SPECPOL Study Guide ALSAMUN 2013

ALSA Model United Nations 2013 STUDY GUIDE SPECPOL

NUCLEAR ENERGY PREDICAMENT

HISTORY AND DISCUSSION OF THE PROBLEM

All life on earth depends in some

way upon energy. Energy is directly linked

to well-being and prosperity across the

globe. There are seven billion people on

earth who use energy each day to make their

lives richer, more productive, safer and

healthier. It is perhaps the biggest driver of

energy demand: the human desire to sustain

and improve the well-being of themselves,

their families and their communities. In

developing countries, energy demand will

grow close to 60 percent as five-sixths of the

world’s population strives to improve their

living standards. In 2040, global energy

demand will be about 30 percent higher

compared to 2010 as economic output more

than doubles and prosperity expands across

a world whose population will grow to

nearly nine billion people; outstrip the

ability of the earth to regenerate its stores of

energy.

Over the next 50 years, unless

patterns change dramatically, energy

production and use will contribute to global

warming through large scale greenhouse gas

emissions — hundreds of billions of tones of

carbon in the form of carbon dioxide. In

2002, carbon equivalent emission from

human activity was about 6,500 million

tones per year; these emissions will probably

more than double by 2050. As greenhouse

gases accumulate in the atmosphere, finding

ways to generate power cleanly, affordably,

and reliably is becoming an even more

pressing imperative. After a decades-long

slowdown, nuclear power once again

dominates the global energy debate. Dozens

of countries are vying to join the nuclear

power club and hundreds of new reactors are

on the drawing board. As the global appetite

for electricity grows, atomic power -- which

scarcely pollutes, generates relatively little

solid waste, and is far more efficient than

the alternatives -- is being embraced. The

nuclear option retains, precisely because it is

an important carbon-free source of power

that can potentially make a significant

contribution to future electricity supply.

Another reason for thinking about

the nuclear option is national security. The

dependence of the developed world on oil

from the Middle East, an unstable region of

the world, has long presented a risk to the

economies of the United States and other

countries that depend on imported oil, such

as Japan, Germany, and France. In general,


this dependence is linked principally to fuel

for the transportation sector, but many other

countries rely on oil for significant power

generation. Nuclear power offers one option

for reducing this dependence.

In 2000 nuclear power produced

about 17% of the world’s electricity from

442 commercial reactors in 31 countries.

The United States has the largest

deployment, with 104 operating reactors

producing 20% of the country’s electricity,

followed by France, Japan, Germany,

Russia, and South Korea. The reliability of

these plants has improved considerably in

recent years (for example, capacity factors

of U.S. nuclear reactors have achieved

90%), and many will have their originally

expected operating lives extended

significantly.

Despite the strong rationale for

reducing greenhouse gas emissions that

contribute to global warming, for meeting

increasing demand for electricity, and for

improving the national security aspects of

energy supply, the official forecasts call for

a mere 5% increase in nuclear electricity

generating capacity worldwide by 2020,

while electricity use could grow by as much

as 75%. After 2020, if significant

investments are not made, nuclear power

supply would decline as existing reactors are

retired.

There are several reasons why

nuclear power has not met the expectations

for capacity growth projected several

decades ago. One factor is that the public

perception of nuclear energy is unfavorable,

in part due to concern about effects of

radiation that the public associates with

nuclear energy. More importantly, the

adverse impression derives from real and

unique problems presented by this

technology. These problems are:

Cost

In particular, the rapid rate of nuclear

reactor expansion required to make even a

modest reduction in global warming would

drive up construction costs and create

shortages in building materials, trained

personnel, and safety controls.

Nuclear power has higher overall

lifetime costs compared to natural gas with

combined cycle turbine technology and coal.

Most operating nuclear plants are

economical to operate when costs going

forward are considered, i.e. when sunk

capital and construction costs are ignored.

However, new plants appear to be more

expensive than alternate sources of base load

generation, notably coal and natural gas


fired electricity generation, when both

capital and operating costs are taken into

account.

