My Word

I realise that this is going to come as a bit of a shock but I’ve just read a newspaper piece on a subject which I am indeed directly knowledgeable about (from the day job) and Bronwen Maddox has actually got all of the major points right. That’s not to single out Ms. Maddox, rather that we all know that when we read something that we know about directly, there usually seems to be something either missed or mis-stated?

On the subject of various Arab countries looking to go nuclear:

On the face of it, the request by the Arab countries to the International Atomic Energy Agency (IAEA) is entirely reasonable.

They are all signatories to the non-proliferation treaty under
which they have a right to ask for help in developing civil nuclear
power.

Yes, quite right.

If it masters uranium enrichment, the tricky process needed to make
fuel for reactors, then it has also mastered the most difficult step in
making fissile material for bombs.

Yes, absolutely. We really don’t care about people having nuclear reactors. We do care if they either insist on doing the enrichment themselves or the reporcessing. That’s where bomb making material comes from, not a civilian reactor per se.

The central question is how the Arab countries intend to develop their
civil nuclear power. If they insist on doing their own enrichment, then
the IAEA is set for some difficult talks about how to supervise it.

Exactly. None of them is likely to run a large enough nuclear programme to make the huge extra cost of an enrichment or reprocessing plant vable: unless, of course, they are aiming for a bomb. This hsa always been the point about the Iranian plans. Power stations? Fine, but why are you spending all those extra billions you don’t need to….is it because you want a bomb?

Diplomatic efforts are likely to begin by trying to persuade them to buy in their nuclear fuel from other sources.

That would allow them to have as much nuclear power as they wanted, but would prevent them from mastering enrichment.

That’s exactly the bunny. Buy your fuel rods in, send them back for reprocessing. You’ll have all the power you could ever want and it’ll be cheaper too.

In

4 responses

  1. … and you’ll be held power hostage by whoever’s selling them to you. Nice plan.

  2. “… and you’ll be held power hostage by whoever’s selling them to you. Nice plan.”
    Not necessarily. For starters, there’s always someone else to sell you LEU. Then there’s also the fact that nuclear fuel lasts a long time. If your enricher tries to cut you off for a few weeks you won’t even notice. It is also easy to stockpile nuclear fuel because of this. The stockpiles are not especially useful for making bombs, but can give you a good bit of energy security.
    Nuclear fuel isn’t like natural gas. We are vulnerable to Putin turning off our gas tap. We are not vulnerable to Harper or Howard turning off our uranium tap.

  3. Because obviously sanctions regimes only last a few weeks at a time. Seriously – can you imagine Iran going for that kind of deal right now, considering what monumental tossers the Americans are being with their foreign policy at the moment?

  4. Arabs running nuclear plants? Shudder.
    Hopefully they’ll take a more responsible attitude to safety than they do on their oil and gas plants.

Leave a Reply

Discover more from Tim Worstall

Subscribe now to keep reading and get access to the full archive.

Continue reading