Dr. Marcus' Room No. 1

1. Making Predictions about the Future
Gail H. Marcus, Consultant, USA

Profile (January 2008)
Dr. Gail H. Marcus is presently an independent consultant on nuclear power technology and policy.
She recently completed a three-year term as Deputy Director-General of the OECD Nuclear Energy Agency(NEA) in Paris. In this position, she was responsible for the program of work and budget for the agency.
From 1999 through 2004, Dr. Marcus served as Principal Deputy Director of the Office of Nuclear Energy,Science and Technology. There she provided technical leadership for DOE’s nuclear energy programs
and facilities, including the development of next-generation nuclear power systems. Other responsibilities included production and distribution of isotopes for medical treatment, diagnosis andresearch, and oversight of DOE test and research reactors and related facilities and activities.
From 1998-1999, Dr. Marcus spent a year in Japan as Visiting Professor in the Research Laboratory
for Nuclear Reactors, Tokyo Institute of Technology. She conducted research on comparative nuclear
regulatory policy in Japan and the United States.
Previously, Dr. Marcus had been in the US Nuclear Regulatory Commission (NRC). She served in a varietyof positions including Deputy Executive Director of the Advisory Committee on Reactor Safeguards/Advisory Committee on Nuclear Waste; Director of Project Directorate III-3, providing
regulatory oversight of seven nuclear power plants in the Midwest; and Director of the Advanced
Reactors Project Directorate, where she was responsible for technical reviews of advanced reactor
designs.
She also served as technical assistant to Commissioner Kenneth Rogers at the NRC for over four years,
providing advice and recommendations on a broad range of technical and policy issues of interest tothe Commission. From this position she was detailed for five months to Japan’s Ministry of International Trade and Industry, where she was NRC’s first assignee to Japan, studying Japan’s
licensing of the Advanced Boiling Water Reactor.
Prior to her service at NRC, Dr. Marcus was Assistant Chief of the Science Policy Research Divisionat the Congressional Research Service (1980-1985). In this position, she was responsible for policy
analysis in support of Congress covering all fields of science and technology, and played a lead rolein policy analysis and development for energy, nuclear power, and risk assessment and management.

Organization:
From 2001-2002, Dr. Marcus served as President of the American Nuclear Society (ANS), an 11,000 member
professional society. She is a Fellow of the ANS and of the American Association for the Advancementof Science (AAAS). She is a former member of the National Research Council Committee on the Future
Needs of Nuclear Engineering Education, and served three terms on the MIT Corporation Visiting
Committee for the Nuclear Engineering Department. She is just completing a term as the elected Chairof the Engineering Section of AAAS.

Publication:
Dr. Marcus has authored numerous technical papers and publications. Her research interests include
nuclear regulatory policy, energy technology and policy, risk assessment and management, international nuclear policy, and advanced nuclear technologies.

Education:Dr. Marcus has an S.B. and S.M. in Physics, and an Sc.D. in Nuclear Engineering from MIT. She is thefirst woman to earn a doctorate in nuclear engineering in the United States.

