DOCSLIB.ORG

Future Regional Nuclear Fuel Cycle Cooperation In

Total Page：16

File Type：pdf, Size：1020Kb

Download full-text PDF Read full-text
Future Regional Nuclear Fuel Cycle Cooperation In FFUUTTUURREE RREEGGIIOONNAALL NUUCCLLEEAARR FUUEELL CCYYCCLLEE COOOOPPEERRAATTIIOONN INN EAASSTT ASSIIAA:: EENNEERRGGYY SEECCUURRIITTYY COOSSTTSS AANNDD BBEENNEEFFIITTSS Report of the EAST ASIA SCIENCE AND SECURITY PROJECT Prepared for The John T. and Catherine T. MacArthur Foundation Prepared by David von Hippel, Tatsujiro Suzuki, Tadahiro Katsuta, Jungmin Kang, Alexander Dmitriev, Jim Falk, and Peter Hayes Nautilus Institute for Security and Sustainability at the University of San Francisco Center for the Pacific Rim 2130 Fulton Street LM 200, San Francisco, CA 94117 Phone: (415) 422 5523 Fax: (415) 422-5933; e-mail: [email protected] David von Hippel e-mail: [email protected] [June 6, 2010] i Nautilus Institute Executive Summary Over the past two decades, economic growth in East Asia—and particularly in China, the Republic of Korea (ROK), Vietnam, Taiwan, and Indonesia—has rapidly increased regional energy, and especially, electricity needs. As a recent, eye-opening example of these increased needs, China added more than 100 GW of generating capacity—equivalent to 150 percent of the total generation capacity in the ROK as of 2007—in the year 2006 alone, with the vast bulk of that added capacity being coal-fired, with attendant concerns regarding the global climate impacts of steadily increasing coal consumption. Even more striking than growth in primary energy use—and indeed one of its main drivers—has been the increase in electricity generation (and consumption) in the region. With the lessons of the “energy crises” of the 1970s in mind, several of the countries of East Asia—starting with Japan, and continuing with the ROK, Taiwan, and China—have sought to diversify their energy sources and bolster their energy supply security by developing nuclear power. Several other East Asian nations are currently discussing adopting nuclear power as well. At the same time, global security concerns related to terrorism and to the nuclear weapons activities of North Korea, Pakistan, and India, as well as the (nominally peaceful) uranium enrichment program pursued by Iran, have focused international concern on the potential for nuclear proliferation associated with nuclear power. In addition, old concerns regarding the management of nuclear spent fuel and other wastes remain, at best, only partially addressed. One means of addressing proliferation concerns, reducing environmental and safety risks of nuclear power, and possibly of reducing the costs of nuclear energy to the countries of the region, is regional cooperation on nuclear fuel activities. A number of proposals for regional cooperation on safety, enrichment, spent-fuel and waste management, and other issues have been offered over the years, some from within the region, and some from outside the region. The net impact, however, of regional nuclear cooperation on the energy security—expressed broadly to include supply security, economic impacts, environmental security, and security related to social and military risks—requires a more detailed look at how cooperation on nuclear power might be organized and operated. In the East Asia Science and Security (EASS) Project, Nautilus Institute and its collaborating teams in nine countries of the region have been working together to define several different scenarios for nuclear fuel cycle cooperation in East Asia, and to evaluate those scenarios under different sets of assumptions regarding the development of nuclear power in the region. This Draft Report to the MacArthur Foundation provides a discussion of the background of the project, as well as results of the EASS analyses undertaken to date. In the coming years, we expect to further elaborate and refine these analyses, and also to broaden our review of the impacts of nuclear power in East Asia to look at the interactions between climate change issues and nuclear power. Given the constraints on nuclear fuel activities in East Asian countries that are (or could potentially be) major users of nuclear power, regional fuel cycle activities have been attractive to policymakers. Domestic and international political constraints on construction and operation of enrichment and reprocessing facilities, and, especially, domestic