Plutonium Winter 1999 No.24

Winter 1999 No.24 ● Opinion Environmental Measures Go beyond National Interests ● Proposal Framework Convention on Elimination of Nuclear Weapons Ryukichi Imai ● CNFC Report Saudi Arabia's Khafji Oil Field and La Hague Reprocessing Plant in France - Japan's Lifelines ● Nourriture -6 Eating Habits in My New World Yuji Tsushima ● Lecture 10 Watch Them! - You Can See Hands via Satellites Sakata Toshibumi ● Pluto 22 The Buddhabali Shigeru Gotoh ● Views of Nuclear Power Stations Beautiful Mountains - Excellent Water - Fabulous Local Products on the Roads of Wakasa -- And NPSs along the Scenic Shores ● Letter Moscow at the End of 1998 Norihiko Yokoyama ● Info-Clip Major Nuclear Developments in Japan ● Postscript Painting by Van Gogh "The Auvers Church" France, while on one hand carefully retaining its cultural heritage as a part of daily life, at the same time advances the cutting edge of peaceful uses of nuclear energy and other advanced technologies, doing its best to prevent global warming, etc. Plutonium Winter No.24 Council for Nuclear Fuel Cycle Juzen Bldg.,Room 801, 2-9-6, Nagata-cho, Chiyoda-ku, Tokyo 100, Japan TEL : 03-3591-2081 FAX : 03-3591-2088 Publisher Takashi Mukaibo Executive Editor Shigeru Gotoh Editorial Office Council for Nuclear Fuel Cycle Date of Issue: March 8, 1999 Mar. 23, 1999 Copyright (C) 1999 Council for Nuclear Fuel Cycle Opinion Environmental Measures Go beyond National Interests In Germany, the Social Democratic Party (SPD) won in the general election for seats in the Bundestag against the Christian Democratic Union/the Christian Social Union (CDU/CSU) in September 1998, and established a new coalition government with the Green Party. As part of the energy policies stated by this government, the both parties agreed to phase out nuclear power, which currently accounts for about 30% of the electricity generated in Germany. According to the coalition agreement, Germany will place priority on recyclable energy and energy saving as a replacement for nuclear power. The new government will decide on a new energy policy which will include the termination of the use of nuclear power and the generation of nuclear waste within one year based on discussions with electric companies, and through a government initiative introduce a bill in the Bundestag to abolish nuclear power. In Sweden as well as in Germany, elections were held for legislative seats in September. Although the ruling Social Democratic Party (SDP) lost a considerable number of seats, it managed to win enough seats to remain as the top party in the Swedish legislature. This result confirms that the Swedish government's decision to close down nuclear power stations will remain unchanged. These are examples of the politically negative view towards nuclear power within the EU zone. There are 15 member nations in the EU, and their overall goal is to reduce by 8% the amount of greenhouse emission gases by year 2010 using 1990 levels as the baseline. Considering the actual situation in the EU zone, where nuclear power accounts for about 35% of all electricity generation, it seems to be more realistic to expect that it will become far more difficult to attain this goal of reducing greenhouse emission gases when some member countries discontinue their programs of nuclear power. It is easy to imagine the future population explosion in the world, and human beings facing problems that we have never experienced before. Energy consumption and global warming are the two most typically cited issues arising from this population explosion. According to calculations by the Central Research Institute of Electric Power Industry of Japan, CO2 emissions for the various energy sources per 0.001 MWh of electric power in terms of carbon are: coal generates 270g of carbon emissions, oil 200g, natural gas 178g, wave power 25g, solar power 16g, wind power 10g, nuclear power 3 to 6g, and hydro power 5g. It is certain that nuclear power contributes to the reduction of greenhouse emission gases at present. Is it realistically possible to find an alternative energy source that is as realistic and as environment-friendly as nuclear power to take over when they easily close down the nuclear power stations based on the ideological statement that nuclear power is dangerous? This is not a question of making one choice from among nuclear energy, new energy, and energy savings. What is needed is the mobilization of all environment-friendly energy resources, together with greater knowledge and technology. In order for every country to secure stable sources of energy, decisions should be made based on the differing conditions in each nation with respect to economics, technology, and resources; war should not be applied as a means to that end. Each country should look at its own resources and technology, and make the best and most realistic choices. At the