- by Matej Mavriček, Policy Fellow

Radiation is essentially various shrapnel that is released when an atom or atoms undergoes decay, fusion or fission. In this article, I will discuss the basics of radiation, types of danger of radiation, where it comes from, and a framework of risk with radiation. This is meant to inform some of the possible effects of radiation as a result of nuclear accidents or purposeful detonations.

For more on the topic of nuclear non-proliferation you are invited to attend the talk by Ambassador Robert Gallucci, President of MacArthur Foundation, on May 25th at Hughes Auditorium, Northwestern University.

What is radiation?

At the time of formation of the Milky Way and the Solar System, most if not all elements were radioactive. Radioactivity is essentially the potential of an atom to release radiation. If we thought of a radioactive atom as a light-bulb, then radiation is the emanating light. Radiation in general has a number of sources other than atoms, but most nuclear radiation is caused by either atom decay, atomic fusion or fission.

Rays of All Kinds

Radiation comes in a number of flavors and a number of different properties, but the most common from nuclear material are neutron, followed by alpha, beta and gamma rays. Despite conventional wisdom, nuclear material doesn’t normally glow. At specific conditions it can ionize the air which can emit low light. More commonly, it can ionize water which does glow. In room temperature, they can be largely inert. It is said that Luis Alvarez used to keep a flat disk of plutonium as a paperweight on his desk. It produced short-ranged alpha particles, which are stopped by even very thin materials, like paper or skin, so it was practically harmless.

Sources: Mueller, “Physics and Technology for Future Presidents”, Chapter 4

Radiation Damage

There are three types of radiation damage: 1) Radiation burns (tissue damage); 2) Radiation sickness (metabolism disruption); 3) Cancer (DNA damage). The first usually accompanies a nuclear explosion, and as such causes immediate damage. If one survives a large dose of radiation, it still can cause radiation sickness as rays such as gamma, which can move through the body and disrupt cellular chemistry. If one survives the radiation sickness, there is a chance that some of the rays were able to shred DNA strands, or interrupt protein sequencing, which can cause cancer cells as a result.

Radiation is measured as a dose, with 3 different considerations – per instance (such as x-ray or CT scan), daily (for visiting a nuclear power plant) or annual (for workers in nuclear power plants). The basic dose is measured in the amount of energy deposited by rays to a certain body mass or volume, and that is measured in SI units called Greys (and older unit still in use is a rad (Radiation Absorption Dose) – 100 rads = 1 Grey). However, different parts of the body absorb different amounts of radiation, e.g. skin absorption rate is less than the lungs absorption rate. That is part of the reason why smoking and second-hand smoking don’t have the same cancer rates. Also, different rays have different effects on the body, and different penetration rates (alpha rays are stopped by skin, while muons pass through almost all matter without interacting).

So, if we include the consideration for the different absorption rates of body and the different penetration rates of the ray, we can calculate the standard units of radiation effect, called Sieverts (and an older unit still in use called a rem (Roentgen Equivalent in Man) – 100 rem = 1 Sievert).

Some common sources of radiation

Living on earth, we are exposed to common types of background radiation, which are usually from cosmic rays and the radon gas, which is released slowly from granite close to the surface. Certain elements, like Potassium, which are indispensable for human existence, also happen to be slightly radioactive, so sleeping next to anyone means receiving a small dose of radioactivity. For the purposes of comparison, the below table switches half way between microSieverts (10^-6) and miniSieverts (10^-3). A miniSievert is roughly equivalent to 200 million Gamma rays passing through every square centimeter of a human body.

Sources: Nuclear Regulatory Commission, Environmental Protection Agency, Mueller “Physics and Technology for Future Presidents”

For a visualization of these numbers and others, please see this radiation chart.

These tables are mostly useful to present the scale of different activities and radiation exhibited by a variety of activities. It shows that nuclear power plants, in normal operation, are far less radioactive than even a human being. Smoking is by far the most dangerous elective activity in terms of radiation (the low to high difference is due to the type of tobacco, kind of smoking, etc.). However, converting this into death risk is very hard to determine. If we assume (like the EPA) that there is a linear relationship between the radiation dose and cancer probability, 250 mSv causes an increase the lifetime risk of cancer by roughly 1%. So, with an average background radiation of 3 mSv, we would expect to see 0.01% cancer deaths from background radiation. However, at smaller values, this relationship is much harder to determine and likely to hard to observe in the total population of cancers.

