What do you think of President's proposed International Fuel Bank?

[FrenchieCat]

That he mentioned in his speech--

"we should build a new framework for civil nuclear cooperation, including an international fuel bank, so that countries can access peaceful power without increasing the risks of proliferation. That must be the right of every nation that renounces nuclear weapons, especially developing countries embarking on peaceful programs. No approach will succeed if it is based on the denial of rights to nations that play by the rules. We must harness the power of nuclear energy on behalf of our efforts to combat climate change, and to advance opportunity for all people."
http://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-dyn/content/article/2009/04/05/AR2009040501382_3.html

Wouldn't this get rid of N. Korea and Iran's excuse of doing nuclear research for use of such for future nuclear power plants?



What about his Global Summit on Nuclear Security that the US will be hosting within the next year?

"We must also build on our efforts to break up black markets, detect and intercept materials in transit, and use financial tools to disrupt this dangerous trade. Because this threat will be lasting, we should come together to turn efforts such as the Proliferation Security Initiative and the Global Initiative to Combat Nuclear Terrorism into durable international institutions. And we should start by having a Global Summit on Nuclear Security that the United States will host within the next year."

[FrenchieCat]

1. Guess these are not issues worth talking about, hey?

[NYC_SKP]

10. I just got home, I've been gone.

:P

Or I'd have answered sooner.
Yes, I think it's a splendid idea to share cutting edge technologies for safe nuclear and green power, transportation, etc...

Carbon Dioxide and other greenhouse gasses are very fair about the way they affect us globally, they know no political borders.

:patriot:

[BlooInBloo]

13. Not in the ihateobama forum, they're not.

[Occam Bandage]

2. I think the first is an excellent-sounding idea, though I don't believe it will actually

solve much of anything. It requires nations to effectively surrender their sovereignty over their energy production, which is of course going to be unacceptable to nations that are pursuing nuclear weapons for fear of American encroachment on their sovereign rights.

After all, their fear is that Western pressure will make them dependent on Western favor to survive, much as Russia controls Eastern Europe with its energy monopoly. A Western-led fuel bank from which nations may draw energy as long as they enjoy Western favor would not be reassuring.

[FrenchieCat]

4. Here's more on the work already done on International Fuel Banks.....

http://www.world-nuclear-news.org/ENF_Funding_complete_for_fuel_bank_concept_0603092.html

[JayMusgrove]

3. I think they are excellent ideas. We have needed this for years.

What is amazing is that no one ever bothered to do this over the last 8 years.

It is the only logical way to proceed, to reduce dependence upon fossil fuels, to guard against nuclear fissionable production, and to allow for reduction of terrorist threats.

It will not be easy. It will take time, and may run into roadblocks that need to be worked through, but the general direction is a logical and wise one.

[slipslidingaway]

5. Not a new idea...from 2006

http://www.csmonitor.com/2006/0918/p04s01-wogi.html

[FrenchieCat]

15. Goes back to the Carter Administration.....not from 2006

[slipslidingaway]

17. The article is from 2006 n/t

[FrenchieCat]

18. Guess you don't read entire threads.....

http://www.democraticunderground.com/discuss/duboard.php?az=show_mesg&forum=132&topic_id=8323705&mesg_id=8324223

[slipslidingaway]

21. Read it - see my reply and your second link is the same article

I originally posted.

[masuki bance]

6. I wonder who he has in mind to keep watch and control this bank.

[Deja Q]

9. Well, if this fuel bank was like a hen house, he'll find a hungry fox.

:evilgrin:

[Aloha Spirit]

22. Kazakhstan offered to be a depository... interesting:

http://online.wsj.com/article/BT-CO-20090405-702833.html

Kazakhstan, where the Soviet Union tested its nuclear weapons and where Russia still launches its satellites, would represent the clearest sign yet that the Obama administration is ready to bend Moscow's way to win a partner in Mr. Obama's arms control agenda. After the Soviet Union broke up, Kazakhstan was left with a nuclear arsenal of its own, which it voluntarily gave up.

