NationStates Jolt Archive

Since UNFA has been stalled by a lack of delegate support and moderator issues, I'd like to turn my attention to a different issue while I do some background work finding nations friendly to my other resolution. Hence, I'd like to put together a resolution that establishes a program to allow nations to voluntarily reduce their nuclear arsenals in exchange for cheaper nuclear power. How you ask?

The resolution would establish a program roughly based on the Russian-US nonproliferation agreement first organized in 1993. The idea is to convert highly enriched uranium (HEU) taken from dismantled nuclear warheads into low-enriched uranium (LEU) fuel that can be used in fission reactors.

To convert it into a more NationStates-appropriate form, the proposal would make a few key changes. First, the program would be completely voluntary, with no contract agreements. Basically, a nation could dismantle as many or as few warheads as they wished, with no set limits on specific numbers.

Second, the United Nations would oversee the conversion of HEU to LEU in plants operated by an IAEA-esque organization. The sole purpose of this organization would be to facilitate transactions between nations and ensure the security of the plants being operated. No worrying about pesky inspectors or things like that.

The project would be funded by the sale of LEU to nations with nuclear power facilities. Whether or not the sale price would be set permanently or allowed to fluctuate based on real market prices has yet to be determined. If that isn't enough to cover total expenditures, an additional fee could be implemented as well. This program would not be run for profit, however.

This is a very basic outline of the ideas. Any feedback is appreciated. Copious background information can be found by putting "Megatons to Megawatts" in Google.

An excellent idea that promises at least a partial resolution to the problems of nuclear proliferation and affordable, non-greenhouse-gas-emitting power. You will most likely have our support, depending on the final text.

Sounds good. We would support you on this issue.

Demographika supports this idea. It is in keeping with our national motto; "Needs more jiggawatts!".

I too, will tentatively support this proposal. It sounds like a non-intrusive and practicable way to approach a serious issue.

While I agree that nuclear power is not a bad as other forms; coal for example, there are several factors that you have not taken into account when encouraging the proliferation of fission reactors.

1) The average nuclear reactor takes around ten years operating time to pay off the carbon debt from its construction: mining of uranium etc, and the CO2 released from the constrution concrete as it cures. Considering that as far as I know the average lifetime of a nuke plant is around 40 years, this does not seem like such a good idea.

2) The cost of decommisioning nuclear plants is astronomical. As the sea level begins to rise, and I feel sure that it will, current costal plants will have to be decommisioned.

3) The nuclear waste from these plants is highly dangerous, and the procedures required to dispose of it safely are difficult and highly expensive, something that I feel is beyond less technologically developed nations. Not to mention the risk of accidents.

It is my opinion that we should be more concerned with getting fusion to work (the tokamak at Culham Grove (nr Oxford) has recently scientifically broken even, and it is now a case of refining the process and making it commerically viable) and switching to renewable forms of energy such as wind wave solar and OTEC systems.

I appreciate the generally positive feelings towards this idea. It was designed to give nations an economic incentive to reduce their arms stockpiles, as any reduction of the total number of atomic weapons is a step in the right direction. True, we might be able to blow ourselves up 10,000 times over instead of 50,000, but I see that as being better than nothing.

I also recognize the concerns of the nation of Grand Teton. On face, I agree that certain forms of alternative energy are more desireable than nuclear power. However, I will always argue that nuclear material in a reactor is better than nuclear material in a warhead. I would much rather deal with nuclear waste than nuclear winter.

In regards to your argument on the carbon-debt incurred by nuclear production, recent advances by Sophistan scientists in the relevant engineering fields have increased the life of reactors dramatically. Certain system components and turbines remain marginally durable, but we are making progress. Furthrmore, this resolution would not necessarily lead to the construction of new power plants. Nations with nuclear weapons but not reactors could simply sell their warheads to the IAEA and wash their hands of the issue, while only nations with existing nuclear facilities could purchase it. Some nations might choose to implement new atomic energy stations, but that is their own decision.

Your second argument lies on a slippery slope fallacy. It is illogical to assume that every step in the chain necessary to lead from a) global warming to b) underwater power plants will occur in the exact nature necessary. I would argue that plenty of engineers already thought of that and wouldn't risk putting a multi-billion dollar power plant so close to the harsh winds of the sea. Moreover, it would be less expensive to construct the proper levies and such to protect the plant (or even undertake efforts to put it on stilts) than it would be to decommission one.

The third argument retains some merit, and I agree that nuclear waste is a tricky thing to handle. However, there remains a way to deal with it. The majority of "spent" nuclear fuel isn't really spent at all, and can be turned into viable nuclear fuel vis a vi a breeding reactor. The Japanese make use of this technology to decrease their imports of uranium. By implementing this process, you can exponentially reduce the total mass of waste being planted into the Earth. I would question the legitimacy of any argument implying that poorer, less-developed nations couldn't process their own waste, mostly because it's logic to assume that those same nations wouldn't have a nuclear power program. If they do, it is likely that they are being assisted by a more powerful, technologically advanced nation who would also assist in the waste process.

I also recognize the concerns of the nation of Grand Teton. On face, I agree that certain forms of alternative energy are more desireable than nuclear power. However, I will always argue that nuclear material in a reactor is better than nuclear material in a warhead. I would much rather deal with nuclear waste than nuclear winter.

In regards to your argument on the carbon-debt incurred by nuclear production, recent advances by Sophistan scientists in the relevant engineering fields have increased the life of reactors dramatically. Certain system components and turbines remain marginally durable, but we are making progress.


Ahh touche!, I'd forgotten that in NS we could invent technologies whenever. I prefer to keep it current though, otherwise I end up Godmodding.


Furthermore, this resolution would not necessarily lead to the construction of new power plants.