constraints on the siting and operation of spent fuel management facilities, have spurred international discussions on nuclear collaborations. Over the last two decades, a number of regional nuclear fuel cycle proposals have been discussed, including the Global Nuclear Energy Partnership (GNEP) proposed by the ii Nautilus Institute United States during the George W. Bush administration (and recently discontinued by the Obama administration), but also including less ambitious proposals for shared enrichment and/or spent fuel management and/or nuclear safety and fuel management safeguards. Specific proposals have included “ASIATOM”, an “Asian Nuclear Safety Centre”, and an “East Asian Collaboration for Intermediate Storage”, among others. These and other options are summarized briefly in Chapter 4 of this Report. The goals of the EASS activities described in this Report are as follows: • Develop, in consultation with national expert teams, a set of detailed, internally-consistent nuclear energy/nuclear fuel-cycle paths for each of the countries of East Asia that have (or may have within the next few decades) nuclear power plants (Japan, the Republic of Korea, the DPRK, the Far Eastern region of Russia, China, Taiwan, Vietnam, Indonesia, and Australia). • Develop regional nuclear energy/fuel-cycle paths/scenarios that explore advanced technical and organizational concepts of improved regional spent fuel security based on regional cooperation. These scenarios include the evaluation of various schemes to produce enriched uranium within the region on a “non-proliferation preferential” basis, and spent fuel management/reprocessing options for regional cooperation in East Asia within “reference” and “maximum” nuclear power capacity development paths. Paths development includes elaboration of alternative maximum nuclear energy paths reflecting regional cooperation to address nuclear fuel-cycle policy imperatives. Paths variants include different nuclear materials recycling regimes. • Evaluate the generation of different types of nuclear wastes, and the national and regional costs for waste management, through the application of tools and information produced during the EASS project and by other researchers in the field The EASS project builds on the extensive quantitative, qualitative research and analysis undertaken under Nautilus’ Asian Energy Security (AES) project (and its predecessor efforts such as the East Asia Energy Futures project) to investigate alternative future nuclear power and fuel-cycle development paths, and to develop realistic policy options for developing implementable projects to reduce the proliferation potential of nuclear power systems in the region (and, by extension, globally). Analytically, the overall approach taken in the study to date has been to estimate future electricity demand by country, then use EASS energy paths (“BAU”, “Minimum Nuclear” and “Maximum Nuclear”) to develop different requirements for/implied SF production from nuclear energy use by country. In parallel, we have developed several different initial “generic scenarios” of regional enrichment/spent-fuel management, and are using them to examine the cost, technical/physical outputs, and other energy security (see text box below) implications of those scenarios. This Interim Report focuses on early results of the EASS project’s analysis of four cooperation “scenarios” for nuclear fuel enrichment and for spent fuel management. The scenarios, and some (but hardly all) of the key policy issues they suggest, are as follows: 1. “National Enrichment, National Reprocessing”: In this scenario the major current nuclear energy users in East Asia (Japan, China, and the ROK), and perhaps others as well, each pursue their own enrichment and reprocessing programs. Disposal of high-level nuclear wastes from reprocessing would be up to each individual country, with attendant political and iii Nautilus Institute social issues in each nation. Security would be up to the individual country, and as a result, transparency in the actions of each country is not a given. 2. “Regional Center(s)”: This scenario features the use of one or more regional centers for enrichment and reprocessing/waste management, drawn upon and shared by all of the nuclear energy users of the region. We avoid identifying particular country hosts for the facilities, but China and Russia are obvious candidates. 