Talk:International Framework for Nuclear Energy Cooperation

Page contents not supported in other languages.
From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

History[edit]

Actually, these have been the principles of the nuclear safeguards arrangements, including the NNPT and the bilateral safeguards treaties that preceded it, since the 1950s or so. Nice to see them getting some press, though. Andrewa 15:14, 18 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Revert of 24 April 2007[edit]

I reverted for several reasons. First, the text was taken directly from the reference that was added, without quotations. Second, the reference is really borderline on being a reputable source. Third, saying that the 1972 West Valley shutdown had anything to do with President Carter's 1977 decision seems like patent nonsense - if it's not, there should be better sources. Fourth, the obvious intent of GNEP is to do the reprocessing overseas - there's never been a ban on that that I'm aware of, only on reprocessing of civilian spent nuclear fuel inside the U.S. There may be valid points here: get a better source to back up the allegations made in this one. Simesa 23:10, 24 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]

I agree with the revert. There was, however, a decision made to not reprocess in the 60s or 70s and I would like to see information about that appear in a number of these articles. I've never heard that it was a ban though, I thought it was just a decision to not actively research it. Right now, the government is directly funding research into reprocessing, and I think it's pretty clear that it wouldn't happen in the near future just by initiative in the industry. But you probably know more about it than I do though so I'll be quiet until I find something useful to add about it. theanphibian 23:18, 24 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]
After India's nuclear test of 1974, using plutonium reprocessed from a civil reactor, the United States rethought its support of reprocessing, both domestically and internationally. Specifically, the Carter Administration decided formally (after the the Ford Administration took initial steps in this direction) not to reprocess civil spent fuel and oppose civil reprocessing worldwide. to go with direct geological disposal. President Reagan revised the policy internationally, deciding not to oppose established civil reprocessing programs in France, Japan and the United Kingdom.
The Global Nuclear Energy Partnership represents a reversal of the policy on civil reprocessing domestically. The focus of the program is to demonstrate new reprocessing methods that do not separate plutonium by itself, but leave it mixed with other materials that make it less attractive for military uses. These would be demonstrated domestically - in the United States - at a commercial scale. See the GNEP Strategic Plan. NPguy 02:51, 7 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Little Interest?[edit]

This article is way out of date. GNEP is an evolving program and this has essentially nothing since the program was introduced. It seems no onehas the time (my problem) or interest to keep it up-to-date. Some of the things that ought to be covered (if someone has time):

  • The GNEP Strategic Plan from January 2007 [1].
  • The U.S.-Russia Civil Nuclear Energy Working Group and Action Plan [2].
  • The U.S.-Japan Nuclear Energy Action Plan [3].
  • The latest on the budget, including the funding level for 2007 ($168M) and requested for 2008 ($405M).
  • The Ministerial meeting and the resulting Joint Statement [4].

There also ought to be some description of the criticisms that have been raised, including from sources like Matthew Bunn, Frank von Hippel and Richard Garwin. NPguy 03:02, 9 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]

And how about the fact that GNEP doesn't exist any more? The GNEP efforts have now been transitioned into a new program called NEAMS. SeanAhern (talk) 20:16, 27 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]

GNEP is not quite dead. The domestic program has reverted to its former name, the Advanced Fuel Cycle Initiative (AFCI (not NEAMS, which was part o GNEP). The international program continues, but is under review. NPguy (talk) 22:13, 27 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]

POV Malarkey[edit]

I deleted the following from the criticism section:

GNEP grew out of a DOE special committee (NERAC) whose singular purpose was to save the Nuclear Industry for Military and National Security reasons. The center piece of GNEP (fuel reprocessing) is based on unproven and fundamentally flawed tecnology. More disturbing, it will make America the dumping ground for most of the world's spent nuclear fuel. Lastly, the primary purpose of GNEP is to justify leaving spent fuel where it sits (at aging American reactors) for periods in excess of 100 years by reclassifying the nuclear waste streams as potential future resources, just as DOE did with Depleted Uranium almost two decades ago.

