DOCSLIB.ORG

Vs. Direct Disposal of Spent Nuclear Fuel

Total Page：16

File Type：pdf, Size：1020Kb

Download full-text PDF Read full-text
Vs. Direct Disposal of Spent Nuclear Fuel THE ECONOMICS OF REPROCESSING VS. DIRECT DISPOSAL OF SPENT NUCLEAR FUEL Final Report 8/12/1999-7/30/2003 Matthew Bunn Steve Fetter John P. Holdren Bob van der Zwaan December 2003 DE-FG26-99FT4028 PROJECT ON MANAGING THE ATOM BELFER CENTER FOR SCIENCE AND INTERNATIONAL AFFAIRS JOHN F. KENNEDY SCHOOL OF GOVERNMENT HARVARD UNIVERSITY 79 JOHN F. KENNEDY STREET CAMBRIDGE, MASSACHUSETTS 02138 © 2003 President and Fellows of Harvard University Printed in the United States of America This report was prepared as an account of work sponsored by an agency of the United States Government. Neither the United States Government nor any agency thereof, nor any of their employees, makes any warranty, express or implied, or assumes any legal liability or responsibility for the accuracy, completeness, or usefulness of any information, apparatus, product, or process disclosed, or represents that its use would not infringe privately owned rights. Reference herein to any specific commercial product, process, or service by trade name, trademark, manufacturer, or otherwise does not necessarily imply its endorsement, recommendation, or favoring by the United States Government or any agency thereof. The views and opinions of authors expressed herein do not necessarily state or reflect those of the United States Government or any agency thereof. The authors of this report invite liberal use of the information provided in it for educational purposes, requiring only that the reproduced material clearly state: Reproduced from Matthew Bunn, Steve Fetter, John Holdren, and Bob van der Zwaan, The Economics of Reprocessing vs. Direct Disposal of Spent Nuclear Fuel (Cambridge, Mass.: Project on Managing the Atom, Harvard University, 2003). Project on Managing the Atom Belfer Center for Science and International Affairs John F. Kennedy School of Government Harvard University 79 JFK Street Cambridge, MA 02138 Fax: (202) 495-8963 Email: [email protected] Web: http://www.ksg.harvard.edu/bcsia/atom Abstract This report assesses the economics of reprocessing versus direct disposal of spent nuclear fuel. The breakeven uranium price at which reprocessing spent nuclear fuel from existing light-water reactors (LWRs) and recycling the resulting plutonium and uranium in LWRs would become economic is assessed, using central estimates of the costs of different elements of the nuclear fuel cycle (and other fuel cycle input parameters), for a wide range of range of potential reprocessing prices. Sensitivity analysis is performed, showing that the conclusions reached are robust across a wide range of input parameters. The contribution of direct disposal or reprocessing and recycling to electricity cost is also assessed. The choice of particular central estimates and ranges for the input parameters of the fuel cycle model is justified through a review of the relevant literature. The impact of different fuel cycle approaches on the volume needed for geologic repositories is briefly discussed, as are the issues surrounding the possibility of performing separations and transmutation on spent nuclear fuel to reduce the need for additional repositories. A similar analysis is then performed of the breakeven uranium price at which deploying fast-neutron breeder reactors would become competitive compared with a once-through fuel cycle in LWRs, for a range of possible differences in capital cost between LWRs and fast-neutron reactors. Sensitivity analysis is again provided, as are an analysis of the contribution to electricity cost, and a justification of the choices of central estimates and ranges for the input parameters. The equations used in the economic model are derived and explained in an appendix. Another appendix assesses the quantities of uranium likely to be recoverable worldwide in the future at a range of different possible future prices. iii Table of Contents Abstract ........................................................................................................................iii List of Figures..............................................................................................................vii Acknowledgements.................................................................................................... viii Executive Summary .....................................................................................................ix 1. Introduction..............................................................................................................1 1.1. What Is Reprocessing? 