same time however, we at the gate of the 21st century must consider the "global benefit" which goes beyond the benefit of any one country or any one race, instead of determining our policies based on the beliefs of any one political party, the emotions of one nation's citizens, or the interests of one single nation, or else the earth's environment will see no improvement. This is especially true of the advanced nations. All religions talk about the importance of loving strangers and neighbors. The human beings, whose population on this planet in the 21st century will be double of that today, is now facing the question of how to help not only the tribe or race to which each belongs, but to also help each other, respecting the cultures and civilizations of other races. We have entered an era where decisions on future energy policies will depend on our views of how to protect the earth as a whole, and how we envision each culture, each civilization, and each society should be, as well as the above-mentioned dimension of people's hearts and minds. This is not a time when people should be guided by how the energy is supplied or whether the economy will develop as it used to. Therefore, in addition to those who are in energy-related businesses, politicians, and the administrators who have heretofore lead the formation of energy policies will find it necessary to obtain cooperation from religious figures, philosophers, social psychologists, historians, folklorists and others. Time will not wait for us if we delay in taking measures due to a lack of consensusns, as was obserbed at COP4. Executive Editor [Back to No.24 Contents] Mar. 23 1999 Copyright (C) 1999 Council for Nuclear Fuel Cycle Proposal Framework Convention on Elimination of Nuclear Weapons Ryukichi Imai Professor, Kyorin University Nuclear Warheads Reduction to Two Thousand Each Much has been said and written about the elimination of nuclear weapons, but there are not many visible signs that the world is rushing in that direction. Rather, there seem to be two opposing positions. Some nations, represented by the United States, support the idea of "the eventual elimination of nuclear weapons (but not in the foreseeable future or within a defined time limit)." Other nations, including notably India, argue for the "immediate elimination of all the nuclear weapons within a given time." The country that conducted nuclear tests in the Pokhran desert in May 1998 and that has taken the position that these tests were necessary to assure national security, and the country that denounced the tests in the name of nuclear nonproliferation, seem to have reversed their positions. Trying to eliminate nuclear weapons is a difficult and complicated matter, and the history of negotiations has been correspondingly difficult and confused. The United States and Russia have reached agreement on two Strategic Arms Reduction Treaties (START I and II) and have agreed to reduce long-range strategic missile warheads to between 3,000 and 3,500 by the end of the year 2007. Assessment of the technology and management issues involved indicates that it would be reasonable for the two countries to negotiate further reductions to 2,000 warheads each by the year 2010. Discussions between the US and Russia on safe and secure methods for reducing 10,000 or more long- range (strategic) and short range (tactical) warheads to the target numbers are continuing, and both nations are cooperating in the practical measures necessary. On the other hand, however, neither seems inclined, at least at the moment, to reduce the number of warheads to less than 2,000. Rather, they seem to be concentrating their efforts on how, in technical and other ways, to maintain the effectiveness and operational readiness of these weapons. Both seem determined to hold on to the rights accorded them under the Nuclear Non-Proliferation Treaty (NPT), while at the same time they denounce the Indian and Pakistani nuclear tests on the basis of that treaty. This is exactly the point India is trying to make. If the United States and Russia would agree to set a time limit for eliminating all their nuclear weapons, India would do likewise. The debate has been going on in many different formats in many different forums ever since 1968 when the NPT was first signed. When the debate is carried on using abstract words and expressions, repeating the same arguments a million times will not produce meaningful results. On the other hand, if we look back at the history of nuclear arms control and disarmament negotiations, and in particular think of the time fifteen years ago when the Russians and the Americans were conducting the three phases talks in Geneva, on strategic, medium range and space nuclear weapons, it would have been unimaginable then that they would be talking in the future about possibly setting limits on warheads at 2,000.

Load more