This is almost entirely wrong. GNEP grew out of the Advanced Fuel Cycle Initiative, stimulated by Congress (then Appropriations Subocmmittee Chair Hobson) and put together by senior Energy Department staffers. Fuel reprocessing is long proven technology, though GNEP proposes to do it in novel and unproven ways. The "dumping ground" criticism has some basis in the proposal to least fuel internationally and take back spent fuel. But the purpose is precisely the opposite of what is stated: not to leave spent fuel at reactors but to move it away from reactors.

But more importantly, this is entirely unsubstantiated and unreferenced. If you want to cite legitimate criticism of GNEP, do a web search on Frank von Hippel, Richard Garwin, or Matthew Bunn and GNEP. Then summarize and reference. NPguy 01:51, 27 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Copyright Violation[edit]

The text below may be the case of copyright violation. Please examine this.

Another criticism is that GNEP embraces dangerous proliferation-prone reprocessing technology for commercial reasons, and to bypass the continued delays with the Yucca Mountain waste repository project, whilst claiming to make the world a safer place.(in "Criticism" section)
The opposition depicts it as a flagrant example of US arrogance, embracing dangerous proliferation-prone technologies whilst claiming to make the world a safer place. (in Evolving international pacts for tomorrow

I think this is not quotation but piracy. --UniontourJP (talk) 14:48, 10 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]

I should stand up here to say that I added this paragraph in this edit, which also converted the article's citations to ref-style. I found this new NEI article while converting other NEI citations and tried para-phrasing (perhaps poorly) something new to the article - giving the source. I'll delete the para from the article while it is debated if copying these words from a sourced article amounts to a copyvio. There is no need to delete the whole article. Rwendland (talk) 02:18, 11 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]
I am a user of Japanese version wikipedia and don't know well about English version rules. If other wikipedians think this action has no probrem, I will not claim full erasion. Thanks. --UniontourJP (talk) 03:39, 11 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]
I have looked back on my additions, and reflecting on it I do agree what I have done is debatable. I took the view this was de-minimus phrases, with the source cited, so OK. I'd be interested in the views of other editors - I'm beginning to think maybe I'm in the gray area. Rwendland (talk) 03:50, 11 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]
To me the issue is not piracy or copyright infringement but plagiarism. Doesn't the "fair use" doctrine allow the use of limited direct quotes from other sources? As long as they are in quotation marks and the source acknowledged, what is the problem? Does Wikipedia have a more restrictive policy? I think the paragraph in question added some value to the article. NPguy (talk) 04:01, 11 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]
I didn't use quotation marks. I was trying to take/convey the idea, but without using enough flair or imagination or effort! I'll do better in future. But my current thinking this was de-minimus copying (short phrases), so not a copyvio, but perhaps to far into the gray area. I've looked at Wikipedia policy, but it not too clear: Wikipedia:Non-free_content#Unacceptable_text says "Excessively long copyrighted excerpts" is unacceptable. Rwendland (talk) 04:19, 11 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]
I simply think that Mr. Rwendland can write more better phrases without such a controversial style. Please re-write it in the future. Thank you. --UniontourJP (talk) 05:50, 11 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Bengelsdorf source and GNEP[edit]

Hi NPguy. It seems you have to register now to access the full Bengelsdorf article (unlike when I first ref'ed it). If you register you see this para:

Notwithstanding the laudatory motivations behind GNEP, there have been some unintended, bad consequences. Specifically, some states have reacted negatively to the idea of dividing the world up between a few fuel-cycle states and a larger number of reactor states; or they have stated that, if there is such an ultimate division between the "haves" and "have-nots," they would wish to join the group of the "haves" or the fuel-cycle states. It would, of course, be ironic if such sentiments became strong enough now to activate any new enrichment or reprocessing, since GNEP has been designed to have the opposite effect.

which is the source for the "unfortunate incentive" sentance, as well second sourcing the previous sentances. I've put the source back in - I've found a PDF version which does not need registration. Hope you think the source is adequete for the sentance. Rwendland (talk) 16:19, 30 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]

