There is a tangible resurgence of interest in nuclear energy. For countries like Pakistan, it is a necessity, rather than a choice. Former president Bush’s 2007 joint declaration with Vladimir Putin, then Russian president, expressed resolve to facilitate and support nuclear energy in developing countries. But, practically there has been no tangible progress in translating words into action. The difficulties in procuring reactors and accessories are a fetter to Pakistan’s desire to expand its nuclear-energy programme.
It is argued that nuclear energy is not a good choice for the developing countries because of hazards (waste disposal, proliferation, etc) associated with it. The arguments are flimsy. Even the United States, with the world’s largest number of nuclear reactors, has not been able to solve the issue of long-term waste-disposal.
The risk of proliferation, consequent upon major nuclear expansion in politically volatile, regions is real. But, it could be controlled by tightening current system for inspecting nuclear material and facilities. If the Nuclear Suppliers’ Group remains inaccessible to developing countries, the aspiring nations will be tempted to take shortcuts, thereby jeopardising safety and security standards. Potentially, a new tier of nuclear suppliers could emerge (with negative safety, security, and proliferation effects) to meet developing countries’ demand.
The proliferation aspect was also discussed at the 24th Conference of the Nuclear Societies, in Israel. Several experts examined the question of nuclear energy without concomitant risk of proliferation. Views of some scholars on this question are contained in book titled Nuclear Power and the Spread of Nuclear Weapons: Can We have one without the Other? by Paul Leventhal, Sharon Tanzer, and Steven Dolley [editors]. Steven Dolley stresses (p. 17 ibid.): “Proliferation does not increase with more nuclear power. Indeed eliminating nuclear power might encourage proliferation by increasing riots sparked by power shortages and endangering safety of nuclear plants. Diversion of resources to generation of non-nuclear electricity will leave little funds for social-welfare sectors.
At the Conference, Pierre Goldschmidt, visiting Scholar to Carnegie Endowment for International Peace, stressed that nuclear power will increase by 25 per cent to 90 per cent before year 2,030, as compared to year 2007. He assessed that 350 more nuclear power reactors are needed to meet increased demand for nuclear energy,
As for misuse of nuclear-power fuel, his view was that existing safeguards could be revamped to obviate possibility of nuclear proliferation. He severely criticised concessions, envisioned for India as a ‘special case’, under the 123 Agreement. Gregory S. Jones, also, in his paper “Pakistan’s `minimum deterrent’ force requirements’ criticised the 123 agreement inasmuch as it was, in essence, discriminatory. He dispelled the impression that civilian reactors could be used to make bombs.
The reality is that, despite hazards of nuclear power, the industrially-advanced countries have not abandoned their reactors. They meet a considerable portion of their energy needs from plutonium-based electricity. Japan is the most important customer of the European reprocessing and plutonium-oxide fuel industries. Without Japan’s imports, the European exports may collapse. Some coastal countries have protested against regular transportation of mixed-oxide fuel and highly radioactive reprocessing waste close to their coastlines along routes from Europe to Japan. But, Japan did not curtail or abandon its nuclear programme in national interest.
Nuclear-power plants in the USA are no less vulnerable than the Japanese ones. A force-on-force exercise was conducted by US Nuclear Regulatory Commission to check safety of the plants against terrorist attacks. About 50 per cent of the nuclear plants failed to repel mock attacks. .
In view of the security failures, it would have been natural for the US Commission to beef up security arrangements inside and around power reactors. But, in the wake of industry’s complaints, the Commission withheld corrective enforcement action. Instead, it agreed to transfer supervision of the exercises to nuclear-plant operators themselves Heavily subsidized plutonium reactors continue to throb, the world over. Japan and other countries are undeterred by nuclear accidents, and the risks of proliferation. The reason is lack of an economically-viable energy source like renewables, and decarbonised fossil fuels, utilising carbon sequestration.
The American industry’s concern about electricity shortage and global warming prompted U.S. administration to revive and expand nuclear power. Dick Cheney, former US vice president said on April 8, 2001 that `the United States will need to build sixty-five new power plants annually’ to meet its energy demand.