I feel that it would though; if you've got all this uranium sitting around, then governments are going to jump on the bandwagon. Unless you stockpile the uranium and limit the distribution of it then governments are going to want to use it.

I admit that you could build levees around all the coastal plants, but in a worst case scenario the sea levels could rise by up to 60m, requiring very high levees.

On to point 3. I meant that from what I know, less developed nations tend to be more slapdash about environmental laws, because of the costs. However, we could offer to take their waste off them, reprocess it and sell it back to them, as you suggest. We are still left with the bits of low and medium grade waste, such as components of the reactors. As far as I know these cannot be recycled, and the only option is to store them. Or shoot them into the sun.

We are still left with the bits of low and medium grade waste, such as components of the reactors. As far as I know these cannot be recycled, and the only option is to store them. Or shoot them into the sun.

*looks to the empty seats of several former UN members*

Well, I think there are some other places we can stick that waste. ;)

Seriously speaking, it sounds as if you both have a pretty good working start here. I'd like to encourage you to continue.

Ahh touche!, I'd forgotten that in NS we could invent technologies whenever. I prefer to keep it current though, otherwise I end up Godmodding.

[ Most nations in the UN play modern tech, plus things that could reasonably be accomplished in the next ten or twenty years. This includes moderate advances in nuclear engineering. You should also note that I very selectively pick which technologies are advanced in Sophista based on what I think the nation is like. I'd appreciate it you kept your thinly-veiled attacks to a minimum and at least attempt to role play through it. ]

Even if a nation isn't as blessed as ours in terms of nuclear technologies. That notwithstanding, your argument still rests on the assumption that nations will run off on a crazy power-plant building spree. Why a nation would convert it's energy infrastructure to nuclear if a) they're current grid met demands, b) they knew the expenses of nuclear energy, and c) there were still non-nuclear alternatives is beyond me. This program seeks to benefit nations with standing atomic power programs, and does little to promote the use of nuclear reactors. If we suddenly increased the oil supply by a sum (relatively equivilant to the increase in nuclear fuel supply based on HEU conversion), will people build new oil-fueled plants? Likely not. Most nations will be aware of the costs, environmentally and otherwise, of oil power plants. Those who do accept that cost-benefit analysis.

The Kingdom Of Endenia will support this proposed resolution, the cost of both constructing and maintaining the nuclear power plants are secondary to the cost of a nuclear war.


P.S I think shooting it into the sun isn't such a bad idea.........

If this resolution were brought to vote, my nation would gladly vote for this. It's a fantastic idea.

The Council of Enn wishes to indicate that it will help in the promotion of this proposal when it is submitted.

Xavier Loreni,
UN Observer, Conseilin of Enn

Yes, but what about plutoniom based rounds?

No peace time reactor can use that as it's fission base?

[ Most nations in the UN play modern tech, plus things that could reasonably be accomplished in the next ten or twenty years. This includes moderate advances in nuclear engineering. You should also note that I very selectively pick which technologies are advanced in Sophista based on what I think the nation is like. I'd appreciate it you kept your thinly-veiled attacks to a minimum and at least attempt to role play through it. ]

Ouch!

This was actually a genuine comment. I had forgotten to take into account the fact that we can choose technologies within reason, and I do do this (my nation uses ground based masers and grasers for ICBM defense). It was in no way an attempt to insult your nation or anything, and I wasn't implying that you were godmodding.

Anyway, it is still my gut reaction that increasing the availability of nuclear fuel will encourage nuclear reactors. Why were oil and coal so popular as fuels? Because they are cheap and easy to get (in my opinion). However, I do approve of your efforts to reduce the nuclear arsenal, and I won't oppose this if it ever comes to the floor. I think we'll have to agree to disagree on this one

Yes, but what about plutoniom based rounds? No peace time reactor can use that as it's fission base?

Assuming we're talking about isotope 239 of plutonium, one kilogram is capable of generating 22,000,000 kilowatts of heat energy. In the real world, existing reactors produce roughly 20,000kg of plutonium a year, all of which can be used as nuclear fuel. During the Apollo missions, (239)Pu was used to power various pieces of scientific equipment on the moon's surface. Other isotopes exist, fourteen to be exact, but all are fissionable for the production of power. The process to dilute weapons-grade plutonium into a state useful for electrical generation differs from uranium, but is still possible.

It was in no way an attempt to insult your nation or anything, and I wasn't implying that you were godmodding.

[ My apologies. Too often people throw around empty hate speech when they can't think of real arguments to make, and I wrongfully assumed you were doing so as well. Thank you for clarifying. ]

Yes, but what about plutoniom based rounds?

No peace time reactor can use that as it's fission base?

But there would have been a time in history when they would not have supported uranium based rounds either. In fact I believe there was a time in history when nuclear reactors didn't exist, and had to be discovered.

I realise the UN probably can't direct scientific research (and if it can then do I have a proposal to suggest!) but some nations could start working on plutoniom reactors, couldn't they? Who knows - maybe they would be more efficient and generally better than the ones we have at the moment!

I realise the UN probably can't direct scientific research (and if it can then do I have a proposal to suggest!) but some nations could start working on plutoniom reactors, couldn't they?

There are reactors that can (and often do) run on plutonium. It provides nations with an effective way to reduce the total amount of waste produced by reactors, and reclaim some "waste product" from uranium fission as usable material.

There are reactors that can (and often do) run on plutonium. It provides nations with an effective way to reduce the total amount of waste produced by reactors, and reclaim some "waste product" from uranium fission as usable material.

I am suitably impressed - I really didn't know about these reactors. I don't actually have any plutonium, so building one would be a touch pointless I suppose, but still - knowledge is good!