Agneta Rising:

A New Head for the World Nuclear Association

The World Nuclear Association (WNA) recently announced that Agneta Rising will become the Director-General of the Association starting January 1, 2013, taking over from John Ritch.

I had previously reported on John's intention to leave that post.  In my earlier post, I noted that John Ritch took the helm of the WNA when the organization morphed from the Uranium Institute to its present incarnation.

John brought a tremendous amount of energy and vision to the organization, and deserves a large share of the credit for making it the important and influential force it is today in the global nuclear community.  I said then, and I reiterate now, that he will be a tough act to follow.

If anyone can fill John's very large shoes, it is Agneta.  The metaphor of a "rising star" seems appropriate for Agneta in more ways than one!  She comes to the position with a distinguished background herself.  She is currently Vice President Environment at Vattenfall AB in Sweden, and has worked in various other positions in Vattenfall since 1980.  Within Sweden, she has served on several government boards and advisory groups on nuclear matters.

Agneta is also well known on the international scene, having served as president of the Swedish Nuclear Society, the European Nuclear Society, and as a founder and president of Women in Nuclear (WIN), an organization with members in over 50 countries.  She has also been associated for a number of years with the WNA and its predecessor, the Uranium Institute, having served as chairman during the transition. 

Although it's been several years since I've seen Agneta, I got to know her 10 or 15 years ago through some of our mutual interests in nuclear professional society activities, so I personally know that she brings a great deal of enthusiasm to her work, and has an outstanding ability to work with other people.  Her selection is an excellent choice that will help continue and further develop the important work of the WNA.

I wish John the best in his "retirement"--although, knowing John, I suspect he will not stay retired for long!--and I wish Agneta the very best as she takes over this key position in the global nuclear community.

***

Agneta Rising (Correction Noted):

A New Head for the World Nuclear Association

NOTICE:

This post was originally published the morning the World Nuclear Association (WNA) announced that Agneta Rising will become the Director-General of the Association starting January 1, 2013, taking over from John Ritch.

However, subsequent to publication, I discovered an error in the URL that I could not correct.  Thinking that the error might make it more difficult for people to find the post, I reposted the content on September 14 with a corrected URL.  I apologize for any inconvenience.

***

World Nuclear Association:

Changing of the Guard

The World Nuclear Association (WNA) just made an announcement of a pair of very important leadership changes: Tim Gitzel, the CEO and president of Cameco, has just assumed the chairmanship of the WNA, replacing Chris Crane, the president and COO of Exelon (who will continue on as vice-chair); and John Ritch, the Director-General of WNA for more than 10 years, will retire from that position this year.

Since I've gotten to know John Ritch in my last two positions, I will devote the rest of this post to discussing some of his contributions and accomplishments over the past dozen or so years I have known him. I must leave it to others to comment on the change in the chairmanship.

John has had a very distinguished career, first on the staff of the U.S. Senate Foreign Relations Committee, where he specialized in East-West relations and nuclear arms control, then as the U.S. Ambassador to United Nations organizations in Vienna, Austria, which include the International Atomic Energy Agency (IAEA), and finally, in his present position as the Director-General of the WNA.

I got to know John after I joined the Nuclear Energy office of the U.S. DOE, which was towards the end of his 7-year stint as Ambassador to the IAEA, so most of what I know of his accomplishments in that position is indirect, but I did discover quickly that he was well-respected in the IAEA community, both for the insights he brought to issues and for his ability to work constructively within that diverse community.

Although John left the Ambassadorship in 2001, around a year or so after I joined DOE, I continued to follow his career when he moved on to the WNA, and in fact, had several opportunities to work with him, both while I was at DOE, and later, when I moved on to the Nuclear Energy Agency of OECD in Paris.

The very first thing that happened when John left Vienna to take up his new post in London is that the name and focus of the whole organization changed. Originally called the Uranium Institute (UI) with a mission primarily built around serving as a forum on the market for nuclear fuel, the organization was reinvented in 2001 as the World Nuclear Association, with an expanded mission that covers all aspects of the nuclear power industry.

