nuclear undone
  • blog
  • about
  • contact

undo your thinking

listen to the facts

absorb new ideas

Nonproliferation versus nuclear trade

11/18/2013

9 Comments

 
By Lenka Kollar

The commercial nuclear industry is unique in that it was essentially born out of weapons and military programs. The technology used to develop nuclear weapons was also found to be beneficial for energy production, and thus nuclear reactors to power submarines and then to produce commercial electricity were developed. Nuclear technology inherently has the risk of weapons proliferation and must be controlled. Most countries with nuclear industries, including the United States, have stringent export control laws that control the trade of nuclear (and related) technology. These laws control the international exports of things like nuclear reactor designs, nuclear fuel, and even accelerometers that could be used in a weapon missile. The nuclear industry often complains that the U.S. export control laws are too stringent, inhibiting trade. At the same time, those in the nonproliferation community often say that they are not strict enough, because of the historical cases in which countries have obtained nuclear technology and developed nuclear weapons.

It seems that nonproliferation and nuclear trade are often at odds with each other. Could both the nonproliferation regime and nuclear trade be strengthened if the "versus" was removed the the two sides worked together? A recent American Nuclear Society position statement makes the point that U.S. global nuclear leadership is strengthened through export-driven engagement. In other words, we have a better seat at the "nonproliferation table" if we are a leader in the nuclear energy industry. Right now, the United States is losing dominance of the global nuclear industry because of several reasons, one of which may be strict export control laws. In order for a country to do significant nuclear business with the United States, they must negotiate a so-called "123 Agreement." 

A new 123 Agreement was recently signed with the United Arab Emirates (UAE) and included the provision that the UAE will not pursue enrichment and reprocessing (the nuclear technologies that are most closely related to weapons development). Some people in the U.S. government and Congress have coined this as the "gold standard" agreement and that we should impose this provision on all countries. However, it was UAE's choice to make it a law in their country to not pursue enrichment and reprocessing. Not all countries that want to do nuclear trade with the United States will forgo their right (according to the Nonproliferation Treaty) to have enrichment and reprocessing technology.

What is the right balance between nonproliferation and nuclear trade? Let's use Jordan as an example. Jordan is strongly interested in developing nuclear energy to meet it's electricity needs and become more independent from importing energy (read article). If Jordan signs a 123 Agreement with the United States, and a U.S. company sells them a nuclear reactor, then Jordan's nuclear industry is based on U.S. technology. This gives the United States more control in Jordan regarding nonproliferation and safety. On the other hand, if another country, such as Russia or China, sells Jordan a nuclear reactor, then that country has more control in Jordan and possibly that region. What if, in either case, there is an arms race in the Middle East and Jordan decides to go against their Nonproliferation Treaty obligations and develop nuclear weapons from the nuclear technology that was exported to them? (This is not an easy endeavor and would require different technology than a nuclear reactor, although the material from the reactor could theoretically be used for weapons.) In the case of proliferation, export control would have failed no matter which country the technology came from. The real question is, would Jordan be more likely to proliferate if the United States or another country owned the nuclear technology? 

The reality is that Jordan has already selected a Russian company to supply its first nuclear power plant (read article) and the United States has still failed to negotiate a nuclear trade agreement with Jordan. Even though Jordan has been completely compliant with And Jordan is not the only example, other countries that are developing new nuclear industries are not buying from the United States. 

In order to remain a leader in the global nuclear industry and stay influential in the nonproliferation regime, the United States needs to start exporting nuclear energy technology on a much larger scale, or at least equal the efforts of other nuclear suppliers, such as Russia. 

How can we balance nonproliferation goals and nuclear industry exports?
9 Comments
Nicholas Thompson
11/18/2013 03:33:44 am

In addition to 123 agreements being signed, the US also has a major opportunity in financing some of these large projects overseas through the Export-Import Bank (Ex-Im). The Ex-Im can provide large loans to companies abroad to buy US technologies. One example of this is the Ex-Im approving a $2 billion loan to a company in the UAE for American equipment and service expertise in the construction of new nuclear reactors there last year. These type of deals enahnce global nuclear security and safety, while creating new US jobs and earning the US some interest on the loans.
http://www.exim.gov/newsandevents/releases/2012/ex-im-approves-2-billion-in-financing-for-nuclear-power-plant-in-u-a-e.cfm

Reply
Lenka Kollar link
11/18/2013 05:33:34 am

Ex-Im is a great financing option but export control laws still apply. There is definitely plenty of opportunity to enhance the U.S. economy with nuclear trade.

