|
|||||
|
|||||
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|||||
 |
 |
    |
|
|
|||
 |
|
||
|
|||
|
|
|
|
||||||||
|
U.S., Russian Scientists Exploring Collaboration on Floating Nuclear Power Plants By Mike Nartker WASHINGTON — U.S and Russian scientists are considering possible collaboration on the development of floating nuclear power plants, which could reduce proliferation concerns, the director of the U.S. Sandia National Laboratories in New Mexico told Global Security Newswire this week (see GSN, June 22). The idea was discussed during a meeting last month between representatives of U.S. and Russian national laboratories at the International Atomic Energy Agency in Vienna, said Sandia Director Paul Robinson. The meeting resulted in the creation of a joint document calling for the increased use of nuclear power that has been submitted to the U.S. and Russian governments for consideration. “The time has come to develop a comprehensive and realistic plan to ensure the development and deployment of nuclear energy,” the joint document was quoted in a Sandia press release as saying. “It must preserve access to nuclear energy sources for all countries of the world, and in parallel, reduce the risks of nuclear arms proliferation, nuclear terrorism and hazardous impacts on environment and population health.” The full text of the joint document has not been released. Russia is already interested in developing floating nuclear plants, with several design bureaus that previously worked on nuclear submarines exploring the concept, Robinson said. As described by Robinson, such nuclear plants would be sent to a recipient country, travel into the interior where needed via canals and linked to the country’s power grid. The plants would be provided under “turnkey” agreements, Robinson said, which would require the recipient to return the plant to its country of origin once it has ended operation. By returning the plant, the recipient country would lose access to equipment and materials that could be used to produce nuclear weapons. There has been increasing concern that countries seeking to develop nuclear weapons may do so under the guise of operating civilian nuclear programs, which share many of the same elements. As an example, U.S. officials and some independent experts have pointed to Iran’s nuclear program, which Tehran has repeatedly claimed is for civilian purposes. The Bush administration has proposed several measures intended to close what it describes as a “loophole” in the nuclear nonproliferation regime, such as a ban on the export of enrichment and reprocessing technologies to countries that do not already possess them (see GSN, June 23). During this year’s meeting of the Group of Eight top global economic powers, G-8 members agreed to a one-year freeze on new initiatives to export enrichment and reprocessing capabilities (see GSN, June 10). Floating nuclear plants could also benefit nonproliferation by requiring less expertise and personnel on the part of the recipient country to operate, reducing the likelihood that the country would develop a cadre of nuclear-trained scientists that could later be used in weapons efforts, said Matthew Bunn of Harvard University’s Project on Managing the Atom Bunn also said, though, that Russia’s atomic energy agency has supported the development of floating nuclear plants that would use highly enriched uranium as fuel, which could limit the nonproliferation benefit of such facility. A proposal before the International Science and Technology Center nonproliferation program to develop low-enriched uranium fuel for such plants has not received funding, he said. In addition, because the floating plants would likely be used in more remote areas of a country, they may have less security and thereby increase the risk of the possible theft or diversion of nuclear materials, Bunn said. The United States could aid in the development of floating nuclear power plants by assisting their marketing to other countries, Robinson said, adding that Russia has acknowledged the difficulties they would have in promoting the plants themselves. Russian nuclear reactors are still burdened with the legacy of the 1986 Chernobyl reactor meltdown, he said. Past cost estimates for floating plants considered by Russia for its own use ranged from about $100 million to more than $300 million. Cost or schedule estimates have not been developed for a potential U.S.-Russian plan. Robinson said last month’s meeting was “very promising,” and that U.S. scientists were impressed with the nuclear engineering expertise of their Russian counterparts. U.S. and Russian scientists now plan to begin examining possible nuclear collaboration measures by the end of the year, he said, adding that the issue could be discussed during a possible U.S-Russian summit in early 2005.
| ||||||||||
Back to top