1.2. Data and Sources 1.3. Cost vs. Price 1.4. Currency Conversion 1.5. Cost of Money, Discount Rate, and Taxes 1.6. Real vs. Nominal Dollars 1.7. Plan of the Report 2. Direct Disposal vs. Reprocessing and Recycling in Thermal Reactors.................13 2.1. How to Compare Costs of Different Fuel Cycles 2.2. Calculating Breakeven Prices 2.3. Breakeven Price Sensitivity Analysis 2.4. Contribution to the Cost of Electricity 2.5. Component Costs of the Fuel Cycle 2.5.1. Uranium Prices 2.5.2. Reprocessing Costs and Prices 2.5.3. Costs of Disposal of Spent Fuel and Reprocessing Wastes 2.5.4. Costs and Prices for Mixed Oxide Fuel Fabrication and Use 2.5.5. Costs of Interim Storage of Spent Fuel 2.5.6. Enrichment Prices 2.5.7. Low Enriched Uranium Fuel Fabrication Prices 2.5.8. Premiums for Handling Reprocessed Uranium 2.5.9. Conversion Prices 2.5.10. Non-Price Factors: Fuel Burnup, Discount Rate Sidebar: Volumes of Wastes From Direct Disposal and Reprocessing Sidebar: Reprocessing to Reduce the Need for Additional Repositories 3. Direct Disposal vs. Recycling in Fast-Neutron Reactors........................................67 3.1. Plutonium Breeding and Recycling in Fast Reactors 3.2. Breakeven Uranium Price for Recycling in Fast Reactors 3.3. Cost of Electricity for Fast Reactors and Once-Through Systems 3.4. Cost Parameters and Variations 3.4.1. Difference in Capital Cost 3.4.2. Reactor Ownership and Financing Arrangements 3.4.3. Reprocessing Costs v 3.4.4. Core and Blanket Fuel Fabrication Costs 3.4.5. Geological Disposal of Reprocessing Waste 3.4.6. Breeding Ratio 3.4.7. Depleted Uranium Price Sidebar: Thermal Neutron and Fast-Neutron Reactors Sidebar: Characteristics of the Model Fast Reactor 4. Conclusions.............................................................................................................87 Appendix A. Fuel Cycle Cost Calculations................................................................89 A.1. Direct Disposal vs. Reprocessing and Recycle in LWRs A.1.1. Direct Disposal A.1.2. Reprocessing-Recycle A.1.2.1. Value of Recovered Plutonium A.1.2.2. Value of Recovered Uranium A.1.3. Uranium Breakeven Price A.2. Direct Disposal vs. Recycling in Fast-Neutron Reactors A.2.1. Capital Cost A.2.1.1. Interest During Construction A.2.2.2. Fixed Charge Rate A.2.2. Operations and Maintenance Cost A.2.3. Fuel Cost A.2.3.1. LWR Fuel A.2.3.2. LMR Fuel A.2.4. Breakeven Uranium Price Appendix B. World Uranium Resources ................................................................. 105 B.1. Introduction B.2. Fallacy of the Traditional Economic Resource Model B.3. Estimates of Uranium Resources B.4. Uranium From Seawater B.5. Uranium Consumption vi List of Figures and Tables Figure 2.1. Breakeven uranium price as a function of the cost of reprocessing ..............18 Table 2.1. Estimates of fuel cycle costs (2003 dollars) and other parameters...............19 Table 2.2. Breakeven prices of selected parameters.....................................................20 Figure 2.2. Sensitivity of the uranium breakeven price..................................................20 Figure 2.3. Additional cost of electricity for the reprocessing-recycle option ................22 Figure 2.4. Uranium prices, 1972-2000.........................................................................24 Table 2.3. Notional cost reduction for disposal of reprocessing wastes........................42 Figure 3.1. Breakeven uranium price for government-owned reactors...........................69 Figure 3.2. Breakeven uranium price for utility-owned reactors....................................70 Figure 3.3. Breakeven uranium price for private venture ownership..............................70 Table 3.1. Sensitivity analysis for the breakeven uranium price...................................71 Table 3.2. Breakeven price of selected parameters ........................................................73 Figure 3.4. Difference in the cost of electricity between an FR with recycling and an LWR with direct disposal..............................................................................................74 Table A.1. Isotopic composition of fresh and spent LEU..............................................92 Table A.2. Isotopic composition of fresh MOX fuel.....................................................93 Table A.3. Optimum tails assay ...................................................................................95 Table A.4. Fixed charge rates..................................................................................... 