An EU diplomat in Prague familiar with the nuclear security issues said Kazakhstan made a lot of sense as a potential site for a nuclear fuel bank.

"This is one of the very few countries that had nuclear weapons and destroyed them. So Kazakhstan is a very interesting offer," the diplomat said, noting that the EU has given the International Atomic Energy Agency in Vienna 25 million euros to figure out how to structure such a fuel bank.

But it could also raise some eyebrows. The authoritarian government might not allow the kind of transparency such a venture might need.

"There hasn't been a final decision by President Obama," the senior administration official said, "but he is considering Kazakhstan to be the host."

[ClarkUSA]

7. It will checkmate Iran's protestations re: centrifuging nicely.

[slipslidingaway]

8. Senator Sam Nunn - a proposal - to create a nuclear fuel bank- 2006

http://vimdy.wordpress.com/2007/09/20/nuclear-fuel-bank-one-year-down/

September 20, 2007

"Last September, Senator Sam Nunn put before the International Atomic Energy Agency (IAEA) a proposal that would involve a donation of $50 million of Warren Buffet’s money to create a nuclear fuel bank. There were three strings attached...."


Memo to the New President | January 15, 2009
Creating a Nuclear-Fuel Bank
By Sen. Evan Bayh

http://www.dlc.org/ndol_ci.cfm?kaid=450020&subid=900203&contentid=254843


"...We can ill afford to allow rising demand for nuclear energy to become a pretext for rogue nations seeking to acquire a nuclear military capability. Yet that is precisely what is happening right now in Iran. And if that nation succeeds in defying the international community's legitimate demands that it desist from developing nuclear capacities, other countries will follow suit.

That's why I urge you, Mr. President, to put nuclear nonproliferation at the top of your energy-security agenda. I believe the threshold question is this: How do we respond to valid and growing demands for civilian nuclear energy worldwide without permitting more countries to acquire nuclear weapons?

The answer, in my view, is to set up an international nuclear-fuel bank that would supply fuel to any country that agrees not to develop its own enriching and reprocessing facilities.

The fuel bank works like this: Developing nations seeking civilian nuclear power for peaceful purposes are given access to a reliable and affordable supply of nuclear fuel. In return, they must agree to forgo enriching uranium themselves. They must also submit to rigorous inspections of their civilian reactors to guard against North Korean and Iranian-style cheating..."

[FrenchieCat]

11. Guess you want to give credit to "unsavory" character for effect, hey? You so funny!

you cynic!
...but actually, it is an older idea than 2006.....

International Nuclear Fuel Cycle Evaluation Remarks at the First Plenary Session of the Organizing Conference.
October 19, 1977

Remarks from Jimmy Carter, President of the United States

We then went into a time of at least embryonic discussions of nuclear test bans, and now we have one that still permits the testing of weapons which have the equivalent of 150,000 tons of TNT. Even this has been recognized as an achievement. And, of course, we are discussing with the Soviet Union means by which we can eliminate, sometime in the future, our dependence upon atomic weapons altogether. We've lived under a threat which so far has not yet been realized, and I pray that it never shall.

In the last 32 years, there have been no people killed by the use of atomic weapons. But with the rapidly increasing price of oil and the scarcity of fuel which we have taken for granted in years gone by, there's an increasing pressure for expanding atomic power use. And commensurate with that use is also the threat of the proliferation of nuclear exp


I think an international fuel bank should be established, so that if there is a temporary breakdown in the bilateral supply of nuclear fuel, that there might be a reservoir of fuel to be supplied under those circumstances. And we'll certainly contribute our own technical
http://www.presidency.ucsb.edu/ws/index.php?pid=6809

---------------------------

A central challenge will be to convince those who argue for sovereignty on such decisions to consider a new system.