Overall risk framework

One of the hardest things to frame in radiation is the risk involved, which we usually express as risk of death. The following table summarized average US data for years 2001 to 2007.

Source: Carnegie Mellon Death Risk Rankings

This table shows that most commonly people in the US die from circulatory system diseases and cancers. What is problematic is that radiation is not the singular cause of cancer, it is usually a minor cause of cancer. And while some cancers are more highly correlated with radiation than others, the small amount of radiation exposure cases means that the relationship is often hard to distinguish from random error. A study done on a very large cohort of similarly exposed subjects (19,000 European pilots) there was not enough data to statistically link cosmic radiation and cancer. This doesn’t mean that the risk should be ignored. Radiation is a real risk, but a risk that can be assessed, evaluated and managed.

(figure courtesy of http://periodictable.com/)

- by Matej Mavriček, Policy Fellow

Proliferation is but the spread of something – a technology or an idea, across a geographical area. We often use the term when the “something” in question is undesirable, viewed as dangerous or infectious. So it seems only fitting that the spread of nuclear technology would be called proliferation.This article is intended as a historical background for the field of nuclear proliferation.

For more on the current issues in nuclear non-proliferation, you are invited to attend the talk by Ambassador Robert Gallucci, president of MacArthur Foundation, on May 25th at the Hughes Auditorium, Northwestern University.

Vertical vs. Horizontal Proliferation

Proliferation usually comes in two flavors, vertical and horizontal. Vertical proliferation means that the technology spreads within the industry or geographical area, but it reaches higher and lower areas of complexity, it spreads and develops, it evolves. In the field of nuclear arms, vertical proliferation is the development of newer, better, stronger bombs that can be deployed in a variety of ways. The development of the hydrogen bomb is an example of vertical proliferation.

Horizontal proliferation is when the same technology is spread across a geographical or ideological space. In the case of nuclear arms, it is the spread of nuclear technology around the world, either intentionally or not. US working with Britain and France which led to their development of the atomic bomb is an example of horizontal proliferation.

Early views of proliferation

Early on, proliferation was view as a fantastic idea, as nuclear material was thought to have potential to cheaply produce electricity and power, and could revolutionize the world with neigh free energy. This idea was so powerful and intoxicating that to this day one can find those who believe cold fusion (room condition fusion of atoms) is a realistic goal. But beyond that, the large energy density of nuclear material gave hope that areas that had trouble with access to more traditional energy sources, especially developing countries would be able to produce all their needs from nuclear power at a fraction of the cost.

Oppenheimer vs. Baruch

But that was not to be. With the detonation of nuclear weapons at Hiroshima and Nagasaki, WWII ended, and the discussion in the US turned to the future of atomic energy. Two camps develop quickly, with Robert Oppenheimer leading the argument for openness and collaboration with USSR and other countries in the world, and the Secretary of State Brynes leading the argument for preserving the “atomic competitive advantage”, and little collaboration with the Soviets. Oppenheimer had the foresight to acknowledge that the nuclear genie was out of its bottle, and that putting it back was going to be hard if not impossible. Despite rival optimism, he realized that in 5 to 10 years, USSR and other countries around the world will develop a nuclear weapon arsenal to rival the US, and despite the advantage, this race could only end in a stand-off between the two opposed sides. He was the first to publicly predict and explain the concept of nuclear terrorism in the US. He believed that any real security lay not in a competitive advantage, but collaboration and treaties, openness that engendered trust. He predicted that without that trust the world was at ever increasing risk of nuclear war, “a war without winners”.

And this debate was born out in a UN proposal that was to create a global International Atomic Development Authority to control the production, use and control of nuclear material, but tis plan was rejected by Stalin’s USSR. A minority in the UN, it was in fear of western powers’ ability to cull their development and access to nuclear technology, and vetoed the plan, de facto starting the arms race. The Soviets were able to test their first atomic weapon in record time, barely 4 years after the Trinity test in New Mexico, in August 1949. However, by this time, the US was already in possessions of 170 nuclear weapons.

At the core of this is the game-theoretic concept known as the “security dilemma“. A country doesn’t exist in a vacuum, and when it builds arms to increase it’s security, it makes other countries less secure.If alliance is not possible, the other countries can wage immediate war to prevent military build-up, or increase their own armaments to feel more secure. At the end, both countries gain nothing but greater volume of arms, which is likely to make both countries less secure. Thus, the security dilemma is a security paradox – building arms for protection often makes countries less secure. Some, including Jervis (who coined the term) have considered the cold war a classic example of a security dilemma.