101 Table B.1. Typical uranium concentrations ................................................................ 106 Table B.2. Exponential uranium resource estimates .................................................... 113 vii Acknowledgements This report was prepared with the support of the U.S. Department of Energy (DOE), under Award No. DE-FG26-99FT40281. However, any opinions, findings, conclusions, or recommendations expressed herein are those of the authors
Load more

Recommended publications
  • Harvard University
    HARVARD UNIVERSITY ROBERT AND RENÉE BELFER CENTER FOR SCIENCE AND INTERNATIONAL AFFAIRS 2000-2001 ANNUAL REPORT 2 Robert and Renée Belfer Center for Science and International Affairs 2000-2001 Annual Report Director’s Foreword 5 Overview From the Executive Director 7 Environment and Natural Resources Program TABLE 8 OF Harvard Information Infrastructure Project 52 CONTENTS International Security Program 71 Science, Technology and Public Policy Program 109 Strengthening Democratic Institutions Project 155 WPF Program on Intrastate Conflict, Conflict Prevention, and Conflict Resolution 177 Events 188 Publications 219 Biographies 241 Robert and Renée Belfer Center for Science and International Affairs 3 2000-2001 Annual Report 4 Robert and Renée Belfer Center for Science and International Affairs 2000-2001 Annual Report Director’s Foreword —————————————♦ For the hub of the John F. Kennedy School’s research, teaching, and training in international security affairs, environmental and resource issues, conflict prevention and resolution, and science and technology policy, the first academic year of the new century has been bracing. According to our mission statement, The Belfer Center for Science and International Affairs strives to provide leadership in advancing policy-relevant knowledge about the most important challenges of international security and other critical issues where science, technology, and international affairs intersect. BCSIA’s leadership begins with the recognition of science and technology as driving forces transforming threats and opportunities in international affairs. The Center integrates insights of social scientists, technologists, and practitioners with experience in government, diplomacy, the military, and business to address critical issues. BCSIA involvement in both the Republican and Democratic campaigns. BCSIA was privileged to have senior advisors in both camps in one of the most unforgettable American elections in recent memory.
    [Show full text]
  • August 10, 2016 the Honorable Edward J. Ramotowski Deputy
    August 10, 2016 The Honorable Edward J. Ramotowski Deputy Assistant Secretary for Visa Services Bureau of Consular Affairs U.S. Department of State 2201 C Street NW Washington, D.C. 20520 Dear Deputy Assistant Secretary Ramotowski: We, leaders and members of the higher education community, are writing to bring to your attention that the current visa renewal process is harming the United States. Requiring the renewal of academic visas abroad is disrupting scholarship, impeding research, and is an undue hardship that our international scholars currently endure. Most students admitted on F visas are admitted under “duration of status” and they are allowed to stay in the country as long as they are a student, whether their visa expires or not. However, students who leave the country after their visa has expired have to apply to renew it before they can be re-admitted. Most nonimmigrant visas, including class F visas, must be renewed at a U.S. Embassy or Consulate office abroad and the Department of State recommends that applicants apply in their home country. The visa issuance and renewal process has been shortened over the past several years, and we are grateful for the Department of State’s efforts thus far to improve the process. However, requiring visa renewals be done abroad is impacting our scholars in a number of ways: 1. The time required to travel and renew academic visas abroad is an interruption to international student’s academic career, is detrimental to the undergraduate students in their classes, and stalls cutting-edge U.S. based research. 2.
