The United States has shown its dual face once again. North Korea was labeled part of the “axis of evil” only in January 2002 when Washington went public with its accusations of nuclear activity at Yongbon. Thereafter, defying international pressure, North Korea went ahead with a nuclear test. Now that it has tested the bomb, the United States is patting its back over the deal with this ‘rogue’ state, as per which Pyongyang will declare all its nuclear facilities and shut them down.
Analysts feel that making Pyongyang declare all its nuclear facilities and shutting them down is likely to prove arduous. This is so because the country is believed to have numerous mountainside tunnels in which to hide projects. This is to be remembered that North Korea conducted its only nuclear test deep inside a mountain. Therefore it is perfectly possible that weapon’s research could be continued at other, undeclared sites.
At the same time, the United States has promised fuel to the North Korean regime. This much-needed support will in fact help preserve the regime. In 1994 too, Bill Clinton had persuaded Pyongyang to freeze its plutonium-based nuclear weapons program in return for aid and funds to build light water, power-producing reactors. But it backed down and went ahead with nuclear research. Fact remains that America has rewarded the communist regime, which left the Non Proliferation Treaty four years ago, for defying the world with its test, while at the same time it is fighting tooth and nail to deny Iran the same privilege, which has reiterated time and again that it will limit itself to peaceful use of nuclear energy.
Nobody can deny now that the US has engaged in this exercise because it wishes to calm fears of conflict in one corner of the world, while it pursues war in others, viz. Iraq and the rest of the Middle East, including Iran.
The dual face of the US is evident also from the fact that while on one hand it is leaving no stone unturned to strangulate Iran on its attempt to go ahead with nuclear research, Clay Sell (Deputy Secretary of Energy) and Robert Joseph (Under Secretary of State for Arms Control and International Security) in a press briefing at Washington DC on February 16, 2006, talked of the urgent need for all developing countries to look at nuclear power as the energy substitute, something that Iran claims to be doing.
Look at the urgent need for taking optimum benefit out of nuclear resources that the two are talking about: “There are over 130 nuclear reactors under construction, planned or under consideration around the world today. The U.S. has not ordered a nuclear power plant in over 30 years and we have 103 nuclear power plants in this country. We have more than any other country, but we have not built one in about 30 years. And so we are anxious to get back into the nuclear generation business ourselves.”
And then the two talks of the benefits: “I would like to spend just a moment to elaborate just a little bit more on the benefits; why we need such a dramatic expansion of nuclear power. Here in the United States we are serious about reducing our dependence on fossil fuels, particularly coal and natural gas for electricity generation. We want to be able to meet this increasing energy demand in a way that does not significantly increase our carbon emissions. We want to develop technologies that allow us to recycle spent fuel.” It is clear that they can do it, but not Iran.
Speaking further on US’s recent Global Nuclear Energy Partnership, they said: “There are seven key elements of the Global Nuclear Energy Partnership and I will quickly tick through each one of those and then we'll open it up to questions.
“The first element is to expand dramatically the use of nuclear power here in the United States. We think -- today, we have 100 nuclear reactors; many of those are going to start phasing out in the coming decades. We think we really need to be, from a public policy standpoint we're shooting for 300 reactors in 2050; that's a significant increase. That's what we think would be appropriate to meet our energy needs as well as to manage our greenhouse gas emissions and that's going to require significant advances in technology.
“Another key aspect of the Global Nuclear Energy Partnership is teaming together with a number of nations on advanced reactor technology. And a lot of the reactors that are on the market today are of great scale and they're appropriate for the most advanced electricity grids where there are huge load demands. And we would like to develop, in partnership with other nations, advanced reactors that are passively safe, that could have a lifetime of the reactor cores, that are possibly meltdown proof, that can be built on a modular basis, can perhaps even be factory built, shipped to a country and deployed. There are tremendous opportunities with advanced reactor technology that we think are critical and that can be developed in a way that will allow us to safely bring the benefits of nuclear power to the developing world. And working in partnership with other nations in developing these technologies is a key part of our initiative.”
And conclude that they dream of a world with much more nuclear power (sans Iran, of course). “So in conclusion, we really hope to envision a world with much more nuclear power, with much greater nuclear energy security which comes from energy diversity, a world that advances significantly our development goals, a world with much less carbon and pollution intensity, a world with much less nuclear waste and a world with less proliferation risks and less stocks of fissile material.”
What few have noticed till now is that the US is talking of a Global Nuclear Energy Partnership when it has not built a nuclear power plant following the Three Mile Island accident nearly 30 years back. Says a US expert on the subject: “Three Mile Island was the only serious accident in the history of nuclear energy generation in the United States, but it was enough to scare us away from further developing the technology: There hasn't been a nuclear plant ordered up since then.”