"It will require leadership, and preferably a multiheaded leadership, involving leading suppliers and important consumers," says Lawrence Scheinman, who wrote fuel-bank proposals for the Carter Administration and now teaches at the Center for Nonproliferation Studies at the Monterey Institute of International Studies in California. "Where will that leadership come from? Would the international community feel comfortable with US leadership? The US has in the past led constructively - and still can."
http://www.sgpproject.org/Personal%20Use%20Only/091806FuelBank.htm
------------------------

Mohamed ElBaradei, director general of the IAEA, said that the next step would be to develop a proposed framework for the fuel reserve and present it to the IAEA board for consideration in June.

The concept of a fuel bank has been strongly supported by ElBaradei, who has said it is necessary for the serious expansion of nuclear power in future. The purpose is that guarantees of supply would dissuade individual countries from pursuing their own nuclear fuel production capability, some elements of which can be abused to create nuclear weapons.

A case in point is that of Iran, where uranium enrichment programs began outside the view of the IAEA. Iran has always said that the purpose was to make fuel for its forthcoming power reactor at Bushehr, but the hidden nature of the early stages of the project raised concerns that will not go away.

Besides enriched uranium, a comprehensive guarantee scheme would also have to cover supply of finished reactor fuel for the exact fuel assembly designs in use today. And a fuel bank to avoid situations like the current Iranian issue would beg the question of what the world would do if a country decided to develop its own enrichment plants despite supply assurances.
http://www.world-nuclear-news.org/ENF_Funding_complete_for_fuel_bank_concept_0603092.html
----------------------

John Edwards - Candidate website for 2008

We should also lead a multilateral effort to create a regional fuel bank that Iran could use for peaceful purposes. We should also use the possibility of bringing Iran into multilateral economic organizations, including the WTO, to draw Iran's elites into pressuring the regime to change course and abandon its nuclear ambitions.
http://johnedwards.com/issues/reengage/

---------------------

Hillary Clinton - Candidate in 2008

As president, I will support efforts to supplement the Nuclear Nonproliferation Treaty. Establishing an international fuel bank that guaranteed secure access to nuclear fuel at reasonable prices would help limit the number of countries that pose proliferation risks."
http://www.asil.org/clinton.cfm

-----------------------------

IAEA for nuclear fuel bank

Vienna: With India and some other countries evincing interest in the construction of nuclear power plants, the IAEA is contemplating establishing a reserve nuclear fuel bank for supplying fuel to nations which have renewed interest in expanding their atomic energy programme.

This fuel bank would operate on the basis of “apolitical and non-discriminatory non-proliferation criteria,” the U.N. nuclear watchdog’s Director General Mohammed ElBaradei said here on Tuesday.

Several nations have shown interest in nuclear power plants.

Controlling of nuclear material is a complex process, yet if we fail to act, it could be the Achilles heel of the nuclear non-proliferation regime, he said. — PTI
http://www.thehindu.com/2007/09/19/stories/2007091956121800.htm

---------------------

EU pledges €25 million to nuclear fuel bank
09 December 2008
The Council of the European Union will contribute up to €25 million ($32 million) towards an international nuclear fuel bank controlled by the International Atomic Energy Agency (IAEA), bringing the prospect a step closer.
http://www.world-nuclear-news.org/NP-EU_pledges_25_million_to__nuclear_fuel_bank-0912087.html

---------------------

[slipslidingaway]

20. See my reply #19 n/t

[FrenchieCat]

12. House Approves Nuclear Fuel ‘Bank’ Funding to Deter Weapons Proliferation

June 18, 2007 – 8:21 p.m.
House Approves Nuclear Fuel ‘Bank’ Funding to Deter Weapons Proliferation
By Tim Starks, CQ Staff
The House passed a bill Monday that would help create an international nuclear fuel bank to discourage countries from enriching uranium that could be used for nuclear weapons.

By voice vote, the House passed legislation (HR 885) that would authorize $50 million in fiscal 2008 to help start the International Nuclear Fuel Bank, to be run by the International Atomic Energy Agency.