Coal plants have capital costs

intermediate between those of gas and

nuclear. Even with SO2 and NOx controls

that meet U.S. new source performance

standards, new coal plants are widely

perceived to be less costly than nuclear

plants. However, if CO2 emissions were in

the future to become subject to control and a

significant “price” placed on emissions, i.e.

carbon tax or an equivalent “cap and trade”

mechanism, the relative economics could

become much more favorable to nuclear

power.

Safety

Nuclear power has perceived adverse

safety, environmental, and health effects.

After the 1979 accident at Three Mile Island

in Harrisburg, Pennsylvania and the 1986

accident at Chernobyl in the Soviet Union,

public concern about reactor safety

increased substantially. The 1999 accident at

the Tokai-Mura plant underscored safety

concerns about the nuclear fuel cycle outside

of the reactor.

There is also concern about

transportation of nuclear materials and waste

management. The September 11, 2001

terrorist attack on the World Trade Center

and the Pentagon have heightened concerns

about the vulnerability of nuclear power

stations and other facilities, especially spent

fuel storage pools, to terrorist attack. There

is concern about radiation exposure of

citizens and workers from activities of the

industry despite good regulation and health

records. There are significant environmental

Nuclear power stations operations around the world. Graphic by Jenny Ridley


impacts, ranging from long-term waste

disposal to the handling and disposal of

toxic chemical wastes associated with the

nuclear fuel cycle.

Proliferation

Nuclear power entails potential

security risks, notably the possible misuse of

commercial or associated nuclear facilities

and operations to acquire technology or

materials as a precursor to the acquisition of

a nuclear weapons capability.

The possibility exists that nations

wishing to acquire or enhance a nuclear

weapons capability will use commercial

nuclear power as a source of technological

know-how or nuclear weapons usable

material, notably plutonium. Although this

has not proved to be the preferred pathway

to nuclear weapons capability, the

possession of a complete nuclear fuel cycle,

including enrichment, fuel fabrication,

reactor operation, and reprocessing,

certainly moves any nation closer to

obtaining such a capability. The key step for

achieving nuclear weapons capability is

acquisition of sufficient weapons-usable

fissionable material, either high-enriched

uranium or plutonium.

Unfortunately, reprocessing of spent

fuel for the fuel cycle operation in Europe,

Russia, and Japan has led to the

accumulation of about 200 tones of

separated plutonium. The associated

risks have been viewed with increased alarm

since the 9/11 events that demonstrated the

reach of international terrorism. Radiation

exposure from spent fuel that is not

reprocessed is a strong, but not certain,

barrier to theft and misuse.

Waste

Nuclear power has unresolved

challenges in long-term management of

radioactive wastes. If nuclear energy is to

enjoy a sustained renaissance, the challenge

of managing nuclear waste for thousands of

years must be met. Nuclear energy is

generated by splitting uranium, leaving

behind dangerous radioactive products, such

as cesium and strontium, that presents health

and environmental risks that persist for tens

of thousands of years. The process also

produces transuranic elements, such as

plutonium, which are heavier than uranium,

do not occur in nature, and must be isolated

for millennia. There is an alternative to

disposing of transuranic elements: they can

be separated from the reactor fuel every few

years and then recycled into new nuclear

reactor fuel as an additional energy source.

The downside, however, is that this process


is complex and expensive, and it poses a

proliferation risk since plutonium can be

used in nuclear weapons. The debate over

the merits of recycling transuranic elements

has yet to be resolved. Since these

radioactive wastes present some danger to

present and future generations, the public

and its elected representatives, as well as

prospective investors in nuclear power

plants, properly expect continuing and

substantial progress towards solution to the

waste disposal problem.

The potential impacts on the public

from safety or waste management failure

and the link to nuclear explosives

technology are unique to nuclear energy

among energy supply options. These

characteristics and the fact that nuclear is

more costly, make it impossible today to

make a credible case for the immediate

expanded use of nuclear power.

Inevitably, there will be a high

degree of government involvement in

nuclear power, even in market economies, to

regulate safety, waste, and proliferation risk.