    [Show full text]
  • Presidential Administration and the Durability of Climate-Consciousness Abstract
    YUMEHIKO HOSHIJIMA Presidential Administration and the Durability of Climate-Consciousness abstract. President Obama took executive actions to address climate change that far ex- ceeded previous Presidents’ efforts to pursue policy objectives through presidential administra- tion. This Note does not focus on the Obama Administration’s major climate change regulations and international agreements, which have already attracted much attention. Rather, this Note identifies a concerted but inconspicuous effort to embed climate-consciousness throughout the executive branch, elevating climate change as a key decisional criterion for federal departments and agencies. This Note explains how the Obama Administration’s efforts exhibited a delicate interplay with the judicial and legislative branches, responding to a judicial demand for rigorous administrative reasoning about climate change while sidestepping congressional hostility to cli- mate change action by finding a narrow zone of congressional inattention. Although convention- al wisdom counsels that subsequent Presidents may easily reverse policies advanced through presidential administration, the Obama Administration’s efforts to advance climate- consciousness may prove surprisingly durable due to formal legal constraints, bureaucratic iner- tia, and public backlash. author. Yale Law School, J.D. expected. The author would like to thank Professor Jerry Mashaw for teaching the Advanced Administrative Law seminar and providing feedback on early drafts; Kyle Edwards, Joshua Macey, and Arjun Ramamurti for workshopping the paper in the seminar; and Patrick Baker and Anthony Sampson for thoughtful editorial feedback and their immense patience. Special thanks to Professor Daniel C. Esty for reviewing drafts and providing insights about sustainability that undergird this paper. All errors, mischaracterizations, and omissions are mine alone.
    [Show full text]
  • TRANSCRIPT Environmental Insights Guest: John Holdren Record Date
    TRANSCRIPT Environmental Insights Guest: John Holdren Record Date: June 28, 2021 Posting Date: July 8, 2021 LINK to podcast: https://soundcloud.com/environmentalinsights/assessing-the-biden-administrations- climate-policy-a-conversation-with-john-holdren/s-AGb2162UF0g OR https://tinyurl.com/vy63nnwj John Holdren: The impacts of climate change are now so conspicuous that it is becoming impossible for people to, with any credibility at all, deny that this is an immense challenge to well-being on the planet. Rob Stavins: Welcome to Environmental Insights, a podcast from the Harvard Environmental Economics Program. I'm your host, Rob Stavins, a professor here at the Harvard Kennedy School and director of the Environmental Economics Program and our Harvard Project on Climate Agreements. Rob Stavins: In this series, I've had the pleasure of engaging in conversations with a really stellar group of men and women with tremendous expertise in energy and environmental policy, some of whom have combined substantial work in the academic world with very significant service in the public sector. And my guest today truly exemplifies that combination. John Holdren is a research professor and until recently was the Teresa and John Heinz Professor of Environmental Policy at the Harvard Kennedy School and a professor in the Department of Earth and Planetary Sciences at Harvard. He took an extended leave of absence from the university from January 2009 to January 2017, to serve in the Obama Administration as the president's science advisor and as director of the White House Office of Science and Technology Policy. And he was in fact, the longest serving science advisor to the president in the history of the position.
    [Show full text]
  • The United States Government Manual 2009/2010
    The United States Government Manual 2009/2010 Office of the Federal Register National Archives and Records Administration The artwork used in creating this cover are derivatives of two pieces of original artwork created by and copyrighted 2003 by Coordination/Art Director: Errol M. Beard, Artwork by: Craig S. Holmes specifically to commemorate the National Archives Building Rededication celebration held September 15-19, 2003. See Archives Store for prints of these images. VerDate Nov 24 2008 15:39 Oct 26, 2009 Jkt 217558 PO 00000 Frm 00001 Fmt 6996 Sfmt 6996 M:\GOVMAN\217558\217558.000 APPS06 PsN: 217558 dkrause on GSDDPC29 with $$_JOB Revised September 15, 2009 Raymond A. Mosley, Director of the Federal Register. Adrienne C. Thomas, Acting Archivist of the United States. On the cover: This edition of The United States Government Manual marks the 75th anniversary of the National Archives and celebrates its important mission to ensure access to the essential documentation of Americans’ rights and the actions of their Government. The cover displays an image of the Rotunda and the Declaration Mural, one of the 1936 Faulkner Murals in the Rotunda at the National Archives and Records Administration (NARA) Building in Washington, DC. The National Archives Rotunda is the permanent home of the Declaration of Independence, the Constitution of the United States, and the Bill of Rights. These three documents, known collectively as the Charters of Freeedom, have secured the the rights of the American people for more than two and a quarter centuries. In 2003, the National Archives completed a massive restoration effort that included conserving the parchment of the Declaration of Independence, the Constitution, and the Bill of Rights, and re-encasing the documents in state-of-the-art containers.