The measure was written with Iran in mind. Tehran maintains that its uranium-enrichment effort will help it produce nuclear power for energy, but the Bush administration and others allege that it is seeking to build a nuclear weapon.

“It is imperative that we keep nuclear weapons out of the hands of Iran,” said Tom Lantos, D-Calif., who chairs the Foreign Affairs Committee and who sponsored the bill.

Added Ileana Ros-Lehtinen of Florida, the ranking Republican on Lantos’ panel: “The legislation will prove to be significant to the global non-proliferation effort.”

The authorized amount would match the $50 million offered by the Nuclear Threat Initiative in September. The non-governmental organization, which focuses on non-proliferation, was founded by former Sen. Sam Nunn, D-Ga. (1972-97), and mogul Ted Turner, and is backed by billionaire Warren Buffett.
http://public.cq.com/docs/cqt/news110-000002534153.html

[FrenchieCat]

14. France for global fuel bank, criteria-based reprocessing sale

France for global fuel bank, criteria-based reprocessing sale
October 23rd, 2008 -
http://www.thaindian.com/newsportal/uncategorized/france-for-global-fuel-bank-criteria-based-reprocessing-sale_100110846.html

[Aloha Spirit]

16. Finally had a chance to catch the whole speech today... jeez, I can't believe

there's no transcript on CNN, at least i can't find one there.

I'm really excited about the fuel bank. It was in his campaign season platform, but I didn't give it much thought.
I guess there wasn't as much disagreement between the candidates on this issue, but Obama definitely seems like the most dedicated promoter that you could ask for on this and other nuclear arms issues.

The Prague speech had a lot more policy stuff in it than normal, which I appreciated.
And I LOVE hearing the Republicans like Bolton saying how his plan is "utopian at best," but that Obama put the counter-argument in his speech--that accepting a world with nuclear weapons is tantamount to accepting that they'll be used.

I went back and looked for statements from Gates on Nuclear Arms Reduction.
If you're curious,

http://www.carnegieendowment.org/events/?fa=eventDetail&id=1202&prog=zgp&proj=zted
This was right before the election, and while Gates supports most of Obama's positions it seems, he also says that tests on our nuclear arsenal will be necessary in the future. Hmm. Well, maybe he has changed his position.

[slipslidingaway]

19. Your subject line "President's proposed International Fuel Bank"

could easily lead people to think this was President Obama's idea, that is exactly the interpretation of some people when you read the replies.

The headline (subject line) "President Obama Backs International Fuel Bank" would lead one to believe the idea had been proposed before and he was giving his nod to the idea.

Big difference in the headlines.

My original post linking the 2006 article was meant to alert people to the fact that this is not a new proposal. I did not know that Carter had spoken of this idea back in 1970's.

The idea gained attention when trying to deal with Iran and Senator Nunn may have been one of the first to revive the idea in 2006 when Warren Buffet agreed to contribute money.


From your post...

"Guess you want to give credit to "unsavory" character for effect, hey?"

Not particularly, but when you do a search for the idea of a fuel bank the article mentioning Nun is one of the first displayed.

Who do you want to give credit to with the headline you posted?


Some replies to your headline make it sound as if this was the idea of President Obama

"Yes, I think it's a splendid idea..."

"I think the first is an excellent-sounding idea.."

"I think they are excellent ideas."

[Aloha Spirit]

23. I'd be more interested to know whether you think the IFB would be a good idea

rather than what other posts may or may not suggest about people's interpretation of the thread title.

do you think it's a stepping stone to securing nuclear fuel?
unrealistic?

[FrenchieCat]

24. So in otherwords, although Obama like many others have had this idea as part of their platform,

You believe that I am unable to give this President any credit for including it as part of his things-to-do? And that he cannot gain credit for this?

As you noted, you didn't even know much about this entire Fuel Bank idea, and you didn't even realize that it has been around for a long time. In fact, your knowledge about such was based on googling and taking off with what came up on top. Is that supposed to be a substantial manner in which to enter into a debate about a relatively unknown but not new idea on an important subject? And did you jump with joy in your purposeful copying and pasting its association to only Nunn and Bayh...who are not known for enjoying positive reputations at this site?