This is, in itself, another challenge for

nuclear power. There is considerable

variation in how different countries

approach the issues of safety, proliferation,

and waste management. This often

complicates the role of governments in

setting international rules – especially for

preventing proliferation, but also for safety

and waste management – that serve common

interests. Poor safeguarding of nuclear

materials or facilities in any nation could

result in acquisition of nuclear explosives by

a rogue state or terrorist group for use in

another nation. The Chernobyl accident

demonstrated the potential for radioactivity

to spread across borders and thus the

importance of uniformly high safety

standards and advanced safety technologies

(such as western reactor containment

designs).

Nuclear power’s value as a carbon-

free electricity supply technology has also

generally not been recognized in

government policies. Government policies

have focused on targeting renewable energy

resources and end-use efficiency

improvements through a combination of

direct subsidies, tax subsidies, renewable

energy portfolio standards, appliance

efficiency standards, and other “second

best” mechanisms to promote carbon-free

supply technologies and to reduce electricity

demand. Nuclear power has generally been

excluded from these programs.

While the European Union will

introduce a carbon dioxide emissions trading


system in a few years, countries have not yet

turned to broad policies to internalize the

social costs of carbon emissions that would

provide incentives for investment in all

carbon free electricity supply or energy

efficiency technologies, including nuclear

power. Thus nuclear power does not

compete on a level playing field and, from

this perspective, is presently being

discriminated against in policies designed to

respond to the challenge of reducing carbon

dioxide emissions.

Given the difficulties that confront

nuclear power, the effort required to

overcome them is justified only if nuclear

power potentially can make a significant

impact on the major challenges of global

warming, electric supply, and security. That

is, for nuclear power to merit strategic focus

and sustaining actions on the part of

government, there must also be a

commitment to significant expansion of

nuclear power that will sustain and perhaps

modestly increase its share of global

electricity generation, even as use of

electricity multiplies.

CURRENT SITUATION

In the years following the major

accidents at Three Mile Island in 1979 and

Chernobyl in 1986, nuclear power fell out of

favor, and some countries applied the brakes

to their nuclear programs. In the last decade,

however, it began experiencing something

of a renaissance. Concerns about climate

change and air pollution, as well as growing

demand for electricity, led many

governments to reconsider their aversion to

nuclear power, which emits little carbon

dioxide and had built up an impressive

safety and reliability record. Some countries

reversed their phase-out of nuclear power,

some extended the lifetimes of existing

reactors, and many developed plans for new

ones. Today, roughly 60 nuclear plants are

under construction worldwide, which will

add about 60,000 megawatts of generating

Workers wearing protective suits and masks constructing water tanks at Fukushima Daiichi nuclear power plant.

Photograph: Issei Kato/Reuters


capacity -- equivalent to a sixth of the

world's current nuclear power capacity.

But the movement lost momentum in

March, when a 9.0-magnitude earthquake

and the massive tsunami it triggered

devastated Japan's Fukushima nuclear power

plant. It marked the first time that an

external event led to a major release of

radioactivity from a nuclear power plant.

The 14-meter-high wave was more than

twice the height that Fukushima was

designed to withstand, and it left the flooded

plant cut off from external logistical support

and from its power supply, which is needed

to cool the reactor and pools of spent fuel.

Three reactors were severely damaged,

suffering at least partial fuel meltdowns and

releasing radiation at a level only a few

times less than Chernobyl. Just four years

ago, the world's largest nuclear generating

station, Kashiwazaki-Kariwa, was shut

down by an earthquake that shook the plant

beyond what it was designed to handle, and

three of the seven reactors there remain idle

today. These events caused widespread

public doubts about the safety of nuclear

power to resurface.

Germany announced an accelerated

shutdown of its nuclear reactors, with broad

public support, and Japan made a similar

declaration, perhaps with less conviction.