    [Show full text]
  • John Holdren’S Attack on Bjørn Lomborg’S the Skeptical Environmentalist
    COMPETITIVE ENTERPRISE INSTITUTE The Heated Energy Debate Assessing John Holdren’s Attack on Bjørn Lomborg’s The Skeptical Environmentalist By Robert L. Bradley, Jr. President, Institute for Energy Research Executive Summary In September 2001, Cambridge University Press published Bjørn Lomborg’s The Skeptical Environmentalist: Measuring the True State of the World. The book’s comprehensiveness (515 pages; 2,930 footnotes), the author’s green credentials (a former Greenpeace member, Lomborg began the book’s research to debunk Julian Simon’s forecasts of continuing environmental improvement), and Lomborg’s powerful refutation of the doomsday “litany of our ever-deteriorating environment,” sparked considerable interest. Favorable reviews followed in the New York Times, Washington Post, and The Economist. When the book became an international best seller, ideological environmentalists launched an angry counter-attack. Among the key figures to impugn Lomborg’s scholarship is the subject of this paper: Harvard Professor John P. Holdren. Holdren, a Clinton-era leader of climate policy and energy technology task forces, is now the leading academic member of the National Commission on Energy Policy, a $10 million, two-year project tasked with formulating a “centrist” energy policy. Holdren is also one of four authors to attack Lomborg in the January 2002 issue of Scientific American, in a feature pretentiously titled, “Science Defends Itself Against The Skeptical Environmentalist.” A more accurate title would be “Environmental Establishment Fears to Debate Bjørn Lomborg.” Scientific American refused Lomborg the right of reply in the same issue, offered no space to scientists not affiliated with environmental activist causes, and even threatened to sue Lomborg if he tried to reproduce the Scientific American articles, with his detailed responses, on his own Website.
    [Show full text]
  • The White House Science Advisor in an Age of Climate Confusion, A
    A Rook or a Pawn: The White House Science Advisor in an Age of Climate Confusion Len Aslanian I. INTRODUCTION ....................................... 473 II. -S&T ADVISEMENT IN THE BUSH ADMINISTRATION ................................... 476 III. S&T ADVISEMENT IN THE OBAMA ERA ............ 483 IV. STRUCTURAL CHALLENGES OF THE SCIENCE ADVISOR .............................................. 487 V. SUGGESTIONS FOR THE SCIENCE ADVISOR .......... 493 I. INTRODUCTION In October 1986, at the height of the American AIDS crisis, the Office of the Surgeon General issued the federal govern- ment's first major report on the disease.* In direct and some- times explicit language, the report detailed the nature, symptoms, and causes of AIDS and called for a nationwide educational cam- paign that included controversial measures such as early child- hood sex education and public promotion of condom use.' Eighteen months later, in the largest public health mailing in US history, a condensed version of the report titled Understanding AIDS was sent to 107 million American households.2 Both versions of the report were personally penned by Presi- dent Reagan's Surgeon General, the bow-tied and billy goat- bearded pediatric surgeon C. Everett Koop.3 A controversial fig- ure due to his evangelical Christian background and anti-abor- 1. See id.; The Reports of the Surgeon General: The AIDS Epidemic, PROFILES IN Sci.: NAT' LIBRARY OF MED., http://profiles.nlm.nih.gov/ps/retrieve/Narrative/NN/ p-nid/62 (last visited June 12, 2011). 2. U.S. Du'r OF HEAIA-rH & HUMAN SERV., UNDERS-TANDING AIDS (1988), avail- able at http://profiles.nlm.nih.gov/QQ/B/D/RIU/qqbdrl.pdf; Who is the AAME? C.