1Copyright © JAPAN NUS CO., LTD. All Rights Reserved

Dr. Marcus' Room No. 1

In thinking about what might be a good theme tolaunch this series, I was reminded of a saying byYogi Berra, an American baseball player who became famous for making statements that weretechnically incorrect, but unintentionally humorous. My favorite of his many homespun philosophical pronouncements is: “It is hard to make predictions, especially about the future.” [ For more of thequotes of this most famous American philosopher,
Google “Yogi Berra” or see
http://en.wikiquote.org/wiki/Yogi_Berra ]This thought came to mind because I have been
thinking about how much our perspectives on theneeds for energy and the problems of energy
sources have changed in the last few years.
After all, it was not that many years ago that noone had heard of global warming, and no one wasthinking about the possibility of very rapid growthin the economies of some of the world’s most populous developing countries.
Should we have been able to anticipate thesetrends sooner? There probably were a few visionaries who did predict them. It probably simply
seemed to the rest of us that these concerns were
not sufficiently real to merit doing something aboutthem.
Maybe the problem is not so much that it is hard
to make the predictions, but that it is hard to makethe decision to do anything about a potential
problem that seems to be a small probability event
some time far in the future.
There have been some other concerns raised inrecent months that are, perhaps, not quite as difficult to grasp. I am thinking particularly about
new revelations about some of the new technologies developed to save electricity or reduce our useof oil. The two most recent examples are: 1) worries
about mercury contamination of the environment
from energy-saving light bulbs, and 2) rising foodprices, due at least in part to the growing use of
agricultural land to raise corn for ethanol production. I hear about these events mostly from a U.S.
perspective, but I think both are ultimately globalissues.
Should we have been able to anticipate thesetrends sooner?
In these case, I think the answer is yes. I do recall
hearing, several years ago, that turning corn intoethanol could affect food supplies and food prices.
What was not as predictable, perhaps, was that
other factors (drought, cost of oil, etc.) would accelerate the process so much. Today, the United
2States is moving towards a ban on incandescentlight bulbs in a few years. We already know about
the health hazards of mercury. Yet, it seems wehave put the ban in place without starting to planfor the recovery of the mercury from used lightbulbs.
I should emphasize that these are only the twomost recent examples in a long series of concernsthat have arisen for just about every energy-related technology that has been introduced. In
fact, in the early days of the automobile, it waswidely considered a technology that would reducethe very serious pollution problem that resulted
from the growing use of horse-drawn carriages incities! No one understood the health impacts ofautomobile emissions or could envision that theuse of automobiles would reach proportions wherethe emissions would be a significant matter. In theearly days of nuclear power, it too was seen only assolving existing problems. None of the concerns wehear about today were yet foreseen.
Perhaps the real point is not that we need to haveperfect powers of prediction, but rather, that weneed an infrastructure that is robust and responsive. We need solutions that will work for a varietyof scenarios.
For global warming and energy security, it seems
to me that some of the best measures to address
the possible trends are things your grandmother
could have told you are good for you:
A balanced diet is important. The solution to ourproblems isn’t just nuclear power, or just renewable energy, or just energy efficiency. The solution is
all of these and more. Likewise, we can’t get all ouroil from one part of the world, particularly if it isan unstable or adversarial source.
Plan for a rainy day. We can’t just keep doing
what we have been doing and assume everything isgoing to be fine. We need to plan for our future. We
need to develop more advanced technologies thatutilize resources more efficiently and that produce
less pollution. We need to try to develop ways toremove or sequester carbon from coal burning, weneed to design nuclear plants that address today’sconcerns, we need to try to make renewable energy
more cost-effective, we need to develop alternatives
to meet transportation needs, and we need to pursue fusion. We need to explore for more resources,fossil and nuclear. This includes unconventionalsources (like tar sands for fossil fuels and seawater
for uranium) and alternative fuels (thorium, in thecase of nuclear).
Be thrifty. We need to use everything and use it
Copyright © JAPAN NUS CO., LTD. All Rights Reserved

Dr. Marcus' Room No. 1

efficiently. This means we need to implement
greater energy efficiency, both in energy production
and transmission, and in applications. This includes advanced power production technologies.

reactor technologies that are more efficient, and weshould continue to explore the development oftechnologies that would allow us to use more of theenergy content of uranium fuel.

Cleanliness is important. It will do us no good tomeet our energy needs if we choke ourselves in theprocess. We need to address both particulate emissions and carbon emissions, whether by cleaning
up fossil energy sources, or by substituting nuclear
and renewable energy sources. We also need toaddress solid waste issues. For nuclear power, thismeans exploring all the options for dealing withused fuel―short- and long-term storage, and using
more of the energy value of the fuel.

We also need to begin to address the concerns
about the adequacy of uranium resources in thelonger term. While it is clear that the resources are
sufficient now, any large-scale increase in the useof nuclear power will necessitate exploration for
additional uranium resources, the development ofmethods to recover lower quality ores more efficiently, more efficient enrichment processes, higher
fuel burnups and/or recycling to use resources
more efficiently, and perhaps the development ofways to recover unconventional resources (such asuranium from seawater) and to use thorium in thefuel cycle (as India is already doing). To address
proliferation concerns, as well as for economic
reasons, we also need appropriate administrative
measures to assure fuel supplies to all countries.