Eisenhower and the “Atoms for Peace”

President Dwight Eisenhower delivered his famous “Atoms for Peace” speech in December, 1953. It started an official policy of proliferation of nuclear technology to less developed countries around the world. Some have called it a “nuclear carrot” to create and induce allies for the US in the Cold War. In practice, the US spread nuclear technology around to world, even to a few places that were doubtful as stable allies, such as Congo. Eisenhower’s programs did include an idea for an Uranium Bank, a facility that could monitor, control and review the distribution of atomic material across the world in order to ensure that it does not fall into the wrong hands. This idea was short lived, as the 50s saw discoveries of mineable uranium across the globe, where it was previously held as a scarce commodity.

In the field of nuclear weapons, the US was racing ahead to develop a large number of nuclear weapons and delivery systems, including nuclear-powered submarines. This race was driven in part to accomplish “first-strike” and “second strike” capabilities in order to quickly demolish an opposing nations ability to wage war.

Kennedy’s Sword of Damocles

In his 1961 speech before the UN, President Kennedy was the first American president to denounce nuclear weapons as a greater danger to society than they were a benefit to US security. At this point, the US had a stockpile of 22,000 nuclear weapons (compared to 2,400 for the USSR and 70 for Britain, as the only other nuclear powers in 1961).  And Kennedy recognized that a nuclear advantage meant nothing if a nuclear war destroyed the better part of the planet.  He realized that a nuclear disaster, a nuclear “Sword of Damocles” hung above every man, woman and child and could be triggered at any moment by “accident, miscalculation, or madness”. His thinking is ingrained in the development of the Nuclear Non-Proliferation Treaty.

In the early 60s, the development of Submarine Launched Ballistic Missiles made some of the conventional armaments wisdom outdated. While an enemy might use first strike to eliminate land-based launch sites and destroy a lot of the land-based military and civilian infrastructure, the ability to launch nuclear weapons from submarines assured that the other side could retaliate from mobile and neigh-undetectable platforms. This lack of security in armaments coupled with the security dilemma gave birth to the precarious balance called the principle of Mutually Assured Destruction, or MAD. Not country could launch a nuclear attack first without being assured of destruction in return.

Nixon and the NPT

The first major treaty to develop controls for and establish the handling of nuclear weapons, the Nuclear Non-Proliferation Treaty (NPT) was at the same time a major step forward in thinking about nuclear weapon stockpiles in the world. The treaty is considered to embody three principles, or pillars: 1) Nuclear Non-Proliferation; 2) Disarmament; 3) Peaceful use of nuclear energy. It divided the world into those who have nuclear arms and those who don’t. Those who had committed to non-proliferation of weapons and disarmament, and those who didn’t have them were guaranteed access to peaceful use of nuclear energy. The treaty lacked the timelines for disarmament, but it is notable that both US and USSR today have fewer stockpiles of operational weapons (weapons that could be launched in less than a day) than at the time of signing.

It is argued that the NPT did relatively little to hinder the US vertical proliferation (modernization of weapons) and USSR weapons development (rate of roughly 1,000 warheads a year), but it served to convince other countries to abandon nuclear programs (such as Sweden), and increase international costs for others. Arguably, this international accord, currently ratified or enforced by every country with the exception of Israel, Pakistan, India and North Korea (which withdrew in 2003).

The “Smiling Buddha”, an unexpected nuclear test done by India in May 1974, further tested the newly minted NPT. Despite espousing peaceful use of technology, the Indians were able to successful develop a nuclear device, but the program was soon abandoned. The program was abandoned afterwards until 1998, when the first deployable weapons are thought to have been created.

An interesting case of downward vertical proliferation in the US was Operation Plowshare, an attempt to find civilian uses for nuclear weapons. While originally consisting of a variety of projects, including artificial lake construction, mining and interstate road construction, the weapons were not used mostly due to local opposition. There were at least 3 detonations in Colorado, in an early attempt at shale oil extraction. The sites were underground, and remain radioactive to this day.