You might question me on my motives in the fact that I quoted Obama's speech given that day in reference to an idea that many are not familiar with, but I, in turn, question your motive in selectively picking out two unsavory figures to give credit of this idea to instead.

The idea should stand on its own, and not blindly opposed simply based on who proposed it, or who was the originator of it....which seems to be your approach. That makes you just as flawed, if not more so, than those you would choose to criticize.

[slipslidingaway]

26. Wrong, you need to read my post again....

"Your subject line "President's proposed International Fuel Bank" could easily lead people to think this was President Obama's idea, that is exactly the interpretation of some people when you read the replies.

The headline (subject line) "President Obama Backs International Fuel Bank" would lead one to believe the idea had been proposed before and he was giving his nod to the idea.

Big difference in the headlines.


My original post was that the idea was not new, while others replied Great Idea, as if this was the idea of President Obama. Maybe that was due to your phrasing of the subject line??? And yes I do try and look for additional info before commenting, sometimes spending more time and sometimes less.


Your statement....

"The idea should stand on its own, and not blindly opposed simply based on who proposed it, or who was the originator of it....which seems to be your approach. That makes you just as flawed, if not more so, than those you would choose to criticize."


Wrong!!!

This is what I posted this morning in another thread and have posted similar ideas before...maybe you need to keep an open and check your facts before criticizing others.


http://www.democraticunderground.com/discuss/duboard.php?az=show_mesg&forum=132&topic_id=8323658&mesg_id=8324799


Posted this above and some of the ideas made sense to me...

I never understand why we throw every idea away just because we do not like the entire package. Then again there was a lot of money to be made in financial speculation and I could see why some people did not want this idea to gain traction.

I came across a 1993 article about taxing derivatives, the reasons were to hopefully control some of the speculation and generate revenue for the government.

Another aspect, and maybe a more important one, was that capital was being used for speculative reasons and therefore diverting investments in producing goods and other areas where the ROI was lower, but perhaps more beneficial to our society.

That was LaRouche back in 1993.

[FrenchieCat]

27. You don't even make fucking sense.

Instead of discussing the actual idea, you're still thinking this thread is about me or about you.

Sad.

[slipslidingaway]

28. When you falsely accuse others they push back....

if you wanted to keep the thread on the idea, you need to temper your erroneous remarks.

[FrenchieCat]

29. This is dedicated to you and yours.....

"POLITICAL VULTURES"

The Kettle of scavengers hover in groups,
circling overhead,
awaiting to pick apart their prey.

They ignore the good and the wholesome,
but will pounce on whatever they perceive
wounded or slightly weak,
even if only for a day.

Geiers swoop down savagely
to tear their spoil from limb to limb
in joyful abandon
to satisfy their relentless appetite.

The Venue will always be there,
sitting on the highest perch,
spying closely for their next meal
as Vultures need to eat,
so no matter what, they wait to prey.

[slipslidingaway]

30. Stop bothering me, your nastiness and infatuation with the Obama

administration are becoming more evident.

[FrenchieCat]

31. This was a thread I started. Your nastiness and fucked up attitude

toward Obama has been evident long before he became President.

When I think of you, I think of a low life snake.

[slipslidingaway]

32. More false accusations and insults....I wish you well. n/t

[Cha]

34. And you're bothering me with your

hatin'.

[slipslidingaway]

35. Why get in the middle only to follow Frenchie Cat with the insults

:shrug:

I have never agreed with the Obama economic team and have mostly spoken out on that issue, if that is hatin' then so be it.

[rpannier]

25. I like it

It seems a reasonable idea.

Anything that is necessary for the world as a whole should be placed undet the control (albeit not total) of the international community.

I support it

[Cha]

33. I'm sorry I didn't get to this sooner to

Rec'd. This sounds like an idea that could really help move the no :nukes: forward.