There have been many changes since the UI became the WNA. I'm sure I could not identify all of them, but in addition to the obvious implications of the expansion of its scope, the WNA also became more active as a source of nuclear-related news and analysis, and I often find their website to be one of the better sources of concise information and background on nuclear programs and issues.

I would like to focus particularly on one activity in which I have had a personal involvement--that is, the World Nuclear University (WNU). The WNU was spearheaded by WNA, and in fact, especially by John. The goal of the WNU is to build leadership and develop networks among nuclear professionals around the world by providing a spectrum of short courses and other training activities in partnership with a broad spectrum of governments, industry and universities. Their flagship program is their 6-week Summer Institute, designed as a leadership development course for young professionals.

I well remember when John first came in to my DOE office and briefed several of us on his vision for this new program. Our initial reaction was skepticism. The WNA was not an academic organization. How would they attract the mentors who would be needed to provide the training. Who would provide the necessary financial support. What organizations would let their staff members leave for 6 weeks for such a course.

None of these questions fazed John. He patiently responded to all the questions, and continued to press for our support, as well as for the support of a variety of other organizations. When the WNU officially opened its doors a couple of years later, in addition to the WNA, its founding supporters included the IAEA, NEA, and the World Association of Nuclear Operators (WANO).

The Summer Institute is now held in Christ Church, University of Oxford, United Kingdom, but for the first few years, it rotated among several countries. I myself had the pleasure of participating in the program as a mentor/instructor in its second year, 2006, when it was held in Stockholm, Sweden. I found the Fellows to be an extraordinary group of bright, energetic young professionals. I also thought the opportunity for these people to work together with their peers from a variety of other countries was extraordinary.

I have continued to follow the success of the program and to read some of the comments of the graduates. Many of them point to this as one of the most exceptional experiences of their careers. Since the first Summer Institute in 2005, the program has hosted more than 650 Fellows from more than 65 countries.

Of all John's many accomplishments, I think he can be proudest of having established such an important educational program for the nuclear industry. The students trained through the Summer Institutes and the other WNU programs will help chart the course of the nuclear industry around the world for the next several decades. This in itself is a remarkable legacy.

There has been no announcement yet of just when John will leave the WNA or what he expects to do. I am assuming he may stay until his successor is chosen. That individual will certainly have a tough act to follow.

***

Nuclear Power Plant Design Contest:

Can Appearance Help?

Several news items in recent weeks have reported that John Ritch of the World Nuclear Association has organized a design contest to come up with a more attractive design for a nuclear power plant. He asserts that "Many plants look little more inspiring than a 100-year-old flour mill. We can and should do better."

He may have a point. I sometimes think I am hearing as many objections to the appearance of the industrial facilities that we depend on as to concerns about health or safety. Certainly, we have seen that people object to windmills marring the unspoiled crests of mountaintops, or the dramatic expanses of ocean. No one likes the look of power lines crossing the landscape. And whenever someone wants to write an article with an anti-nuclear bias, they illustrate it with a photograph of ominous cooling towers casting their shadow over the land, despite the fact that cooling towers are not unique to nuclear power plants.

This concern over appearance is not limited to energy sources. My husband, Mike Marcus, is an expert in wireless telecommunications policy, and he finds that one of the major objections to the cell-phone towers we on which we have come to depend to connect us instantaneously and everywhere in this wireless age is the fact that they are, frankly, ugly projections sticking up in our suburban landscapes. Some have tried to disguise the towers in the form of fake trees, which somehow never seem to match the native flora of the area. Mike has called for a similar contest to design more attractive cell-phone towers.

Beauty, of course, is in the eye of the beholder, and I know as many people who think windmills are beautiful as I know who think they mar the landscape. Nevertheless, most people, given a choice, will pick the unspoiled shoreline over the one with cooling towers and buildings with pipes jutting out. And yes, many will succumb to NIMBYism--these things are OK, but not where I can see them--but most, I think, will agree that, whenever possible, a less intrusive profile is better.