Their decisions were made easier thanks to

the fact that electricity demand has flagged

during the worldwide economic slowdown

and the fact that global regulation to limit

climate change seems less imminent now

than it did a decade ago. In the United

States, an already slow approach to new

nuclear plants slowed even further in the

face of an unanticipated abundance of

natural gas. China, which accounts for about

40 percent of current nuclear power plant

construction, and India, Russia, and South

Korea, which together account for another

40 percent, show no signs of backing away

from their pushes for nuclear power.

At the same time, new reactors under

construction in Finland and France have

gone billions of dollars over budget, casting

doubt on the affordability of nuclear power

plants. Public concern about radioactive

waste is also hindering nuclear power, and

no country yet has a functioning system for

disposing of it. No nation has successfully

demonstrated a disposal system for these

nuclear wastes. Finland has decided on a

path to manage spent fuel, and the United

States has decided to proceed with licensing

of Yucca Mountain as a geological

repository. In fact, the U.S. government is

paying billions of dollars in damages to

utility companies for failing to meet its


obligations to remove spent fuel from

reactor sites. Many of the discussions

surrounding alternative reactors and fuel

cycles are motivated by a desire to reduce

high-level waste management challenges.

Some observers are also concerned

that the spread of civilian nuclear energy

infrastructure could lead to the proliferation

of nuclear weapons -- a problem exemplified

by Iran's uranium-enrichment program. If

countries such as Iran are able to enrich

uranium to make new reactor fuel and

separate out the plutonium to recover its

energy value, they then have access to the

relevant technology and material for a

weapons program. Safeguards agreements

with the International Atomic Energy

Agency are intended to make sure that

civilian programs do not spill over into

military ones, but the agency has only a

limited ability to address clandestine

programs.

BLOC POSITIONS

Asia and Pacific

There is public opposition to nuclear

power in Japan, Taiwan, and South Korea,

although several countries like India are still

on a path to construct new operating units

and China may yet commit to substantial

new nuclear plant construction. That

expansion is a major part of China’s plans to

decrease the reliance on coal. South Korea

has long relied on nuclear power to provide

the cheap electricity that helped build its

miracle economy. India is embracing

nuclear power for other reasons—because it

can help the country solve its chronic failure

to supply the electricity needed for a

burgeoning economy. Some of the Southeast

Asia countries like Indonesia and Vietnam

are planning to acquire nuclear power in

near term, followed by Malaysia, Thailand,

and Philippines plans to adopt nuclear power

in the long term.

Europe

There is considerable anti-nuclear

sentiment in Europe: Belgium, Germany, the

Netherlands, and Sweden are officially

committed to phasing out nuclear power

gradually. On the other hand, France still

continuing its reliance towards nuclear

energy that supply 80% electricity generated

in the country; and planning to improve its

units to meet the demand of environment

and health safety. Thirty percent of Finland

electricity is derived from nuclear reactors,

and the country is the first in the world to

develop permanent disposal site for its

domestic nuclear waste.


Middle East

Iran has been developing a latent

nuclear weapons capability through an

enrichment program. International concern

over the possibility that Iran will use its

emergent nuclear infrastructure for military

purpose centers on its separate fuel cycle

facility, not the operating Bushehr reactor

that constructed under Russian assistance.

The United Arab Emirates has plans to

develop commercial nuclear capacity in the

near future to meet its burgeoning energy

demand. Some countries in the region like

Israel, Turkey, Jordan, and Bahrain has also

considered to build its own nuclear reactor.

However, unless Israel sign the NPT, the

country will be unable to access the

international civilian nuclear market, due to

assumption that the country will produce

material for its undeclared nuclear weapon

program.

Africa

South Africa currently possess two

nuclear reactors – the only commercial ones

on African continent – to generate 5% of

country’s electricity. In 2007, the

government of Egypt announced that it

would revive its pursuit of nuclear energy

for electricity and desalination. This interest

also being shown by some countries in the

continent like Tunisia, Morocco, and

Algeria, who have signed the nuclear

agreement.

America

Canada is a leading provider of

reactor technology in the world market.