Reagan and bankrupting the USSR

By the start of the Reagan administration, the Cold War had entered its last phase. Years of emigrants (escapees?) from the USSR has painted a much less fearsome picture, and had given heart to the US that the Eastern Bloc could yet be broken. Unbeknownst to the Soviets, the US had been reducing the arsenal while maintaining or increasing the attach potential, mostly through technological advances like the Multiple Individual Reentry Vehicles (MIRVs). At the same time, the USSR continued its development of a massive stockpile to a point where it had over 3 times more bombs than all delivery methods (rockets, submarines, bombers) combined. Pressure from the US on both military and diplomatic fronts was designed to break the economic back of the Soviet Union, in hopes that that will facilitate its final collapse. Some contend that the strategy there was rather successful, if not fruitful during Reagan’s administration.

The Reykjavik Summit

A singular moment in the history of Cold War, and arguably the beginning of the end of Cold War, was the Reykjavik Summit in 1986 at an old French Consulate. Presidents Reagan and Gorbachev met to discuss an arms reduction treaty, which Reagan attempting to include some human rights issues as well. Despite agreements made on reduction of strategic and tactical nuclear arms, the negotiations broke down over the implementation of the Strategic Defense Initiative (SDI) which would use satellites to track nuclear arms use, and deploy countermeasures. After the failure of the summit, the SDI initiative was popularly nicknamed “Star Wars”. However, a number of smaller treaties regarding nuclear weapons were nevertheless signed following the summit, even if the overall goal of disarmament had not been reached. Eventually, these efforts resulted in the signing of the Strategic Arms Reduction Treaty (START I) that codified gradual disarmament by US and USSR/Russia, during the first Bush administration.

Clinton and the former Soviet states

After the collapse of the USSR, the world suddenly found itself with a number of newly forged democracies that had nuclear weapons, but not the intention to use them or the funds to maintain them. Seizing the moment, the Clinton administration forged a plant to help former soviet states dismantle both their nuclear weapons and research reactors, both of which contained the Highly Enriched Uranium (HEU) that could be used to create atomic bombs. By this time, due to technological advances, the scientific knowledge in building a nuclear bomb had become such that with access to material, a few talented Ph.D. students in physics could construct a simple device. Thus the Clinton administration tasked the DOE with developing a program to secure this material, which continues to this day.

Source: The Nuclear Notebook, Bulletin of the Atomic Scientists

Future of Proliferation

Currently, as of 2010, there are still over 22,000 nuclear weapons in the world, which is down from a peak of 69,000 in 1986. This belies the fact that our current weapons are far more modernized than they were 25 years ago, so they are both higher in yield and in efficiency of deployment. But it has been decreasing over time, and President Obama has supported further disarmament efforts with the new START treaty signed in April of 2010 with the USSR. If we disregard our recent history with India and North Korea, the US has been successful, if slow, in fulfilling the three pillars of the NPT treaty. The easiest way to prevent nuclear proliferation is to keep a close check on the material and spent fuel (both from reactors and weapons), and we have been successfully using a myriad of systems for several years to do this. But there are still too many weapons in the ex USSR that has not been adequately secured. And with US alone still maintaining 2,500 operation weapons, and over 450 intercontinental ballistic missiles (ICBMs) on high alert (deployable within 20 minutes), we are still far from a world safe from nuclear war.

- by Matej Mavricek, Policy Fellow

Cybersecurity today is as much a part of our lives as health care, and in more than one way resembles immunization efforts. Our information is as much in danger from a variety of threats as our bodies are in danger from a variety of pathogens, and the response to both is similar: awareness, prevention, and, if necessary, treatment. Much like immunization, the more people use security measures properly and diligently, the less danger there is to the population as a whole. But because there is a cost to security, some will eschew their own responsibility and rely on others to take the necessary precautions, in a classic example of free rider problem. Such behavior can only be combated on a societal level, if we are ever to have an optimal level of security from threats to our personal information.

The age we live in, the information age, has brought us technological capacity beyond the imagination of just a decade or two ago. While there are still no flying cars, we are able to communicate instantaneously and costless with everyone on the planet through the internet. An average internet user today can consume in a day more information than an average person living in the 17th century could in their entire lifetime. We are able to go everywhere in the world, read anything, even see what it would be like to be standing on a corner of a street in New Delhi, Paris or Chicago without leaving the comfort of our ergonomic chair.