3. “Fuel Stockpile/Market Reprocessing”: Here, the countries of the region purchase natural and enriched uranium internationally, but cooperate to create a fuel stockpile that the nations of the region can draw upon under specified market conditions. Reprocessing services are purchased from international sources, such as France’s AREVA or from Russia, while some spent fuel continues to be stored in nations where nuclear generation is used. 4. “Market Enrichment/Dry Cask Storage”: In this, likely the cheapest of the four scenarios for participants, countries in the region (with the possible exception of China) would continue to purchase enrichment services from international suppliers such as URENCO in Europe, the USEC in North America, and Russia. All spent fuel, after cooling in ponds at reactor sites, would be put into dry cask storage either at reactor sites or at intermediate storage facilities. Below we present
Load more

Recommended publications
  • Dollars for Death Say No to Uranium Mining & Nuclear Power
    Dollars for Death Say No to Uranium Mining & Nuclear Power Jim Green & Others 2 Dollars for Death Contents Preface by Jim Green............................................................................3 Uranium Mining ...................................................................................5 Uranium Mining in Australia by Friends of the Earth, Australia..........................5 In Situ Leach Uranium Mining Far From ‘Benign’ by Gavin Mudd.....................8 How Low Can Australia’s Uranium Export Policy Go? by Jim Green................10 Uranium & Nuclear Weapons Proliferation by Jim Falk & Bill Williams..........13 Nuclear Power ...................................................................................16 Ten Reasons to Say ‘No’ to Nuclear Power in Australia by Friends of the Earth, Australia...................................................................16 How to Make Nuclear Power Safe in Seven Easy Steps! by Friends of the Earth, Australia...................................................................18 Japan: One Year After Fukushima, People Speak Out by Daniel P. Aldrich......20 Nuclear Power & Water Scarcity by Sue Wareham & Jim Green........................23 James Lovelock & the Big Bang by Jim Green......................................................25 Nuclear Waste ....................................................................................28 Nuclear Power: Watt a Waste .............................................................................28 Nuclear Racism .................................................................................31
    [Show full text]
  • Australia, Uranium and Nuclear Power
    International Journal of Environmental Studies, Vol. 63, No. 6, December 2006, 845–857 Australia, uranium and nuclear power JIM FALK*, JIM GREEN AND GAVIN MUDD University of Melbourne, Australia TaylorGENV_A_204617.sgm and Francis Ltd (Received 3 October 2006) 10.1080/00207230601047131International0020-7233Original2006Taylor636000000Professorjfalk@unimelb.edu.au & Article FrancisJimFalk (print)/1029-0400 Journal of Environmental (online) Studies The nuclear debate in Australia is shaped by the nation’s substantial base of energy resources, includ- ing its large reserves of uranium and recent rises in the market price of uranium. But the debate also echoes Australia’s past in the development of programs for nuclear weapons. The proposals include uranium enrichment, the storage of nuclear waste in Australia, and the introduction of nuclear reac- tors. A national inquiry has been instituted by the government. These developments, stemming from a range of factors, have revived the opposition to uranium mining and nuclear power which has for two decades held a dominant role in Australian politics. The issue of what should be Australia’s energy path in a time of climate change is beginning to be examined. The importance of the decisions, whether to be a player in the nuclear club with its attendant multiple hazards, or to play a quite differ- ent leadership role in the development and adoption of sustainable energy strategies and technologies, cannot be exaggerated. Keywords: Renewable Energy; Australia; Nuclear Introduction Australia once more is becoming embroiled in a debate about its energy future, and in partic- ular, how and to what extent it should engage with the nuclear fuel cycle.