This is fine. Hal Bengelsdorf was a wise man, and it doesn't surprise me that he made this observation. However, it is a bit out of date, given the evolution of GNEP from a U.S. proposal to divide the world into fuel cycle "haves" and "have-nots" into an international forum that explicitly respects the rights of all participants. I think I need to update the article. NPguy (talk) 02:13, 31 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Merge section from Nuclear Program of Iran?[edit]

Someone has suggested merging a section of the article Nuclear Program of Iran into this article. That section is on measures to prevent the spread of enrichment and reprocessing technology. While it is related to GNEP, it is not part of GNEP. The merger therefore is inappropriate. I have suggested creating a new article on nuclear fuel cycle policy to cover this and other related issues. NPguy (talk) 20:19, 9 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]

While I don't think this information is completely relevant here, it didn't seem to fit over at Nuclear power in Iran either. Perhaps you or another editor here could start the new article, as that would seem the most logical.--68.251.187.176 (talk) 13:19, 14 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Content from Nuclear Program of Iran[edit]

Restricting enrichment technology[edit]

Over the past few years a number of proposals have been made regarding the establishment of multinational fuel cycle centers.[1] The idea of a multilateral approach to the fuel cycle is not new and goes back as far as 1946.[2]

The Bush Administration non-proliferation initiative[edit]

In February 2004, President Bush proposed several new measures "to combat the proliferation of weapons of mass destruction", including the imposition of new restrictions on the spread of enrichment and reprocessing (ENR) technology to additional countries, on the grounds that such sensitive fuel cycle technology can be used to produce fissile material for nuclear weapons.[3][4] Under President Bush's proposal, nuclear technology suppliers would refuse to provide such technologies to any country that did not already possess full-scale, operating enrichment or reprocessing facilities. He also proposed that suppliers ensure reliable access to nuclear fuel for countries that renounce enrichment or reprocessing, as an incentive for countries not to acquire such technologies.[3][5] The Global Nuclear Energy Partnership has similar aims, to offer reliable nuclear fuel services as a viable alternative to the acquisition of sensitive fuel cycle technologies.[6] Iran has been offered "legally binding nuclear fuel supply guarantees" if it agrees to suspend enrichment related and reprocessing activities until "international confidence in the exclusively peaceful nature of Iran's nuclear programme is restored."[7]

Some argue that President Bush's ENR proposal conflicts with the key bargain of the nuclear Nonproliferation Treaty (NPT) that promised states forswearing nuclear weapons “the fullest possible exchange of equipment, materials and scientific and technological information for the peaceful uses of nuclear energy.”[4] Since then, Bush administration's has modified this proposal in order to accommodate the interests of Canada, which wants to build uranium enrichment plants to export enriched uranium fuel for nuclear-power plants, albeit possibly only under a "black box" arrangement that does not transfer technical knowhow.[8][9]

Iranian reaction[edit]

Iran argues that such restrictions on the acquisition of enrichment technology would constitute a breach of the Non-Proliferation Treaty, the IAEA Statute and the Comprehensive Safeguards Agreement, which require non-discriminatory sharing of nuclear technology.[10][11] Iran's foreign minister has described attempts to stop it from gaining nuclear capabilities as "nuclear apartheid" and "scientific apartheid". In a November 2005 guest column in Le Monde, Manouchehr Mottaki said that the West's demands for Iran to "surrender its inalienable right to fully master nuclear technology" constituted "nuclear apartheid".[12][13] In subsequent statements in February 2006 he insisted that "Iran rejects all forms of scientific and nuclear apartheid by any world power", and asserted that such "scientific and nuclear apartheid" amounted to "an immoral and discriminatory treatment of signatories to the Non-Proliferation Treaty",[14] and that Iran has "the right to a peaceful use of nuclear energy and we cannot accept nuclear apartheid".[15] His words were later echoed in a June 2006 speech by Iran's deputy chief nuclear negotiator Javad Vaeedi, in which he claimed that "developing countries are moving towards destroying technological apartheid".[16]