Beyond mere consumers of information, we have become generators of information. The modern web (2.0 or 3.0 depending on who is asked) allows us to project everything about our lives, even our DNA sequence, for public use of everyone in the world.  Our calendars, GPS locations, thoughts and even medical records now all exist in a virtual location.

While this enabled our lives to run smoother, and leave us with more free time for pursuits we might consider more vital, this preponderance of personal information stored online has not come without cost. Of the simplest ones, there is the cost of time necessary to manage dozens if not hundreds of different online identities in forms of username and passwords.  Others are more complicated, such as guarding our personal information against phishing and hacking schemes, that take active and continuous efforts to combat. The preponderance of ways we use the internet has also created a preponderance of ways in which someone can obtain our information without our consent, and use it maliciously.

Cybersecurity is the term we give these efforts to safeguard our information, whether we are an individual, an organization or a larger entity, such as a city or a country. They encompass awareness, prevention and treatment efforts to safeguard information. The first part, awareness, comes from continuous education on part of users and generators of information, who need to be aware of the threats in order to most efficiently decide how to guard against them. Prevention comes in many forms, from precaution and savvy (such as not responding to Nigerian princes) to protocols and programs (such as antivirus or firewall applications). Finally, treatment is attempted to recover hijacked systems and contaminated files.

In this way, cybersecurity resembles very closely our efforts to safeguard our health. We educate ourselves on the latest developments in medicine, we take precautions in response to contemporary threats (during flu season, for example), and we resort to hospitals and medicine when things have progressed beyond our ability to cope with them. Cybersecurity then resembles immunization very closely: both are used to protect against specific threats, both have to be continuously monitored and occasionally redone, and both have a cost. This cost can be a monetary cost, a cost of time or merely convenience. This cost is also what prevents some from obtaining the proper immunization (or cybersecurity) despite the risks.

However, part of this behavior is psychological – the larger the proportion of a population that has been immunized against a risk, the lesser the risk to the rest of the population. Which means some members of society will count on others to bear that cost, and immunize themselves, thus lowering the risk for everyone. And this is a typical example of what economists call free-riding, or avoidance of cost in provision of a public good. A public good is defined as any good that provides equal benefit to all in a society regardless of who bore the cost (non-rivalrous), and none in society can be prevented from consuming it (non-excludable). Traditional examples of a public good are clean air, national defense, public radio, but immunization & cybersecurity also fall within the category.

The problem of “free-riding” means that public goods are always underfunded, and as a result are always underprovided. This is true in the case of immunization & cybersecurity – left to ourselves, we would never provide enough national defense, public radio or cybersecurity, as some members of society would eschew their share of the cost, whatever form that cost took.

This is what is called a market failure, and where the government is usually required to step in in some fashion in order to insure optimal provision of the public good. In a perfect world, the government would subsidize those goods we want more of (such as cybersecurity, immunization, national defense, clean air, etc.) and offset it by taxing those goods we want less of in society, the exact opposite of a public good, called public “bads” (such as smoke stacks, cigarettes, alcohol, household waste).

Overall, cyber security, despite the best efforts of those who dedicate their careers to it, will remain an underprovided good because there is a cost associated to each individual, but the benefit is shared among all individuals in society. In order to have functional and well provided goods in society, not only must we fight the urge to “free-ride” on others (by having very weak passwords, for one), but also push for the government to effectively subsidize the good in a myriad of ways – provide funding for research, endorse standards in the industry and enable communication and information dissemination in order to make fighting cybersecurity easier.

- by Matej Mavriček, Policy Fellow

On October 13, the EPA issued a statement permitting the increase of the ethanol blend wall from 10% to 15%, instituting a new fuel in the US market, the E15 (85% gasoline, 15% ethanol mix). The fuel is only approved for cars, light-duty trucks and medium-size passenger vehicles manufactured in 2007 and later. The concern is the unknown effects on vehicles with model years prior to 2007, including engine effects, idling effects and exhaust temperatures despite insistence of industry associations to allow the fuel for cars with model years up to 2001, and even up to 1994. Further concern is that E10 leads to higher costs for consumers due to it’s lower energy density (about 33.1 MJ/L for E10 vs 34.2 MJ/L for gasoline, or 96%).