    [Show full text]
  • The Honorable John Holdren Director of White House Office of Science and Technology Policy
    The Honorable John Holdren Director of White House Office of Science and Technology Policy The Honorable Susan Rice United States National Security Advisor The Honorable Jeffrey Zients Director of the White House National Economic Council The White House 1600 Pennsylvania Ave NW Washington, DC 20500 RE: Civil Society Input on Human Rights and Civil Liberties Protections Online Dear Mr. Holdren, Ms. Rice, and Mr. Zients, The undersigned organizations recognize that the U.S. government faces complex security challenges, and we appreciate the role of a variety of stakeholders including technology companies. However, we are writing to you today because we believe that when the government sits down with private sector entities to discuss the future of free expression and privacy online, civil liberties and human rights advocates need to be at the table, too. Over the past year, technology companies have been under increasing pressure from a range of policymakers to weaken the security of their products and to aggressively monitor, censor, or report to the government users’ communications, with the hope that such steps will help to prevent or investigate acts of terrorism. This campaign to push the tech sector to police the Internet at the government’s behest was recently highlighted by the White House’s high-profile visit to Silicon Valley for a confidential meeting with top tech company CEOs. In international fora, the United States has consistently promoted a multi-stakeholder approach to decision-making concerning the Internet, an approach that includes not only government and corporate stakeholders, but civil society as well. As this Administration has regularly asserted, when billions of people rely on the Internet to exercise their human rights to speak freely and communicate privately, it only makes sense that experts and advocates whose primary goal is to protect those rights be included in discussions about the Internet’s future.
    [Show full text]
  • Letter Sent Today to John Holdren
    Board of Directors April 3, 2009 John Applegate Via U.S. Mail and Electronic Mail at [email protected] Robert Glicksman Thomas McGarity Dr. John Holdren, Director Amy Sinden Office of Science and Technology Policy Sidney Shapiro Executive Office of the President Rena Steinzor 725 17th Street, N.W. Robert Verchick Washington, D.C. 20502 Advisory Council Re: Scientific Integrity in the Obama Administration Patricia Bauman Dear Dr. Holdren: Frances Beinecke W. Thompson The Center for Progressive Reform (CPR) is a 501(c)(3) nonprofit research and Comerford, Jr. educational organization with a network of Member Scholars working to protect health, Robert Kuttner safety, and the environment through analysis and commentary. We write to you today John Podesta James E. Tierney in response to President Obama’s March 9, 2009 memorandum on scientific integrity. Henry Waxman As you well know, scientists, their work, and the entire scientific process were subject to ideological attack from the last administration, so we commend you for spearheading this administration’s efforts to restore integrity to the federal government’s treatment of the scientific endeavor. Understandably, President Obama wants to move quickly to ensure that all departments in his administration have established procedures to prevent the politicization of science. Difficult questions regarding climate change, toxic chemicals, and consumer products loom on the horizon, and the agency officials tasked with resolving those questions need to be able to rely on the science at their disposal. We urge you to open a formal public comment period on the memorandum to make full use of the short timeframe that President Obama has allotted for your work in this area.
    [Show full text]
  • Heads They Win, Tails We Lose
    Heads They Win, Tails We Lose How Corporations Corrupt Science at the Public’s Expense Heads They Win, Tails We Lose How Corporations Corrupt Science at the Public’s Expense The Scientific Integrity Program of the Union of Concerned Scientists February 2012 ii UNION OF CONCERNED SCIENTISTS © 2012 Union of Concerned Scientists The Union of Concerned Scientists (UCS) is the leading science- based nonprofit working for a healthy environment and a safer world. The UCS Scientific Integrity Program mobilizes scientists and citizens alike to defend science from political interference and restore scientific integrity in federal policy making. To learn more, visit www.ucsusa.org/scientific_integrity. The Union of Concerned Scientists is the leading science-based nonprofit working for a healthy environment and a safer world. The full text of this report is available on the UCS website at www.ucsusa.org/scientific_integrity or may be obtained from: UCS Publications Two Brattle Square Cambridge, MA 02138-3780 Or, email [email protected] or call (617) 547-5552. HEADS THEY WIN, TAILS WE LOSE iii Contents Text Boxes................................................................................................................................................... iv Contributors ............................................................................................................................................. v Acknowledgments .................................................................................................................................