Iran has offered to accept international participation in its nuclear program, and to operate its enrichment facilities as a consortium with foreign governments, as long as the program is conducted on Iranian soil. This idea has been endorsed by Western and American experts.[17] This proposal was rejected by the Western countries.[18]

International reactions[edit]

It has been suggested that the U.S. proposal has led some countries to develop enrichment capabilities, in part based on the perception that all countries will soon be divided into uranium enrichment "haves" (suppliers) and "have-nots" (customers) under various proposals to establish multinational nuclear fuel centers and fuel-supply arrangements.[19] Some have suggested that fears that such proposals are "thinly veiled attempts to revoke their 'inalienable right' to peaceful nuclear technology . . . may even be spurring more countries to pursue nuclear enrichment technology, in hopes that they can achieve significant capability before any new international agreement solidifies and locks them out of the club."[20] Others argue that "proposals to create national or international monopolies on the nuclear fuel cycle are very unlikely to be acceptable," especially if punitive sanctions or the threat of military intervention are used to enforce restrictions on access to fuel cycle technologies.[21] According to one report, "Developing nations say they don’t want to give up their rights to uranium enrichment and don’t trust the United States or other nuclear countries to be consistent suppliers of the nuclear material they would need to run their power plants."[22]

According to a 2004 analysis by the Center for Nonproliferation Studies,

"Many NPT state parties, particularly those from the Non-Aligned Movement (NAM), have already stated their opposition to President Bush’s proposals to restrict enrichment. In their view, precluding states from developing enrichment and reprocessing capabilities contradicts an important tenet of the NPT-that is, the deal made by the nuclear weapon states (NWS) to the non-nuclear weapon states (NNWS). Article IV of the NPT states that NNWS have the inalienable right to develop research, production, and use of nuclear energy for peaceful purposes, a right intended to provide an incentive for NNWS to give up the pursuit of nuclear weapons. The Bush proposals, however, introduce another element into the nonproliferation regime by segmenting countries into those that can engage in enrichment and reprocessing and those that cannot. Since most states with fuel cycle capabilities are from the developed world, it is clear that the target group of the proposal is the developing world."[23]

Similar past proposals to restrict enrichment have caused deep divisions between NPT signatory states, as developing countries have consistently rejected efforts to place additional limits on the fuel cycle. The Final Document of the United Nations General Assembly resolution S-10/2 which was adopted at the 27th plenary meeting of the tenth special session on June 30, 1978 stated in paragraph 69: "Each country's choices and decisions in the field of peaceful uses of nuclear energy should be respected without jeopardizing its policies or international cooperation agreements and arrangements for peaceful uses of nuclear energy and its fuel-cycle policies".[24]

This position was reiterated in the 1980 NPT Review and Extension Conference [25] and has been consistently reiterated in every Review Conference since then, including the 1995 Review Conference[26] and in the Final Document of the 2000 NPT Review Conference.[27] The Final Document of the 10th Special Session of the United Nations General Assembly in 2002 also reiterated that non-proliferation measures should not be used to jeopardize the inalienable rights of all States to have access to and be free to acquire technology, equipment and materials for peaceful uses of nuclear energy, and that each country's choices regarding nuclear fuel cycle policies should be respected.[28]