With over 95% market share, corn ethanol dominates the US ethanol market. The current blend wall of 10% means the use of about 30% of the US corn crop to produce around 13 billion gallons of ethanol this year, according the Seth Snyder, Ph.D. of the Argonne National Laboratory at the recent Future Fuels talk at IIT hosted by C2ST. However, corn conversion into ethanol consumes only the carbohydrate content of the crop, leaving the fiber and protein behind in what is called Distiller’s Grain, which is a growing and important component in US animal feed. However, the market seems to be getting close to saturation with Distiller’s Grain, partially due to “feed wall” which limits the percentage of Distiller’s Grain in overall animal feed. The US currently exports around 27% of the 33.5 million metric tons (mmt) of Distiller’s Grain, valued currently at around $4.5 billion.

The US currently has several subsidies that encourage the production of corn ethanol, the most direct one being the $0.45/gal “blender’s credit” to blend ethanol with petroleum. Next, there is the indirect subsidy, the $0.54/gal tariff on Brazilian sugarcane ethanol, both of which might be phased out by the end of the 2010 FY with the new decision to raise the blend wall. A recent CBO report stated that in terms of greenhouse gas reductions, the US tax payers would pay around $750 per ton of CO2 removed for ethanol instead of using gasoline, compared to $20 – $40 per ton of CO2 for the commercially available offset strategies.

US corn ethanol provides thousands of domestic energy industry jobs, and diversifies the market for corn and satisfies a part of the US demand for transportation fuels which currently sits at around 8 million barrels a day (336 million gallons a day, or roughly 1.1 gal/person&day in the US), there are limits to this potential – an E15 blend would use 45% of the entire crop of corn in the US. The US ethanol industry has experienced tremendous growth, from 1 billion gallons a year in 2001 to 13 billion gallons a year in 2010. The maximum potential blend wall, even if all vehicles could be retrofitted to use it is less than 30% (that includes 100% of US corn today, and it is lower due to lower energy density of ethanol). Which still leaves 70% of our fuel in petroleum, thus not solving the issues of energy independence, carbon emissions and fossil fuel dependence. There are are other biofuels and alternative fuels on the horizon, but until they are developed we are still dependent on mostly foreign crude oil.

Analysis of Fuel Options for the Next Several Decades

- by Matej Mavriček, Policy Fellow

Why should you care about gasoline?

Gender Differences in the Workplace
by University of Chicago Harris School of Public Policy’s Angie Zeich and Carol Hendrickson

The low number of women in science careers has historically been a problem that remains pervasive today.  Women still hold proportionally low academic science positions compared to men, and the shortage affects the private sector too, particularly engineering, computer science, and management.  Click here to look at how differences in employment break down by field.  When looking at minority women statistics, the differences are even greater.  An MIT study from the 1990s showed that women science faculty at the university level also faced lower salaries, space, awards, and resources.

To amend these disparities, some universities and businesses have adopted controversial affirmative action policies.  After the passing of the Civil Rights Act of 1964, a series of court cases determined that affirmative action is legal as a remedy for past discrimination so long that it is narrowly tailored.  Universities and firms cannot use quotas or “set asides” to recruit and hire women.  However, sex may be used as a “plus factor” in hiring.  In Grutter v. Bollinger, the Supreme Court expressed that in the future, there will be a legal sunset for affirmative action policies.  Once past discrimination has been remedied, affirmative action will no longer meet legal standards.  When this will occur remains questionable.  Not all gender differences in science are due to discrimination, however.  There is no clear consensus on why more women do not pursue science careers.

Women, not only in science, often point to how family-work conflicts impact their lives differently than men.  In 1978, Congress passed the Pregnancy Discrimination Act, which expanded Title VII of the Civil Rights Act of 1964 to include pregnant women.  This act made it illegal to fire or refuse to hire a woman for being pregnant.  The 1993 Family Medical Leave Act mandated firms to offer 12 weeks of job-protected pregnancy leave.  However, more often than not, this leave is unpaid.  Canada and Europe, on the other hand, have much longer job-protected leave with pay and benefits.  Maternity leave affectively makes women more expensive than men to employ.  Therefore, some countries, such as Sweden, have policies allowing men to take job-protected paternity leave as well.  Click here to read about how other countries are managing the increase of women in the workplace.  Family commitments do not end after childbirth, and governments and firms can do much more to expand childcare services, such as subsidies to low income families.  The American Recovery and Reinvestment Act has boosted child tax credits and increased funding for child care development.  Some schools have lengthened the school day to accommodate working mothers.  Chicago Public Schools has considered year round schooling and has begun a year round pilot program for more than a quarter of its students.

