy, Columbia University SIPA focuses on a singular element of the licensing process that has drawn particular scrutiny for the resources it demands: the so-called mandatory hearing. Dating to a 1957 amendment to the Atomic Energy Act (AEA) of 1954, the mandatory hearing was put in place during the early period of nuclear reactor regulation as a way of forcing the Atomic Energy Commission (AEC) to be more transparent with the public about projects under consideration for development. It was intended to provide an open forum in which the details of reactor project applications were aired publicly and debated. But today, well over half a century since the 1957 amendment to the AEA, there are several compelling reasons to reconsider the mandatory hearing requirement.
Topic:
Energy Policy, Regulation, and Nuclear Energy
Political Geography:
North America and United States of America

7. Developing Nuclear Energy in Estonia: An Amplifier of Strategic Partnership with the United States?

Author:
Tomas Jermalavicius, Max Bergmann, Peter Crall, Thomas O'Donnell, Tomas Janeliūnas, and Tõnis Idarand
Publication Date:
09-2022
Content Type:
Special Report
Institution:
International Centre for Defence and Security - ICDS
Abstract:
Estonia’s climate neutrality commitments and its simultaneous pursuit of national security mean that it will need to develop and cultivate new zero- or low-carbon, affordable, secure and safe domestic sources of energy. Nuclear energy is increasingly regarded as one of the critical ingredients of successful transition to climate-neutral energy system and as a viable part of the future decarbonised mix of energy supply. Therefore, Estonia is officially considering the possibility to adopt nuclear energy generated by new-design Small Modular Reactors (SMR). This choice, however, is not purely environmental, economic or technical, but also has geopolitical implications. It would create new long-term inter-dependencies with foreign partners which could represent fresh opportunities for closer cooperation in security and foreign policy domain, but also could create some new political, reputational, and national security risks. This geopolitical dimension is of particular importance to countries such as Estonia that seek greater involvement of key allies such as the United States, United Kingdom, France, and Germany in the Nordic-Baltic area to counter the geopolitical pressure from Russia and, increasingly, China. The report assumes that Estonia might eventually opt for nuclear energy and would then choose the US as its SMR technology supplier. It explores how Estonia’s foreign and security policy interests would benefit from a potential adoption of nuclear energy and development of technological and commercial relations in this field with the US. The report also maps various potential risks in relations with several key fellow member states of the European Union that may arise from Estonia turning to nuclear power as a major source of energy and to the US for a technological solution. It considers how certain structural issues in national energy policies and divergent geopolitical perspectives of Germany, France, and Poland – as well as some persistent characteristics of intra-European relations manifest through the EU’s common policies – may impair or facilitate Estonian nuclear aspirations. The study also highlights that Estonia’s affirmative decision concerning nuclear energy is likely to draw the attention and actions of malignant actors such as Russia aiming to discredit nuclear energy in general, as a viable pathway to energy security and climate neutrality, and US SMR technology in particular; undermine trust – domestically and internationally – in the ability of the Estonian government and enterprises to ensure competent and responsible stewardship of nuclear energy, and pit Estonia against some key regional and European allies. The report articulates some recommendations on how to better exploit the opportunities related to the US involvement in the development of Estonia’s nuclear energy programme and mitigate the identified risks.
Topic:
Climate Change, National Security, Partnerships, and Nuclear Energy
Political Geography:
Eastern Europe, Estonia, North America, and United States of America