References

  1. ^ IAEA: 12 Proposals On The Table
  2. ^ "The Nuclear Fuel Cycle: Is It Time for a Multilateral Approach? | Arms Control Association". Armscontrol.org. Retrieved 2008-10-26.
  3. ^ a b President Announces New Measures to Counter the Threat of WMD
  4. ^ a b Bush Outlines Proposals to Stem Proliferation, Arms Control Association, March 2004
  5. ^ http://www.iaea.org/NewsCenter/Focus/FuelCycle/neff.pdf
  6. ^ Global Nuclear Energy Partnership
  7. ^ INFCIRC/730
  8. ^ Canada Eyes the Enrichment Club, Wall Street Journal Environmental Capital Blog March 7, 2008
  9. ^ U.S. Joins Others Seeking Nuclear Export Criteria
  10. ^ "Microsoft Word - 0535068e.doc" (PDF). Retrieved 2008-10-26.
  11. ^ "Preparatory Committee for the 2000 Review" (PDF). Retrieved 2008-10-26.
  12. ^ Cite error: The named reference autogenerated6 was invoked but never defined (see the help page).
  13. ^ Cite error: The named reference autogenerated4 was invoked but never defined (see the help page).
  14. ^ Cite error: The named reference autogenerated3 was invoked but never defined (see the help page).
  15. ^ Cite error: The named reference autogenerated2 was invoked but never defined (see the help page).
  16. ^ Cite error: The named reference autogenerated5 was invoked but never defined (see the help page).
  17. ^ http://www.nybooks.com/articles/21112
  18. ^ Iran’s Proposal to End Nuclear Standoff Is Rejected by the West, New York Times October 4, 2006
  19. ^ "Lining up to enrich uranium - International Herald Tribune". 2008. Retrieved 2008-02-24.
  20. ^ Nuclear Fuel Supply Proposals Aimed at Weakness in Nonproliferation Regime, World Politics Watch on December 21, 2006.
  21. ^ Monopolizing the Nuclear Fuel Supply, Laka Foundation March 2007
  22. ^ "A New Global Nuclear Order". 2008. Retrieved 2008-02-24.
  23. ^ The Bush Proposals: A Global Strategy for Combating the Spread of Nuclear Weapons Technology or a Sanctioned Nuclear Cartel? Center for Nonproliferation Studies, November 2004
  24. ^ Resolutions and Decisions Adopted by the General Assembly during its Tenth Special Session, May 23 – June 30, 1978, General Assembly Official Records, Supplement No. 4 (A/S-10/4) New York, 1978
  25. ^ The Evolution of NPT Review Conference Final Documents, 1975–2000, Carlton Stoiber, The Nonproliferation Review, Fall-Winter 2003 p. 126–166
  26. ^ [http://www.iaea.org/Publications/Magazines/Bulletin/Bull373/priest.html Measure for measure: The NPT and the road ahead - IAEA Bulletin, Volume 37, No. 3]
  27. ^ NPT/CONF.2000/28: Final Document of the 2000 Review Conference of the Parties to the Treaty of the Non-Proliferation of Nuclear Weapons April 24 – May 19, 2000, New York
  28. ^ Resolution adopted on the Report of the Ad Hoc Committee of the Tenth Special Session Of The United Nationsl General Assembly, S-10/2

IFNEC is not GNEP[edit]

The move from GNEP to IFNEC is not correct. GNEP was an initiative of the Bush Administration. It included both domestic and international programs. IFNEC is not a name change for GNEP, but a successor a successor to the international components.

There should be articles for both GNEP (a historical program) and IFNEC (a current one). NPguy (talk) 17:12, 11 June 2011 (UTC)[reply]

There was a domestic component, but it was always presented as part of a global effort. The G in GNEP is for "global" after all. Unless the article gets unmanageably large, I think it's better to stick with just one, and use the current name, with a redirect.JQ (talk) 20:44, 11 June 2011 (UTC)[reply]
There are several problems with this view. First, in programmatic terms GNEP was almost entirely a domestic program, with a tiny international component that was not tightly linked to the domestic program. Second, IFNEC is a quite different effort, which has essentially abandoned the grandiose visions of GNEP. GNEP is associated with the Bush Administration's push to close the fuel cycle using fast reactors. IFNEC has nothing to do with this.
A third problem is that this article is all about GNEP, not IFNEC. It would need to be completely rewritten to really be about IFNEC.
So I repeat my strong view that this article has been misnamed and the move should be reverted. If you would like an article on IFNEC, I suggest you write one. NPguy (talk) 01:58, 14 June 2011 (UTC)[reply]
The view that GNEP was almost entirely domestic isn't consistent with the article or with the sources. You'd need to find a WP:RS asserting something to the effect that the Global part was just a cover for a primarily domestic program. There's a further practical problem, namely that the official links for GNEP no longer work, having been replaced by IFNEC. It seems to me that what is really needed is an article on the nuclear component of the Advanced Energy Initiative (this currently redirects to an article about fuel economy). JQ (talk) 08:34, 14 June 2011 (UTC)[reply]
It would take some time to dig up references to demonstrate that recent edits are wrongheaded. I'll make two points. First, the best way to understand government priorities is to follow the money. GNEP spent tens of millions of dollars (and sought hundreds of millions) on demonstration facilities in the United States, and only a few million to support GNEP international activities. Second, the GNEP Statement of Principles (which talked about developing advanced fuel cycle technologies) has been replaced by a much briefer IFNEC Statement of Mission.