    [Show full text]
  • Jane Lubchenco Oral History Interviews, October 6, 2014
    Jane Lubchenco Oral History Interviews, October 6, 2014 Title “From Newport to Washington, D.C.: A World Leader in the Marine Sciences” Date October 6, 2014 Location Cordley Hall, Oregon State University. Summary In her first interview, Lubchenco discusses her family background and upbringing in Colorado, her early interests in science, and the contours of her early education, including her undergraduate experience at Colorado College. In discussing this period of her life, Lubchenco stresses the importance of her involvement in the Ford Independent Studies Program and her participation in a summer enrichment program in marine biology held at Woods Hole, Massachusetts. Lubchenco next recounts her master's studies at the University of Washington, noting the impact of her mentor, Bob Paine, and the circumstances by which she met a fellow graduate student, Bruce Menge, who would later become her husband. She then notes a year spent in Santa Barbara before describing her and Menge's move to the east coast, her time in the Harvard University Ph.D. program, and the research that she conducted with Menge in coastal New England. From there Lubchenco describes the extension of her and Menge's research to a tropical environment in Panama, as well as her two years on faculty at Harvard. The unique manner by which Lubchenco and Menge relocated to Oregon State University and a description of the OSU Zoology Department at that time are also recalled. Lubchenco's survey of the research that she and Menge have conducted at OSU comprises a major component of the interview. In reviewing their work, Lubchenco highlights the duo's studies of the ecology of Oregon's seashores - in particular their work analyzing interactions between the rocky shore and the near shore ocean - and the geographical extension of this work through the formation of the Partnership for Interdisciplinary Studies of Coastal Oceans.
    [Show full text]
  • THE WHITE HOUSE Office of the Press Secretary for IMMEDIATE RELEASE January 14, 2017 Readout of the Principal-Level Transition E
    THE WHITE HOUSE Office of the Press Secretary FOR IMMEDIATE RELEASE January 14, 2017 Readout of the Principal-Level Transition Exercise The White House on Friday afternoon convened a transition exercise with members of the President-Elect's team and Cabinet designees together with current senior White House, Cabinet, and agency leaders. The exercise provided a high-level perspective on a series of challenges that the next administration may face and introduced the key authorities, policies, capabilities, and structures that are currently in place to respond to major domestic incidents. Members of President Obama's team shared experiences and lessons from incident responses they experienced, and both sides discussed a number of response scenarios together. Participants agreed that the exercise was productive and advanced the shared goal of conducting the most professional and seamless transition possible. Obama Administration Participants Included: Chair Lisa Monaco, Assistant to the President for Homeland Security and Counterterrorism Denis McDonough, Assistant to the President and White House Chief of Staff Susan Rice, Assistant to the President for National Security Affairs Neil Eggleston, Assistant to the President and White House Counsel Cecilia Munoz, Assistant to the President and Director of the Domestic Policy Council Avril Haines, Assistant to the President and Deputy National Security Advisor Dab Kern, Assistant to the President and Director, White House Military Office Amy Pope, Deputy Homeland Security Advisor and Deputy Assistant to the President Suzy George, Deputy Assistant to the President and NSC Chief of Staff John Holdren, Office of Science and Technology Policy Director Shaun Donovan, Office of Management and Budget Director Ashton Carter, Secretary of Defense Gen Joseph Dunford, Chairman of the Joint Chiefs of Staff Jeh Johnson, Secretary of Homeland Security Sally Jewell, Secretary of the Interior Dr.
    [Show full text]