    [Show full text]
  • Averting a Nonproliferation Disaster
    Decision Time on the Indian Nuclear Deal: Help Avert a Nonproliferation Disaster August 15, 2008 Federal Minister Frank-Walter Steinmeier Federal Foreign Office Auswartiges Amt 11013 Berlin Germany Dear Minister Dr. Frank-Walter Steinmeier: Your government and other members of the Nuclear Suppliers Group (NSG) are being asked to consider the Bush administration’s proposal to exempt India from longstanding NSG guidelines that require comprehensive IAEA safeguards as a condition of supply. As many of us wrote in a January 2008 letter (“Fix the Proposal for Nuclear Cooperation with India” http://legacy.armscontrol.org/pressroom/2008/NSGappeal.asp, India's commitments under the current terms of the proposed arrangement do not justify making far-reaching exceptions to international nonproliferation rules and norms. Contrary to the claims of its advocates, the deal fails to bring India further into conformity with the nonproliferation behavior expected of the member states of the nuclear Non-Proliferation Treaty (NPT). Unlike 178 other countries, India has not signed the Comprehensive Test Ban Treaty (CTBT). It continues to produce fissile material and expand its nuclear arsenal. As one of only three states never to have signed the NPT, it has not made a legally-binding commitment to achieve nuclear disarmament, and it refuses to allow comprehensive, full-scope International Atomic Energy Agency (IAEA) safeguards. Yet the arrangement would give India rights and privileges of civil nuclear trade that have been reserved only for members in good standing under the NPT. It creates a dangerous distinction between "good" proliferators and "bad" proliferators and sends out misleading signals to the international community with regard to NPT norms.
    [Show full text]
  • The Australian Nuclear Disarmament Movement LH Proceedings
    Jonathan Strauss, “The Australian Nuclear Disarmament Movement in the 1980s”, Proceedings of the 14th Biennial Labour History Conference, eds, Phillip Deery and Julie Kimber (Melbourne: Australian Society for the Study of Labour History, 2015), 39-50. ISBN: 978-0-9803883-3-6. The Australian Nuclear Disarmament Movement in the 1980s Jonathan Strauss* In the 1980s, a large, diverse and vibrant nuclear disarmament movement arose in Australia. This paper uses findings from archival research and interviews conducted by the author over several years to show that strategy in the movement was contended and the movement’s debates and internal development had a substantial impact on its rise and decline. The views of movement activists about how to campaign for its demands, such as an end to uranium mining and, especially, for the closure of nuclear war-fighting bases in the country, differed greatly. The appearance of the Nuclear Disarmament Party highlighted divergent views that had arisen in the movement about how to relate to the Australian Labor Party. A potential for alternative political and social leadership underlay the insurgent movement’s arguments. For the last four or so decades, the numbers of people that social movements in Australia have been able to mobilise in protest actions has tended to grow, although the movements have become less sustained and have not provided the same context for political radicalisation. In anti- war campaigns, this can be found in the journey from the Vietnam Moratoriums to the February 2003 marches against the second Gulf War. In between, in the 1980s, the Australian nuclear disarmament movement has been part of this.
    [Show full text]
  • Uranium Mining and Aboriginal Communities Then and Now Sandrine Tolazzi
    ”Australia’s Decision”: Uranium Mining and Aboriginal Communities Then and Now Sandrine Tolazzi To cite this version: Sandrine Tolazzi. ”Australia’s Decision”: Uranium Mining and Aboriginal Communities Then and Now. Journal of the European Association for Studies of Australia, European Association for Studies of Australia, 2012, 3 (2), pp.2-19. hal-01001891 HAL Id: hal-01001891 https://hal.univ-grenoble-alpes.fr/hal-01001891 Submitted on 5 Jun 2014 HAL is a multi-disciplinary open access L’archive ouverte pluridisciplinaire HAL, est archive for the deposit and dissemination of sci- destinée au dépôt et à la diffusion de documents entific research documents, whether they are pub- scientifiques de niveau recherche, publiés ou non, lished or not. The documents may come from émanant des établissements d’enseignement et de teaching and research institutions in France or recherche français ou étrangers, des laboratoires abroad, or from public or private research centers. publics ou privés. The Journal of the European Association of Studies on Australia, Vol.3. No.2, 2012, ISSN 1988-5946 under the auspices of Coolabah Observatori: Centre d’Estudis Australians, Australian Studies Centre, Universitat de Barcelona “Australia’s Decision”: Uranium Mining and Aboriginal Communities Then and Now Sandrine Tolazzi Copyright © Sandrine Tolazzi 2012. This text may be archived and redistributed both in electronic form and in hard copy, provided that the author and journal are properly cited and no fee is charged. Abstract: Since the 1970s, a progressive acknowledgement of Indigenous peoples’ rights has developed in Australia, focusing on land rights as a key to empowerment. This has come to redefine the uneasy relations between Indigenous communities, governments and energy resource developers, the latter having more often than not encroached on Aboriginal land and ignored Aboriginal concerns for the sake of direct economic rewards.
