Don't Waste South Carolina

Here’s a nuclear armed nation loudly protesting possible development of such arms elsewhere yet planning to spread far and wide the technological means to do just that. Seems incredible, but there it is. The Federal Register announced a plan by the Department of Energy for a series of studies, engineering-scale demonstrations and technology projects toward developing a “global nuclear energy partnership“. It aims to increase substantially, everywhere, the proportion of nuclear-generated electricity, incidentally helping an industry which has found itself in the doldrums, out of favor with the public, for a long time. Through the proposed program, “the United States would … provide developing countries with reactors … able to meet their energy needs, as well as related nuclear services.”

Quite an awkward coincidence, what with North Korea’s and Iran’s presumed weapons intentions so much in the news nowadays! Rather worrisome, even ignoring a “fairness” issue, as to the security risks that would result. Are plants wanted in many more countries that make bomb-grade material as possible up-front product (through uranium enrichment) or, as is inevitable, as post-generation by-product of reactors making electricity? Many more “bomb factories”--Dr. Caldicott’s word for nuclear power plants--over whose capacity even for safe use in electricity, and possible misuse for nuclear weapons we have little control? “Reactor and bomb [being] Siamese twins,” as European Parliament Member Rebecca Harms phrased it, the supposed separation of military and civilian uses may be fancy-born more often than real, at least when nations gain or can afford to develop the technology. Indeed, it has proved impossible to enforce, India, Israel, Pakistan being examples where the “peaceful atom” for electricity also made nuclear-weapons arsenals.

One wonders if the Energy Secretary, in proposing this “GNEP” has overlooked a few historic facts and perspectives. Such as these three countries’ metamorphosis to nuclear powers. Such as the great expenditure of diplomacy and political pressure required to make other countries--Argentina, Brazil, Libya, South Africa abandon their nuclear-weapons programs. Such as the long international effort--though successful before the US made war on the country--to ensure an end to Iraq’s similar program. Such as the difficulty of keeping these weapons out of the wrong hands, as when the Soviet Union’s breakup left caches of them scattered in the now independent republics, without assured central control and causing much fear of their being smuggled out.

The Administration assumes that all the countries to which it would supply nuclear technology will “refrain from pursuing enrichment and reprocessing activities [and from] production of nuclear weapons,” since they would have to “agree to use nuclear power only for electricity.” Seems rather an illusory bet and, considering the dangers it invites wholly unjustified, especially given the many alternatives for safe and sustainable electricity, from renewable sources and through demand moderation.

The public can send comments to the Department of Energy, by April 4. These may be e-mailed: This e-mail address is being protected from spam bots, you need JavaScript enabled to view it , faxed (866-645-7807) or postal mailed to Timothy Frazier, Office of Nuclear Energy, US DOE, 1000 Independence Avenue, SW, Washington, DC 20585. They should be marked as “GNEP PEIS Comments.”