External links modified[edit]

Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just modified one external link on International Framework for Nuclear Energy Cooperation. Please take a moment to review my edit. If you have any questions, or need the bot to ignore the links, or the page altogether, please visit this simple FaQ for additional information. I made the following changes:

When you have finished reviewing my changes, you may follow the instructions on the template below to fix any issues with the URLs.

This message was posted before February 2018. After February 2018, "External links modified" talk page sections are no longer generated or monitored by InternetArchiveBot. No special action is required regarding these talk page notices, other than regular verification using the archive tool instructions below. Editors have permission to delete these "External links modified" talk page sections if they want to de-clutter talk pages, but see the RfC before doing mass systematic removals. This message is updated dynamically through the template {{source check}} (last update: 18 January 2022).

  • If you have discovered URLs which were erroneously considered dead by the bot, you can report them with this tool.
  • If you found an error with any archives or the URLs themselves, you can fix them with this tool.

Cheers.—InternetArchiveBot (Report bug) 20:19, 11 April 2017 (UTC)[reply]

External links modified[edit]

Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just modified 7 external links on International Framework for Nuclear Energy Cooperation. Please take a moment to review my edit. If you have any questions, or need the bot to ignore the links, or the page altogether, please visit this simple FaQ for additional information. I made the following changes:

When you have finished reviewing my changes, you may follow the instructions on the template below to fix any issues with the URLs.

This message was posted before February 2018. After February 2018, "External links modified" talk page sections are no longer generated or monitored by InternetArchiveBot. No special action is required regarding these talk page notices, other than regular verification using the archive tool instructions below. Editors have permission to delete these "External links modified" talk page sections if they want to de-clutter talk pages, but see the RfC before doing mass systematic removals. This message is updated dynamically through the template {{source check}} (last update: 18 January 2022).

  • If you have discovered URLs which were erroneously considered dead by the bot, you can report them with this tool.
  • If you found an error with any archives or the URLs themselves, you can fix them with this tool.

Cheers.—InternetArchiveBot (Report bug) 02:12, 15 November 2017 (UTC)[reply]

External links modified (January 2018)[edit]

Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just modified 7 external links on International Framework for Nuclear Energy Cooperation. Please take a moment to review my edit. If you have any questions, or need the bot to ignore the links, or the page altogether, please visit this simple FaQ for additional information. I made the following changes:

When you have finished reviewing my changes, you may follow the instructions on the template below to fix any issues with the URLs.

This message was posted before February 2018. After February 2018, "External links modified" talk page sections are no longer generated or monitored by InternetArchiveBot. No special action is required regarding these talk page notices, other than regular verification using the archive tool instructions below. Editors have permission to delete these "External links modified" talk page sections if they want to de-clutter talk pages, but see the RfC before doing mass systematic removals. This message is updated dynamically through the template {{source check}} (last update: 18 January 2022).

  • If you have discovered URLs which were erroneously considered dead by the bot, you can report them with this tool.
  • If you found an error with any archives or the URLs themselves, you can fix them with this tool.

Cheers.—InternetArchiveBot (Report bug) 05:15, 25 January 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Retrieved from "https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Talk:International_Framework_for_Nuclear_Energy_Cooperation&oldid=1207726037"