    [Show full text]
  • The Switkowski Report)
    Analysis of the Draft Report of the Uranium Mining, Processing and Nuclear Energy Review (the Switkowski Report) Prepared by the EnergyScience Coalition www.energyscience.org.au November 24, 2006 Contents: Summary The Switkowski report misses the point (Professor Jim Falk) Economics (Dr. Mark Diesendorf) CO2 emissions (Dr. Mark Diesendorf) Renewable energy (Dr. Mark Diesendorf) Weapons proliferation and uranium safeguards (Professor Richard Broinowski) Uranium enrichment (Professor Jim Falk) A doctor's perspective (Dr. Bill Williams) Uranium Mining (Dr. Gavin Mudd) Radioactive waste (Dr. Jim Green) ***************************************************************************************** SUMMARY The Switkowski report misses the point (Professor Jim Falk) * The narrow terms of reference set by the federal government have restricted the Switkowski panel to a study of nuclear power, not a serious study of energy options for Australia. A body of existing research indicates that the objectives of meeting energy demand and reducing greenhouse emissions can be met with a combination of renewable energy and gas to displace coal, combined with energy efficiency measures, without recourse to nuclear power. Economics (Dr. Mark Diesendorf) * The Switkowski report makes questionable assumptions that are highly favorable to nuclear power. In reality, nuclear power is likely to cost more than double dirty coal power and hence even more than wind power. The report's very low estimates of the costs of nuclear electricity are achieved by means of a magician's trick. * The report cites studies on the external costs of electricity generating technologies. The low environmental and health costs obtained are misleading, because these studies do not include the main hazards of nuclear power - the proliferation of nuclear weapons and terrorism - and most do not treat adequately the hazards of rare but devastating accidents.
    [Show full text]
  • 1990 Lecture
    THE TWENTY -SIXTH JAMES BACKHOUSE LECTURE 1990 QUAKERS IN POLITICS: PRAGMATISM OR PRINCIPLE? Jo Vallentine and Peter D. Jones The James Backhouse Lectures This is one of a series of lectures instituted by Australia Yearly Meeting of the Religious Society of Friends on the occasion of the establishment of that Yearly Meeting in 1964. This lecture was delivered in Sydney on 6 January 1990 during the Yearly Meeting. James Backhouse was an English Friend who visited Australia from 1832 to 1838. He and his companion, George Washington Walker, travelled widely but spent most of their time in Tasmania. It was through their visit that Quaker Meetings were first established in Australia. The two men had access to individual people with authority in the young colonies, and with influence in the British Parliament and social reform movement. In painstaking reports and personal letters to such people, they made practical suggestions and urged legislative action on penal reform, on land rights and the treatment of Aborigines, and on the rum trade. James Backhouse was a botanist and naturalist. He made careful observations and published full accounts of what he saw, in addition to encouraging Friends and following the deep concern for the convicts and the Aborigines that had brought him to Australia. Australian Friends hope that this series of lectures will bring fresh insights into truth, often with reference to the needs and aspirations of Australian Quakerism. Joan Courtney Presiding Clerk Australia Yearly Meeting Copyright 1990 by The Religious Society of Friends (Quakers) in Australia Incorporated ISBN 0 909885 31 1 Produced by Margaret Fell Quaker Booksellers and Publishers Printed on recycled paper by The Queanbeyan Age ABOUT HIE AUTHORS Jo Vallentine, the fourth in a family of five girls, was brought up on a farm not far from Perth, Western Australia.