If the USA could not do without nuclear energy, how could the poor countries? It is cruel to deny cheap, clean source of nuclear energy to billions of people around the globe. Instead of designing country-specific agreements like the 123, cost-effective nuclear power plants should be made available to all poor countries.
It is argued that nuclear energy is not a good choice for the developing countries because of hazards (waste disposal, proliferation, etc) associated with it. The arguments are flimsy. Even the United States, with the world’s largest number of nuclear reactors, has not been able to solve the issue of long-term waste-disposal.
The risk of proliferation, consequent upon major nuclear expansion in politically volatile, regions is real. But, it could be controlled by tightening current system for inspecting nuclear material and facilities. If the Nuclear Suppliers’ Group remains inaccessible to developing countries, the aspiring nations will be tempted to take shortcuts, thereby jeopardising safety and security standards. Potentially, a new tier of nuclear suppliers could emerge (with negative safety, security, and proliferation effects) to meet developing countries’ demand.
The proliferation aspect was also discussed at the 24th Conference of the Nuclear Societies, in Israel. Several experts examined the question of nuclear energy without concomitant risk of proliferation. Views of some scholars on this question are contained in book titled Nuclear Power and the Spread of Nuclear Weapons: Can We have one without the Other? by Paul Leventhal, Sharon Tanzer, and Steven Dolley [editors]. Steven Dolley stresses (p. 17 ibid.): “Proliferation does not increase with more nuclear power. Indeed eliminating nuclear power might encourage proliferation by increasing riots sparked by power shortages and endangering safety of nuclear plants. Diversion of resources to generation of non-nuclear electricity will leave little funds for social-welfare sectors.
At the Conference, Pierre Goldschmidt, visiting Scholar to Carnegie Endowment for International Peace, stressed that nuclear power will increase by 25 per cent to 90 per cent before year 2,030, as compared to year 2007. He assessed that 350 more nuclear power reactors are needed to meet increased demand for nuclear energy,
As for misuse of nuclear-power fuel, his view was that existing safeguards could be revamped to obviate possibility of nuclear proliferation. He severely criticised concessions, envisioned for India as a ‘special case’, under the 123 Agreement. Gregory S. Jones, also, in his paper “Pakistan’s `minimum deterrent’ force requirements’ criticised the 123 agreement inasmuch as it was, in essence, discriminatory. He dispelled the impression that civilian reactors could be used to make bombs.
The reality is that, despite hazards of nuclear power, the industrially-advanced countries have not abandoned their reactors. They meet a considerable portion of their energy needs from plutonium-based electricity. Japan is the most important customer of the European reprocessing and plutonium-oxide fuel industries. Without Japan’s imports, the European exports may collapse. Some coastal countries have protested against regular transportation of mixed-oxide fuel and highly radioactive reprocessing waste close to their coastlines along routes from Europe to Japan. But, Japan did not curtail or abandon its nuclear programme in national interest.
Nuclear-power plants in the USA are no less vulnerable than the Japanese ones. A force-on-force exercise was conducted by US Nuclear Regulatory Commission to check safety of the plants against terrorist attacks. About 50 per cent of the nuclear plants failed to repel mock attacks. .
In view of the security failures, it would have been natural for the US Commission to beef up security arrangements inside and around power reactors. But, in the wake of industry’s complaints, the Commission withheld corrective enforcement action. Instead, it agreed to transfer supervision of the exercises to nuclear-plant operators themselves Heavily subsidized plutonium reactors continue to throb, the world over. Japan and other countries are undeterred by nuclear accidents, and the risks of proliferation. The reason is lack of an economically-viable energy source like renewables, and decarbonised fossil fuels, utilising carbon sequestration.
The American industry’s concern about electricity shortage and global warming prompted U.S. administration to revive and expand nuclear power. Dick Cheney, former US vice president said on April 8, 2001 that `the United States will need to build sixty-five new power plants annually’ to meet its energy demand.
If the USA could not do without nuclear energy, how could the poor countries? It is cruel to deny cheap, clean source of nuclear energy to billions of people around the globe. Instead of designing country-specific agreements like the 123, cost-effective nuclear power plants should be made available to all poor countries.
Comments
Post a Comment