Now, I don't think anyone thinks that appearance is the only issue. People will continue to worry about safety, particularly for nuclear power plants, but also for cell-phone towers, high-power transmission lines, and most of the other infrastructure that supports the services that society wants and needs, but whose presence they don't want to see or acknowledge. So, solving the problem of appearance is not the only need.

Still, I recall an old ad that said, "Good taste costs no more." There is no reason why much of our infrastructure needs to be quite as unattractive as some of it is. If designed right from the beginning, many facilities could be made more attractive for minimal additional cost.

And in the case of nuclear power plants, some of the options on the table for future designs might actually work hand-in-hand with efforts to make the sites more attractive. Plants that can be sited underground and plants that need no cooling towers automatically remove some of the visible evidence of a plant's existence. There is still a need for other infrastructure above ground, but the visible footprint should be smaller and less intrusive.

So I wish John Ritch and the World Nuclear Association well as they engage in this new effort to develop more attractive nuclear power plant designs. For those wishing to enter the contest, the contest rules indicate that the deadline for submissions is December 1.

Finally--a reminder that my new book is out. See my earlier post for details, or click on the link to the right to order.

***

Responding to Nuclear Myths:

John Ritch Takes on the "Red Herrings"

Nuclear Energy Insider recently published an excellent synopsis of a speech given by John Ritch that I thought merited mention here. John, the Director General of the World Nuclear Association, spoke at the graduation ceremony of the Sixth Annual Summer Institute of the World Nuclear University on August 14 in Oxford, England.

John, who has had a distinguished career in Washington, DC and as the US ambassador to the United Nations organizations in Vienna, Austria--among them, the International Atomic Energy Agency--is an outstanding speaker, so it is no surprise that the excerpts of his speech published in the Nuclear Energy Insider hit the key issues head-on.

John terms the issues "red herrings." For readers who may not be familiar with idiomatic American speech, a red herring is a diversionary issue. John comments that "it sometimes seems that nuclear professionals are condemned to swim in a sea of these fish."

In his speech, John identifies 6 such issues:

1. Proliferation: He makes several points about the Nuclear Non-Proliferation Treaty and the role he sees that it has had in maintaining a generally stable nuclear weapons situation. He acknowledges the remaining issues, but the key point he makes, in my opinion, is that "these issues would exist with or without the global renaissance in peaceful nuclear power."

2. Operational Safety: Here, John cites the statistics, highlighting the 14,100+ years of reactor operating experience in the world today.

3. Affordability: John takes on the claim the claims that nuclear power is heavily subsidized by the government, noting that research support is not an operational subsidy, and pointing out that the fee required from operators for the loan guarantees actually bring revenues into the government. He acknowledges, however, that industry faces a challenge to reduce the capital costs of new nuclear power.

4. Waste: After noting the small volume of nuclear waste, he points out that this is a government problem, and that several governments--he mentions Finland, Sweden and Russia, among others--have made strides in addressing the issue.

5. Terrorism: He feels concerns have been exaggerated, and that any radiological device is likely to come from a source such as a hospital rather than from a nuclear power facility.

6. New Red Herrings: He cites 3--shortages of fuel, people, and key equipment. (In my view, this really makes 8 red herrings--and I could probably add a few more that I know of--but this is a very slight quibble.) John asserts that all 3 are not intractable problems--a combination of new ore discoveries and mining techniques, reprocessing, breeders reactors and the thorium fuel cycle will assure ample and affordable fuel supplies for a long time; and supply and demand will assure that the people and the manufacturing facilities will grow to meet the emerging needs.

The above provides only excerpts of the excerpts from the Nuclear Energy Insider, so John undoubtedly fleshed out some of these areas more than I am able to do here. I myself would have liked to see what else he had to say in several of these areas, particularly on terrorism. However, even in abbreviated form, his speech provides a number of points that are useful to keep in mind when you find yourself swimming in a sea of red herrings.



***