    [Show full text]
  • 30Years-Book-Foe-Australia 9MB
    Up to a few decades ago, many people in the world took the environment for granted. Forests, rivers, mines, the sea or the atmosphere, seemed to be infinite or at least too big to notice any impact due to human activities. This perception started to change in the second half of the twenty century, forests were despairingly, deserts were increasing, petroleum reserves will meet demand for just a few more decades, water is becoming a scarce commodity in many parts of the world and the climate is changing all over the world. The deterioration of the environment is probably acknowledged by most people in the world and there has been considerable work in trying to reduce environmental problems. Massive reforestation programs are in place in many countries, ozone destroying chemicals are being replaced, cleaner productions methods have been implemented in many industries and many countries have environmental education courses in their schools. As important as all these progams might be, they are usually oriented to deal with the environmental damages, that is with the consequence. They are what we might call: impact reduction strategies; but very often they overlook the causes and if we do not deal with the causes, the consequence are always going to be coming. How can we stop climate change or mining pollution impacts, if the world economic system, accepted by all countries in the world, promotes the consumption of oil and minerals, particularly now with all the global agreements in trade and investment? What must be clearly understood is that the deterioration of the environment is the logical consequence of the economic system whose main objective is to generate and increase wealth for those who already have wealth.
    [Show full text]
  • 'Tentative Findings' of SA Nuclear Fuel Cycle Royal Commission
    Summary of 'Tentative Findings' of SA Nuclear Fuel Cycle Royal Commission Summary by Jim Green, national nuclear campaigner, Friends of the Earth The 'Tentative Findings' report is posted at: http://nuclearrc.sa.gov.au/tentative-findings/ The deadline for written submissions responding to the report is March 18 (see the above website for details). The final report will be published in May 2016. What does the report say? In a nutshell, the Royal Commission is negative about almost all of the proposals it is asked to consider – but positive about the proposal to import high-level nuclear waste from nuclear power plants for disposal in South Australia. Uranium mining The report states: "An expansion of uranium mining has the potential to be economically beneficial. However, it is not the most significant opportunity." The report notes there are "significant barriers to the viability of new uranium mine developments in South Australia" including the "current low price of uranium and uncertainty about the timing of any price increases", "the costs of identifying new deposits", etc. The report praises Australia's "active involvement in strengthening the international safeguards system". However, Australia is actively weakening the nuclear safeguards system. The most recent example is the proposal to sell uranium to India – a country which is actively expanding its weapons arsenal and refuses to sign the Comprehensive Test Ban Treaty. That proposal has been endorsed by the federal government despite strong criticisms from a who's who of nuclear arms control diplomats and experts including John Carlson (former long serving Director-General of the Australian Safeguards and Non-Proliferation Office from 1989 to 2010), Ron Walker (former chair of the International Atomic Energy Agency), and Prof Lawrence Scheinman (former assistant director of the U.S.
    [Show full text]
  • Nuclear Power - Wikipedia, the Free Encyclopedia Page 1 of 13
    Nuclear power - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia Page 1 of 13 Nuclear power From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia See also: Nuclear energy and Nuclear binding energy Nuclear power is the use of sustained nuclear fission to generate heat and do useful work. Nuclear Electric Plants, Nuclear Ships and Submarines use controlled nuclear energy to heat water and produce steam, while in space, nuclear energy decays naturally in a radioisotope thermoelectric generator. Scientists are experimenting with fusion energy for future generation, but these experiments do not currently generate useful energy. Nuclear power provides about 6% of the world's energy and 13–14% of the world's electricity,[2] with the U.S., France, and Japan together accounting for about 50% of nuclear generated electricity.[3] Also, more than 150 naval vessels using nuclear propulsion have been built. Some serious nuclear and radiation accidents have occurred. Nuclear power plant accidents include the Chernobyl disaster (1986), Fukushima I nuclear accidents (2011), and the Three Mile Island accident (1979).[4] Nuclear-powered submarine mishaps include the K-19 reactor accident (1961),[5] the K-27 reactor accident (1968),[6] and the K-431 reactor accident (1985).[4] International research is Cattenom Nuclear Power Plant continuing into safety improvements such as passively safe plants,[7] and the possible future use of nuclear fusion. Nuclear power is controversial and there is an ongoing debate about the use of nuclear energy.[8][9][10] Proponents, such as the World Nuclear Association and IAEA, contend that nuclear power is a sustainable energy source that reduces carbon emissions.[11] Opponents, such as Greenpeace International and NIRS, believe that nuclear power poses many threats to people and the environment.