Reply
Engineer-Poet link
11/20/2013 01:51:05 am

I supect that Rod Adams is right:  the primary purpose of these ex/im regulations is not weapons nonproliferation (simply leasing fuel cheaply and taking it back would do that).  The most significant effect of these regulations is to cripple the US nuclear industry, and it's impossible that this has escaped the notice of its authors whether or not it was their purpose in the first place.  Given that, it appears likely that it was.

Reply
jmdesp
11/20/2013 11:50:22 pm

The prospect of making a bomb from the material used in a civil reactor is actually very unlikely.

As input, it contains uranium 235 at a low concentration level, that you'd need to be able to concentrate to a very high level before using in a bomb. If you have the material to do that, centrifuge and the like, then you certainly could also start from natural uranium instead.

As output, it contains plutonium, that on paper could more easily be chemically isolated from the rest. But in all currently used reactors, the 239 plutonium that would be usable for a bomb is contaminated by a high level of 240 plutonium, that prevents from making any usable bomb with it. This blog entry has a long discussion of all the aspect of that : http://depletedcranium.com/why-you-cant-build-a-bomb-from-spent-fuel/

Reply
Lenka Kollar link
11/21/2013 04:15:18 am

Yes, it is true that it is difficult to make a weapon from material used in a light water commercial reactor. However, there are other nuclear technologies and dual-use items that could aid in making weapons.

Reply
Engineer-Poet link
11/21/2013 09:55:55 am

This is all the more reason for nations like the USA to go into the international nuclear business, on the build/own/operate model.  Provide the reactors, the fuel, the management and the disposal.  If unstable countries have none of those technologies or dual-use items, they can't use them to make weapons.

Helio Perroni Filho link
12/7/2013 10:51:38 am

I dispute the notion that nuclear is "unique" in its military origins. The modern TI industry owes just as much to the army, and today it's everywhere. Though the US does enforce export restrictions on some computer wares, it doesn't prevent their companies to making business across the world – including places like China, which (to put it lightly) have a complicated relationship with the US government.

Couldn't the same model be used for the nuclear industry – where most off-the-shelf items are cleared for international commerce, with only the most advanced stuff restricted, and then only to openly antagonizing nations? As others have noted, making weapons out of commercial-grade fissile material is seldom easier than making them out of commercial-grade TI products.

Reply
Lenka Kollar link
12/8/2013 10:17:10 pm

The international norms for weapons of mass destruction have generally been different and contain more stringent controls. Similar to nuclear export controls, there are also lists for chemical and biological technology including dual-use commodities that can be used for weapons, or commercially.

Reply
Best School in Maduravoyal link
11/23/2019 02:01:42 am

Sindhi model school of excellence is the best and top Schools in Thiruverkadu, Iyyappanthangal, Maduravoyal, Mangadu, Mogappair, karayanchavadi, kaatupakkam, vanagaram, Nolambur, Tamil Nadu. CBSE affiliated school. Tamil Nadu government recognized school.

Reply



Leave a Reply.

    Picture

    Archives

    January 2017
    December 2016
    November 2016
    October 2016
    August 2016
    June 2016
    May 2016
    February 2016
    January 2016
    October 2015
    September 2015
    August 2015
    July 2015
    June 2015
    May 2015
    April 2015
    March 2015
    February 2015
    January 2015
    December 2014
    November 2014
    October 2014
    September 2014
    August 2014
    July 2014
    June 2014
    May 2014
    April 2014
    March 2014
    February 2014
    January 2014
    December 2013
    November 2013
    October 2013

    Categories

    All
    American Nuclear Society
    Climate Change
    Diversity In Stem
    Energy
    Environmentalists
    Fuel Cycle
    I'm A Nuke
    International
    IYNC
    Navy
    Nonproliferation
    Nuclear Energy
    Nuclear Energy
    Nuclear Engineers
    Nuclear Technology
    Policy
    Radiation
    Reactors
    Science Education
    Sustainability
    UAE
    Women In Engineering

    RSS Feed


    Follow on Bloglovin
Powered by Create your own unique website with customizable templates.
Photos used under Creative Commons from Idaho National Laboratory, Jim.Richmond, Idaho National Laboratory, IAEA Imagebank