Obama seeks global uranium fuel bank

[phantom power]

I'm not sure this really addresses the nut of the proliferation issue, but it could be useful.

WASHINGTON - As part of a new strategy to stop Iran from obtaining nuclear weapons, President Obama plans to seek the creation of the first-ever international supply of uranium that would allow nations to obtain fuel for civilian nuclear reactors but limit the capacity to make bombs, according to senior administration officials.

...

Obama has outlined a goal of ridding the world of nuclear weapons and has pledged to reduce the US arsenal and take other steps toward that long-term vision. In his closely scrutinized speech to the Muslim world last week, he declared that "we have reached a decisive point" on the Iran nuclear weapons issue and that he is committed to "preventing a nuclear arms race in the Middle East that could lead this region and the world down a hugely dangerous path."

But he also said that "any nation - including Iran - should have the right to access peaceful nuclear power" if it follows nuclear weapons nonproliferation agreements.

...

The basic idea is to have a relatively small, but guaranteed supply of low-enriched uranium available as a backup should a country's supplies of civilian nuclear fuel from other nations be cut off for political or other reasons. Of the dozen or so countries that now can enrich uranium, several - such as Brazil and South Africa - do so to guard against such disruptions, not to build nuclear weapons.

...

some sectors of the nuclear power industry fear losing customers or profits if there is a new international provider of uranium. There are four main providers that sell nuclear energy fuel, one in Russia, one in the United States, one in France, and a German-British-Dutch consortium. But they can sell only to countries approved by their governments.

...

the Russian proposal calls for a supply of 120 tons of low-enriched uranium, according to IAEA documents obtained by the Globe, while the IAEA plan calls for between 60 tons and 80 tons - amounting to about a three-year supply for a 1,000-megawatt light water reactor, the most common type around the world, which produces enough electricity for about 1 million homes.

http://www.boston.com/news/nation/washington/articles/2009/06/08/with_eye_on_iran_obama_seeks_creation_of_world_uranium_fuel_bank?mode=PF

[JDPriestly]

1. And where will the nuclear waste be dumped?

NIMBY, please.

[phantom power]

2. I'm sure we can put it wherever you think is best, JD.

[JDPriestly]

8. I don't think that nuclear waste should be proliferated until

science finds a way to render it safe. I don't want nuclear energy anywhere until we can safely dispose of the waste products.

[bananas]

3. wrong link. nt

[phantom power]

4. Oopsie. It's fixed.

[kristopher]

5. There is a fundamental flaw in the idea that has been repeatedly raised

over the years. The appeal to energy security is always going to be a valid objection allowing countries that wish to pursue nuclear weapons development the excuse to strive for complete control of the fuel acquisition, processing and reprocessing.
Our dependence on oil is a perfect example of the power such a cartel would wield.

Frankly I'm very surprised Obama would refloat this Reagan-era dead end.

[phantom power]

6. I agree, that's the main problem.

You can offer some kind of consortium reserve of fuel, but then Iran or anybody else is free to say "Well, thanks but I think I'm sticking with my plan to develop our own fuel processing industry."

In terms of anti-proliferation, the main benefit would be political/rhetorical. Offering it is a way to make countries like Iran look bad. It's another way to bully them, really.

[kristopher]

7. True.

I'd much rather see Obama deliver on leadership in disarmament by addressing the mote in our own eye.