    [Show full text]
  • The Accord and Working-Class Consciousness: the Politics of Workers Under the Hawke and Keating Governments, 1983-1996
    ResearchOnline@JCU This file is part of the following reference: Strauss, Jonathan (2011) The Accord and working-class consciousness: the politics of workers under the Hawke and Keating governments, 1983-1996. PhD thesis, James Cook University. Access to this file is available from: http://eprints.jcu.edu.au/29816/ The author has certified to JCU that they have made a reasonable effort to gain permission and acknowledge the owner of any third party copyright material included in this document. If you believe that this is not the case, please contact [email protected] and quote http://eprints.jcu.edu.au/29816/ The Accord and Working-Class Consciousness The Politics of Workers under the Hawke and Keating Governments, 1983-1996 Thesis submitted by Jonathan STRAUSS BA(Hons) Monash in May 2011 for the degree of Doctor of Philosophy in the School of Arts & Social Sciences James Cook University Acknowledgements My principal supervisor in the School of Arts and Social Sciences at James Cook University, Dr Doug Hunt, has been generous in his understanding of the ambitions for, demanding what intellectual rigour might have been achieved in and guiding the production of this thesis. Dr Jan Wegner, my associate supervisor, has also made herself available to assist whenever needed. The thesis also gained greatly from its earlier supervision by Dr Steve Reglar and Dr Anthony Ashbolt, when I was first enrolled in the Arts Faculty at the University of Wollongong. Important support for the thesis’ research has been provided by librarians, in particular Bronwen Forster and others at JCU in Cairns, and archivists at the Noel Butlin Archives, the University of Melbourne Archives, the Mitchell Library and the Battye Library.
    [Show full text]
  • Griffith Business School Doctor of Philosophy
    Profit and Proliferation: A Study of Australian and Canadian Nuclear Policy Author Moloney, Cathy Anne Published 2014 Thesis Type Thesis (PhD Doctorate) School Griffith Business School DOI https://doi.org/10.25904/1912/2935 Copyright Statement The author owns the copyright in this thesis, unless stated otherwise. Downloaded from http://hdl.handle.net/10072/366235 Griffith Research Online https://research-repository.griffith.edu.au GRIFFITH BUSINESS SCHOOL Submitted in fulfilment of the requirements of the degree of DOCTOR OF PHILOSOPHY By CATHY ANNE MOLONEY October 2013 Profit and Proliferation: A Study of Australian and Canadian Nuclear Policy Cathy Anne Moloney B. International Relations M. International Politics School of Government and International Relations Griffith Business School Griffith University This thesis is submitted in fulfilment of the requirements of the degree of Doctor of Philosophy. October 2013 Abstract This thesis will investigate how Australia and Canada developed the nuclear export and non-proliferation policies, challenging the idea that middle powers behave similarly in the nuclear realm. Australia and Canada are active participants in the nuclear fuel cycle. Whilst there are some exceptions, there is surprisingly little discussion in contemporary literature comparing Australian and Canadian nuclear policy, and the literature in this area fails to focus on their nuclear policies as a whole. Thus far, there have been cursory attempts at analysing and evaluating certain aspects of their policies, but no substantiative examination has covered the broad framework and key drivers that underpin these policies. This thesis seeks to fill a gap in the literature by providing a study of Australian and Canadian nuclear export and non-proliferation policy.
    [Show full text]