However, Canada is a world leader on

strengthening the international non

proliferation regime. The United States of

America is the world’s largest generator of

nuclear power, deriving nearly 20% of its

electricity from over 100 nuclear reactors.

Mexico, Brazil, and Argentine has 2 nuclear

reactor, and planned to construct new units.

POINTS A RESOLUTION SHOULD

COVER

Emphasizing the usage of nuclear energy for civilian purposes rather than military usage;

Determination of the most efficient energy resource to be used by nations for significant purposes such as generating electricity;

Recognition of the energy resource with least amount of damage to both human kind and the environment;

If nuclear energy would be found as the optimal energy resource to be used, what is the reasoning behind this judgment should be underlined?


If nuclear energy would be found as the optimal energy resource to be used, then the risks that nuclear energy generates should be eliminated;

The risk factors that the nuclear energy generates should be analyzed

separately (i.e. accidents,

environmental degradation);

The regulation of the nuclear power plants should be well inquired and investigated;

Functional international bodies should be further consolidated regarding the regulation problem of the nuclear centrals;

The nuclear proliferation probability of nations should be well researched and the precautions should be taken;

The ways to eliminate different types of nuclear waste should be mentioned in the resolution.

BIBLIOGRAPHY

UN, 2013. UN General Assembly - Fourth Committee - Special Political and Decolonization. [online] Available at: http://www.un.org/en/ga/fourth/index.shtml [Accessed: 3 Jan 2013].

University of Toronto, 2010. G20 Finance Global Imbalance Conclusions. [online] Available at: http://www.g20.utoronto.ca/analysis/conclusio ns/imbalances.html [Accessed: 9 Jan 2013].

University of Melbourne, 2000. Walras Law Guide. [online] Available at: http://www.economics.unimelb.edu.au/rdixon/ wlaw.html [Accessed: 9 Jan 2013].

Obstfeld, M. Rogoff, K. 2009. Global Imbalances and the Financial Crisis: Products of Common Causes. [online] Available at:

http://www.parisschoolofeconomics.eu/IMG/ pdf/BdF-PSE-IMF_paper_OBSTFELD-ROGOFF.pdf [Accessed: 9 Jan 2013].

Dornbusch, R. Fischer, S. Startz, R. 2011. Macroeconomics. Singapore: McGraw Hill

Xafa, M. 2007. Global Imbalances: Do They Really Matter? [online] Available at: http://www.cato.org/sites/cato.org/files/serials/ files/cato-journal/2007/1/cj27n1-5.pdf [Accessed: 19 Jan 2013].

Obstfeld, M. Rogoff, K. 2009. Global Imbalances and the Financial Crisis: Products of Common Causes. [online] Available at: http://www.parisschoolofeconomics.eu/IMG/ pdf/BdF-PSE-IMF_paper_OBSTFELD-ROGOFF.pdf [Accessed: 9 Jan 2013].

Caine, H. 2009 Ambassador Gonsalves Assails

Global Imbalances at United Nations General

Debate. [online] Available at: http://www.svg-

un.org/index.php?

option=com

_content&view=article&id=39%3Aambassador-

gonsalves-assails-global-imbalances-at-united-

nations-general-debate-&Itemid=5 [Accessed: 9 Jan 2013].Eichengreen, B. 2008. Should there be a

coordinated response to the problem of global imbalances? Can there be one? [online] Available at: http://www.un.org/esa/desa/ papers/2008/wp69_2008.pdf [Accessed: 15 Jan 2013].

Renewable Energy World, 2013. Types of Renewable Energy. [online] Available at: http://www.renewableenergyworld.com/rea/tec h/home [Accessed: 19 Jan 2013].

NY Times, 2012. Nuclear Energy - The New York Times. [online] Available at: http://topics.nytimes.com/top/news/business/en ergy-environment/atomic-energy/index.html[Accessed: 9 Jan 2013].

http://www.svg-un.org/index.php?option=com_



SPECPOL Study Guide ALSAMUN 2013

Documents

Transcript of SPECPOL Study Guide ALSAMUN 2013