8. Comparing Government Financing of Reactor Exports: Considerations for US Policy Makers

Author:
Matt Bowen and Alec Apostoaei
Publication Date:
08-2022
Content Type:
Special Report
Institution:
Center on Global Energy Policy (CGEP), Columbia University
Abstract:
Decarbonizing the world’s energy supply by 2050 will require financing low-carbon energy projects at a cost of upwards of trillions of dollars. Nuclear energy is one of the few dispatchable low-carbon energy resources, and studies by the International Energy Agency have estimated a possible doubling of nuclear power as part of scenarios for achieving net-zero greenhouse gas emissions by midcentury. Large, capital-intensive projects such as nuclear power plants can be challenging for some countries to finance, however. As a result, countries wishing to build nuclear reactors look for attractive financing from supplier nations in the form of loans and equity. This report, part of wider work on nuclear energy at Columbia University’s Center on Global Energy Policy, compares the financing terms offered between 2000 and 2021 by the world’s major exporters of nuclear power plants: Russia, France, the Republic of Korea (ROK), China, and the United States. Russia dominated this period, with 11 reactors connected to power grids in six countries, in part due to the attractive state-backed financing offers it made. At the beginning of 2022, Russia had 13 of its reactors under construction in other countries, more than all other countries’ reactor exports combined. The US government has been actively developing advanced reactor technologies, partly with the intention of exporting them to other countries to help them address their energy and environmental goals. However, for numerous reasons, the US government has not financed a new US reactor export in decades, even though the US Export-Import Bank (EXIM) and the new International Development Financing Corporation (DFC) are capable of supporting exports of this scale. Given the recent absence of US financing, this report analyzes the earlier activities of EXIM related to nuclear energy and their relevance for potentially reviving such financing efforts in the near or medium term. A key factor shaping reactor vendor competitions is a nuclear arrangement by the Organization for Economic Co-operation and Development (OECD), in which France, the ROK, and the United States are members but China and Russia are not. This arrangement places limitations on OECD members regarding key loan terms for their reactor exports, including minimum interest rates and loan repayment terms, that can put them at a disadvantage compared to state-owned vendors from Russia and China. The arrangement does not restrict equity investments in reactor exports, posing an additional disadvantage for private vendors in the United States as they compete with larger, state-owned vendors in France and the ROK. As other countries develop their civil nuclear energy programs or begin new ones, the US government will need to decide whether it will assist in financing US reactor exports. The federal government has a variety of potential rationales for doing so, including creating jobs, assisting other countries in overcoming their energy and environmental challenges, and limiting Chinese and Russian influence. On the other hand, financing from EXIM or the DFC will come with financial risk, as some individual projects may not have successful outcomes.
Topic:
Energy Policy, Carbon Emissions, Decarbonization, and Nuclear Energy
Political Geography:
North America and United States of America

9. Deep Borehole Disposal of Radioactive Waste: Next Steps and Applicability to National Programs

Author:
Peter Swift and Andrew Newman
Publication Date:
11-2022
Content Type:
Special Report
Institution:
Center on Global Energy Policy (CGEP), Columbia University
Abstract:
Deep borehole disposal of high-level radioactive waste has been proposed repeatedly and in multiple countries over the last several decades, but the concept remains unproven in the field. A straightforward research, development, and demonstration test program could provide answers to basic questions about the viability of the concept. This program would involve the construction of two or perhaps more boreholes to test disposal concepts using surrogate, nonradioactive waste. Field tests would focus on the engineering and operational feasibility of deep borehole disposal, the availability of favorable rock types at depth, appropriate designs for waste forms and waste packaging, and the long-term performance of borehole repositories. Because of the scale of the project, it might best be undertaken as an international collaboration, perhaps led by the US Department of Energy but with participation from multiple national programs to ensure it meets a wide range of needs. Mined geologic repositories, which have been the preferred approach for permanent disposal of high-level radioactive wastes for most national programs for many decades, will likely remain the preferred disposal option for countries with large inventories of commercial spent nuclear fuel. If deep borehole disposal can be demonstrated as a viable concept, however, it may be an attractive alternative disposal option for countries with small inventories of materials requiring permanent geologic isolation. For example, national programs with limited amounts of waste from research or medical isotope production reactors may not need to incur the cost of a full-scale mined repository. Other countries may find borehole disposal a useful option for permanently disposing of small quantities of waste that could otherwise pose security risks, including both fissile materials and high-activity sealed radioactive sources used in industrial and medical applications. For programs committed to disposing of large inventories of spent nuclear fuel and high-level waste in mined repositories, deep boreholes may provide options for prompt disposal of small volumes of specialty wastes that may otherwise have to wait for repository construction. This report reviews the borehole disposal concepts proposed to date, identifies potentially suitable waste forms worldwide, and proposes a field-testing program that could resolve many remaining technical questions and inform future programmatic decisions. The report also summarizes the potential benefits of borehole disposal in terms of public acceptance, cost, and security.
Topic:
Energy Policy, Nuclear Waste, Nuclear Energy, and Borehole
Political Geography:
North America and United States of America

10. Iran talks are likely going nowhere

Author:
Alexander Grinberg
Publication Date:
12-2021
Content Type:
Working Paper
Institution:
Jerusalem Institute for Strategy and Security (JISS)
Abstract:
Iran uses uranium enrichment as leverage on the EU and US to get concessions.
Topic:
Security, Diplomacy, Nuclear Weapons, Conflict, Uranium, and Nuclear Energy
Political Geography:
Iran, Middle East, Israel, North America, and United States of America