This is in spite of the fact that more than 600 coal-fired electric plants in the United States produce 36 percent of U.S. emissions -- or nearly 10 percent of global emissions -- of CO2, the primary greenhouse gas responsible for climate change. Nuclear energy is the only large-scale, cost-effective energy source that can reduce these emissions while continuing to satisfy a growing demand for power.
If this is so why has the US not done so for the past 30 years? Was just a mere accident enough to reason to deter it? Russia didn’t stop doing so after Chernobyl where 56 people died from radiation or burns. There was no casualty in the Three Mile Island accident, whereas more than 5000 coal-mining deaths occur worldwide every year. In fact no one has died of a radiation-related accident in the history of the U.S. civilian nuclear reactor program. (And although hundreds of uranium mine workers did die from radiation exposure underground in the early years of that industry, that problem was long ago corrected.)
Are there other serious issues that we are not aware of? Considering the US’s dual standards, one can presume there must be some more uglier and serious reasons than a mere apparently insignificant accident for stopping construction of nuclear power plants.
Answer perhaps lies in the speech of Clay Sell and Robert Joseph themselves. Other countries that US is aligning with as part of its Global Nuclear Development Partnership, and that includes India, are shortly going to become guinea pigs not only for latest experimentations in nuclear use but also as a dumping ground for nuclear wastes. Say the two US experts: “It makes the challenge of disposing of that waste a very significant challenge. And so we want to reduce the quantity, the radio toxicity and the heat load of the waste that we ultimately have to dispose of. And we also want to capture the energy value which is in spent fuel. And if we are able to do that, we can optimize and make our geologic repository in the United States at Yucca Mountain much more efficient.
“If we keep our policy and we don't recycle in the United States, we will have to build nine Yucca Mountains over the course of the century, if we just keep Yucca Mountain at 20 percent of our -- if we just keep nuclear power at 20 percent of our electricity generation. If we recycle and can burn down those wastes in a way that we are proposing, we will be able to use -- that one Yucca Mountain will be able to last for the entirety of the century.”
This is to be remembered that Yucca Mountains, Nevada have been chosen as first long-term geologic repository for spent nuclear fuel and high-level radioactive waste in the US. The Government plans to start using it from 2017 while at present the US stores this waste at 126 sites around the nation; these materials are a result of nuclear power generation and national defense programs.
India and other similar countries will not only be giving their territory for disposal but also providing money to the US for further research on areas which has prohibited the US Government from building new Nuclear Power Stations till now. Not realizing all this, many in India were taken aback with the Bush administration, which has always wanted to uphold the non-proliferation regime, but decided to reach an understanding with India on nuclear energy. Unable to find a logic, many of us thought it was all about China.
Analysts feel that making Pyongyang declare all its nuclear facilities and shutting them down is likely to prove arduous. This is so because the country is believed to have numerous mountainside tunnels in which to hide projects. This is to be remembered that North Korea conducted its only nuclear test deep inside a mountain. Therefore it is perfectly possible that weapon’s research could be continued at other, undeclared sites.
At the same time, the United States has promised fuel to the North Korean regime. This much-needed support will in fact help preserve the regime. In 1994 too, Bill Clinton had persuaded Pyongyang to freeze its plutonium-based nuclear weapons program in return for aid and funds to build light water, power-producing reactors. But it backed down and went ahead with nuclear research. Fact remains that America has rewarded the communist regime, which left the Non Proliferation Treaty four years ago, for defying the world with its test, while at the same time it is fighting tooth and nail to deny Iran the same privilege, which has reiterated time and again that it will limit itself to peaceful use of nuclear energy.
Nobody can deny now that the US has engaged in this exercise because it wishes to calm fears of conflict in one corner of the world, while it pursues war in others, viz. Iraq and the rest of the Middle East, including Iran.
The dual face of the US is evident also from the fact that while on one hand it is leaving no stone unturned to strangulate Iran on its attempt to go ahead with nuclear research, Clay Sell (Deputy Secretary of Energy) and Robert Joseph (Under Secretary of State for Arms Control and International Security) in a press briefing at Washington DC on February 16, 2006, talked of the urgent need for all developing countries to look at nuclear power as the energy substitute, something that Iran claims to be doing.
Look at the urgent need for taking optimum benefit out of nuclear resources that the two are talking about: “There are over 130 nuclear reactors under construction, planned or under consideration around the world today. The U.S. has not ordered a nuclear power plant in over 30 years and we have 103 nuclear power plants in this country. We have more than any other country, but we have not built one in about 30 years. And so we are anxious to get back into the nuclear generation business ourselves.”
And then the two talks of the benefits: “I would like to spend just a moment to elaborate just a little bit more on the benefits; why we need such a dramatic expansion of nuclear power. Here in the United States we are serious about reducing our dependence on fossil fuels, particularly coal and natural gas for electricity generation. We want to be able to meet this increasing energy demand in a way that does not significantly increase our carbon emissions. We want to develop technologies that allow us to recycle spent fuel.” It is clear that they can do it, but not Iran.