Don’t put all your eggs in one basket. We can’t
count on any one technology―not nuclear power,
not renewable energy, not clean coal, not carbon
sequestration. In particular, we can’t count on possible improvements in technologies that have notyet been developed, or in potential resources thathave not yet been discovered. Some research willmeet its objectives, but some won’t. We need topursue several alternatives.
I would add one thing grandma might not havesaid―we need more of everything. We need more
electrical power, and we need more transportation
fuels. We need a lot more for developing countries,
but we also continue to need some more for developed countries as our economies become more dependent on computers and telecommunications
and transportation.
So, when you look at issues like global warming
and security of supply, all indications lead to theconclusion that we should continue to develop anduse a variety of energy technologies, that weshould emphasize technologies that emit littlecarbon dioxide, and that we should favor technologies that have fuel resources available from a variety of places around the globe.
What does this mean for nuclear power in particular?
I think it means that nuclear power is an attractive component of any future energy mix. It emits
little carbon and it offers a diversity of resources. It
is not “the” solution. It is not the right choice everywhere, it cannot meet all transportation needs,
and it must be operated with the highest levels ofvigilance at all times. It can and should be part ofthe mix of energy technologies, today and in theforeseeable future.
I think it means that we should continue thecurrent initiatives to develop advanced nuclear
3One perceived deficiency of nuclear power is thewaste issue. While the quantity of waste is small
compared to coal, the radioactivity is a long-term
concern to many people. To date, this remains adifficult issue in almost every country. Here again,I would say that we should not count on any one
measure or any one development to address thisproblem. For too long, the nuclear industry in theUnited States has been relying on the building andopening of a repository at Yucca Mountain to “solve”
the waste disposal problem. We abandoned theexploration of other potential disposal sites, weabandoned the development of reprocessing, we
didn’t look sufficiently at other options, temporary
or permanent, to reduce or reuse used fuel. Theseavenues need to be explored, both in the U.S. andelsewhere.
For the more specific issues I raised―the ethanolproblem and the mercury from energy-efficient
light bulbs―the use of prediction may be more
relevant because the time spans are shorter andthe issues are more limited.
It was predictable that turning corn into ethanol
would affect food supplies and food prices. I recall
hearing that concern raised several years ago.
What was not as predictable was that other factors(drought, cost of oil, etc.) would accelerate theprocess so much. Nevertheless, we should have had
a plan in place to help prevent a sudden crisis, andin the longer term, we should be working to develop ways to produce ethanol from cellulose
products. Today, the United States is moving towards a ban on incandescent light bulbs in a few
years, and worldwide, incandescent light bulbs arebeing displaced by more energy-efficient mercury
Copyright © JAPAN NUS CO., LTD. All Rights Reserved

Dr. Marcus' Room No. 1

light bulbs. We therefore should be actively developing a plan to assure that the light bulbs will bedisposed of properly, and in the longer term, weneed to be developing energy efficient light bulbs
that do not need mercury.
So in summary, I have to agree with Yogi Berra. Itis hard to make predictions, especially about thefuture. When we first deploy a new technology, its
impact is so small, it may be hard to see what theimpact could be on a larger scale. It is hard toguess what other factors may change the picture―weather patterns, economic developments,competing technologies.
Our best strategy is to assure that our energy mix
and our long-term energy development plans are“right” for a variety of predictable scenarios, and tobe ready to make shorter-term adjustments whenthe unexpected happens. Members of the nuclear
profession should play an active role in promoting
the need for a robust global energy strategy. If wecan achieve this objective, we might be able toclaim that we can at least predict that, in the future, we will be able to meet the growing energy
demand with a mix of clean, low-carbon energy
sources.

In future essays, I hope to explore several specificissues, including the internationalization of thenuclear enterprise and the question of waste disposal. I also hope we can have some fun―my husband insists I should write about nuclear power
plants and cheese. Does that whet your appetite?
Thanks for your attention, and I hope to “see” youin this space again next time. In the meantime, I
will welcome your reactions to this essay.
My e-mail address is: ghmarcus alum.mit.edu.
（ An image charactor is used intentionally for@-sign. Please cut the image and put a keystroke@-sign)July 2008***4

Copyright © JAPAN NUS CO., LTD. All Rights Reserved