Though parenting does affect a woman’s career, and much more can be done to equalize gender differences in the workplace, the question remains why women are employed at relatively lower rates in science compared to other fields.  Why do you think less women engage in science related employment?  Join our discussion at the Women in Science Symposium.

A top policy priority of the United States is to encourage the development of alternative fuels. Alternative fuels reduce our dependence on foreign produced energy sources, improve the reliability of our energy production, and have environmental benefits such as reduced green house gas emissions. At the local, state, and federal levels, policies are being developed to fund research into alternative fuels and to expedite their implementation into our economy and every day use. Storing this energy will be an important part of its adaptation. The topic of C²ST’s program, storing alternative energies, was recently highlighted by a recent Senate hearing on the importance of energy storage.

In order to make alternative energy viable, governments can fund and prioritize energy innovation and research. Alternative energy was a major component in the federal stimulus package of 2009. Click here too see stimulus funding for energy and note the $11 billion earmarked to modernize the electric grid as well as additional funds for battery development and renewable energy research. Also, investments in alternative energy research and development will increase should the United States pass legislation that would create a price for carbon emissions. The American Clean Energy and Security Act of 2009, also known as the Waxman-Markley bill, passed in the House of Representatives in June 2009. The bill includes a cap-and-trade global warming reduction plan designed to reduce economy-wide greenhouse gas emissions 17 percent by 2020. Click here to view updates on the bill’s progress.

Although the fuel is free, solar energy is still rather expensive and its implementation does require federal subsidies. Check out this video for an example of using policy to create green jobs and stimulate local tax revenue… and you’ll never guess where the nation’s largest urban solar power plant is! Renewable energy sources such as solar power are also an important component of the Chicago Climate Action Plan. The city hopes to procure enough renewable energy generation for Chicagoans to reduce electricity emissions by 20 percent, a reduction of 3.0 MMTCO₂e.

The development of low or no emissions vehicles is an important component of reducing carbon emissions. These vehicles typically require electric power rather than energy from fossil fuels. Battery technology will make electric vehicles a feasible substitute for conventional gasoline powered vehicles. Research on battery improvements is happening all over the country, even in our own back yard. To sell cars, private companies are incentivized to develop the best batteries. The Department of Energy also recently loaned Nissan Corporation $1.4 billion to produce advanced batteries and electric vehicles in the U.S. Battery storage of energy will also become an increasingly important part of our electrical grid system as we diversify energy sources. Check out this project on large scale energy storage funded by the Department of Energy.

Tax incentives and subsidies are another way to encourage the development and implementation of solar technologies. To encourage utilization of smaller-scale solar energy systems, Illinois has a program that offers incentives up to 30 percent of total project cost for residential and business applicants, and 50 percent for public sector and non-profit entities. Regulatory requirements are another policy tool used in the region to mandate the use of alternative energy. In 2007, Illinois passed a statewide Renewable Energy Standard and an Energy Efficiency Portfolio Standard. Under the Standard, utilities must produce a certain percentage of their power from renewable sources, starting with 2 percent in 2008 and increasing to 10 percent by 2015 and to 25 percent by 2025. Solar will likely play an important role in allowing utilities to meet these regulatory obligations.

Non-government organizations play an important role in shaping alternative energy policy as well. The Illinois Smart Grid Initiative was a public-private working group formed in 2008 to engage Illinoisans in examining their electric grid. Check out their report on the potential benefits of a modernized electric grid and a policy path for achieving those benefits for consumers and the economy. Improvements in the power grid could accomplish long term energy policy goals, like being able to transfer wind power from the Great Plains to use in Chicago.

Technology firms are interested and invested in electricity grid improvements and are actively encouraging governments to enact policy to this end. Check out General Electric’s web page promoting smart grid technology. Because a smart grid is essentially the application of information technology to the electricity business, Google is also involved in promoting state and federal smart grid policy. Google has already developed software to monitor power use. These companies and the people they employ can be important agents in policy change by using their resources to put pressure on governments and by using their expertise to advise policy outcomes.

Policy can also be used to expedite the implementation of these technologies so that their benefits can be realized as soon as possible. Patents ensure that intellectual property is property is protected, which gives companies an incentive to invest in research and development.

We hope that you will keep these policy instruments in mind as you enjoy our program on Storing Alternative Energy.