Speaking further on US’s recent Global Nuclear Energy Partnership, they said: “There are seven key elements of the Global Nuclear Energy Partnership and I will quickly tick through each one of those and then we'll open it up to questions.
“The first element is to expand dramatically the use of nuclear power here in the United States. We think -- today, we have 100 nuclear reactors; many of those are going to start phasing out in the coming decades. We think we really need to be, from a public policy standpoint we're shooting for 300 reactors in 2050; that's a significant increase. That's what we think would be appropriate to meet our energy needs as well as to manage our greenhouse gas emissions and that's going to require significant advances in technology.
“Another key aspect of the Global Nuclear Energy Partnership is teaming together with a number of nations on advanced reactor technology. And a lot of the reactors that are on the market today are of great scale and they're appropriate for the most advanced electricity grids where there are huge load demands. And we would like to develop, in partnership with other nations, advanced reactors that are passively safe, that could have a lifetime of the reactor cores, that are possibly meltdown proof, that can be built on a modular basis, can perhaps even be factory built, shipped to a country and deployed. There are tremendous opportunities with advanced reactor technology that we think are critical and that can be developed in a way that will allow us to safely bring the benefits of nuclear power to the developing world. And working in partnership with other nations in developing these technologies is a key part of our initiative.”
And conclude that they dream of a world with much more nuclear power (sans Iran, of course). “So in conclusion, we really hope to envision a world with much more nuclear power, with much greater nuclear energy security which comes from energy diversity, a world that advances significantly our development goals, a world with much less carbon and pollution intensity, a world with much less nuclear waste and a world with less proliferation risks and less stocks of fissile material.”
What few have noticed till now is that the US is talking of a Global Nuclear Energy Partnership when it has not built a nuclear power plant following the Three Mile Island accident nearly 30 years back. Says a US expert on the subject: “Three Mile Island was the only serious accident in the history of nuclear energy generation in the United States, but it was enough to scare us away from further developing the technology: There hasn't been a nuclear plant ordered up since then.”
This is in spite of the fact that more than 600 coal-fired electric plants in the United States produce 36 percent of U.S. emissions -- or nearly 10 percent of global emissions -- of CO2, the primary greenhouse gas responsible for climate change. Nuclear energy is the only large-scale, cost-effective energy source that can reduce these emissions while continuing to satisfy a growing demand for power.
If this is so why has the US not done so for the past 30 years? Was just a mere accident enough to reason to deter it? Russia didn’t stop doing so after Chernobyl where 56 people died from radiation or burns. There was no casualty in the Three Mile Island accident, whereas more than 5000 coal-mining deaths occur worldwide every year. In fact no one has died of a radiation-related accident in the history of the U.S. civilian nuclear reactor program. (And although hundreds of uranium mine workers did die from radiation exposure underground in the early years of that industry, that problem was long ago corrected.)
Are there other serious issues that we are not aware of? Considering the US’s dual standards, one can presume there must be some more uglier and serious reasons than a mere apparently insignificant accident for stopping construction of nuclear power plants.
Answer perhaps lies in the speech of Clay Sell and Robert Joseph themselves. Other countries that US is aligning with as part of its Global Nuclear Development Partnership, and that includes India, are shortly going to become guinea pigs not only for latest experimentations in nuclear use but also as a dumping ground for nuclear wastes. Say the two US experts: “It makes the challenge of disposing of that waste a very significant challenge. And so we want to reduce the quantity, the radio toxicity and the heat load of the waste that we ultimately have to dispose of. And we also want to capture the energy value which is in spent fuel. And if we are able to do that, we can optimize and make our geologic repository in the United States at Yucca Mountain much more efficient.
“If we keep our policy and we don't recycle in the United States, we will have to build nine Yucca Mountains over the course of the century, if we just keep Yucca Mountain at 20 percent of our -- if we just keep nuclear power at 20 percent of our electricity generation. If we recycle and can burn down those wastes in a way that we are proposing, we will be able to use -- that one Yucca Mountain will be able to last for the entirety of the century.”
This is to be remembered that Yucca Mountains, Nevada have been chosen as first long-term geologic repository for spent nuclear fuel and high-level radioactive waste in the US. The Government plans to start using it from 2017 while at present the US stores this waste at 126 sites around the nation; these materials are a result of nuclear power generation and national defense programs.
India and other similar countries will not only be giving their territory for disposal but also providing money to the US for further research on areas which has prohibited the US Government from building new Nuclear Power Stations till now. Not realizing all this, many in India were taken aback with the Bush administration, which has always wanted to uphold the non-proliferation regime, but decided to reach an understanding with India on nuclear energy. Unable to find a logic, many of us thought it was all about China.
