Search

Begin New Search Topic Nuclear Energy Political Geography United States of 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. US-Japan Alliance Resiliency Amid Risks

Author:
Daniel Aldrich and Lei Nishiuwatoko
Publication Date:
08-2024
Content Type:
Special Report
Institution:
East-West Center
Abstract:
Dr. Daniel Aldrich and Ms. Lei Nishiuwatoko, Professor of Political Science at Northeastern University and M.S. Candidate at Georgetown's School of Foreign Service, respectfully, explain that "[t]he United States and Japan are uniquely positioned to mitigate the existential risk of climate change" and explore how "further policy alignment on the possession and stockpile of nuclear materials... would further strengthen the alliance."
Topic:
Climate Change, Bilateral Relations, Nonproliferation, Alliance, Resilience, and Nuclear Energy
Political Geography:
Japan, Asia, and United States of America

4. Nuclear Danger and the NPT

Author:
Henry Sokolski
Publication Date:
06-2024
Content Type:
Book
Institution:
Nonproliferation Policy Education Center
Abstract:
Next month, the second Nuclear Nonproliferation Treaty (NPT) preparatory review conference will meet in Geneva. In anticipation of this international conference, NPEC is releasing Nuclear Danger and the NPT, an edited volume of research on what nuclear dangers await and how proper enforcement of the NPT can help. The hope is that the volume’s analysis will prompt constructive debate. It certainly is needed. Within ten years, there is a distinct possibility South Korea, Japan, the UAE, Egypt, Turkey, and Iran may decide to acquire nuclear weapons. After that, Algeria, Finland, Sweden, Ukraine, and Australia may be sorely tempted to do the same. More could follow. What is fueling these grim prospects? Several things: Growing Russian, Chinese, and North Korean nuclear capabilities and threats; Russian forward basing of nuclear weapons in Belarus; waning allied confidence in U.S. nuclear security guarantees; and an increasing acceptance of dangerous civilian nuclear activities that bring states to the brink of bomb-making. Legally, the NPT is supposed to prevent these troubles. The question is will it? Much depends on what major nuclear powers choose to do regarding their NPT commitments and how smaller, nonnuclear nations view the treaty. Nuclear Danger and the NPT is designed to help clarify what that requires. Earlier this year, NPEC released an occasional paper on the challenges of creating a nuclear weapons-free zone in the Middle East. Such challenges will surely be considered at the upcoming NPT review conference, but there will be more issues up for discussion. Attendees will likely debate the future of U.S. and Russian nuclear sharing arrangements, as well as the limits of what should be considered “peaceful” under the NPT. Iran’s threatened withdrawal from the treaty will also be a concern, as will China’s worries over the potential for Washington to redeploy nuclear weapons to South Korea or for Seoul to acquire its own nuclear weapons. The U.S. delegation is likely to raise complaints about China’s nuclear weapons build up and Beijing’s unwillingness to enter into good faith negotiations on effective nuclear controls. Finally, Russia’s assaults on Ukraine’s civilian nuclear systems and the legitimacy of such assaults are likely to be discussed. Nuclear Danger and the NPT covers all of these topics in depth. For hawks and doves, Washington insiders, and simply concerned citizens, it’s worth reading.
Topic:
Nuclear Weapons, Nonproliferation, Nuclear Energy, and Nonproliferation Treaty (NPT)
Political Geography:
Russia, China, Iran, South Korea, Global Focus, and United States of America

5. 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

6. War and Energy Security: Lessons for The Future

Author:
Tomas Jermalavicius, Veli-Pekka Tynkkynen, Andrian Prokip, Christian Egenhofer, and Edoardo Righetti
Publication Date:
05-2023
Content Type:
Special Report
Institution:
International Centre for Defence and Security - ICDS
Abstract:
Russia’s war against Ukraine has produced multiple shifts in the geopolitical landscape of Europe. Various EU member states and EU institutions broke through entire decades of dogmatic principles and established practices in security and defence policies to respond to Russia’s aggression and protect the continent. The energy domain is at the forefront of this confrontation, as Russia used its dominant market position in European energy supply in the run-up to – as well as during – the war to weaken Europe’s responses, divide the EU, and deter it from increasing its support to Ukraine. The multifaceted and far-reaching impact of the war offers an opportunity for a deeper reflection on the lessons learned for energy security at the national, regional, and EU levels. It allows for an assessment of the prospects in the geopolitical landscape where Russia is comprehensively isolated; new energy and technology players grow in importance; a new global energy order emerges; and the effects of the climate crisis become more severe and evident. It is also a rare opportunity to assess how complex energy systems retain their resilience or degrade under the conditions of a high-intensity conventional war, which has collective defence implications to the ability of the frontline states, such as Estonia, to fulfil NATO’s baseline requirements for national resilience and thus Article 3 of the North Atlantic Treaty. The report seeks to provide analysis concerning these aspects of the war’s short-, medium-, and long-term impact on energy security in Europe, the Baltic region, and Estonia. Conclusions of the report stress the importance of regulatory, policy, and technological flexibility, as well as innovation, in responding to various forms of strategic coercion through the energy sector – especially when such coercion is applied against targets under the duress of a major war, in which economic disruption, market uncertainty, geopolitical turmoil, and societal anxieties are abundant. The conclusions caution though that the appetite for resilience-enhancing investments and transformative solutions might diminish in the cost-conscious economic environment of the future or that the EU and US will start a vicious cycle of protectionist measures in green energy development, which will undercut transatlantic cooperation in energy security.
Topic:
Security, NATO, Infrastructure, European Union, Gas, Crisis Management, Renewable Energy, Hybrid Threats, and Nuclear Energy
Political Geography:
Russia, Europe, Finland, Poland, Lithuania, Estonia, Sweden, and United States of America

7. 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

8. 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

9. Inconsistent Signals Is Iran truly committed to resuming nuclear negotiations?

Author:
FARAS
Publication Date:
09-2023
Content Type:
Policy Brief
Institution:
Future for Advanced Research and Studies (FARAS)
Abstract:
Iran's Supreme Leader, Ali Khamenei, has urged further efforts to resurrect the nuclear deal with the West and relieve sanctions imposed on his country. This is also consistent with efforts to undermine the impact of sanctions that affect citizens' living conditions. This came during his meeting with the Iranian President and government members on Wednesday, August 30, 2023.
Topic:
Diplomacy, Nuclear Weapons, Negotiation, and Nuclear Energy
Political Geography:
Iran, Middle East, and United States of America

10. 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