The Nuclear Non-Proliferation Treaty\u27s Obligation to Transfer Peaceful Nuclear Energy Technology: One Proposal of a Technology

This Essay discusses the technology transfer provisions of the Treaty on the Non-Proliferation of Nuclear Weapons (“NPT”) and describes the Radkowsky Thorium Reactor, which is being developed as a peaceful nuclear energy technology

Microstructure and texture analysis of δ-hydride precipitation in Zircaloy-4 materials by electron microscopy and neutron diffraction

This work presents a detailed microstructure and texture study of various hydrided Zircaloy-4 materials by neutron diffraction and microscopy. The results show that the precipitated δ-ZrH1.66 generally follows the δ (111) //α (0001) and δ[]//α[] orientation relationship with the α-Zr matrix. The δ-hydride displays a weak texture that is determined by the texture of the α-Zr matrix, and this dependence essentially originates from the observed orientation correlation between α-Zr and δ-hydride. Neutron diffraction line profile analysis and high-resolution transmission electron microscopy observations reveal a significant number of dislocations present in the δ-hydride, with an estimated average density one order of magnitude higher than that in the α-Zr matrix, which contributes to the accommodation of the substantial misfit strains associated with hydride precipitation in the α-Zr matrix. The present observations provide an insight into the behaviour of δ-hydride precipitation in zirconium alloys and may help with understanding the induced embrittling effect of hydrides.Fil: Wang, Zhiyang. University of Wollongong; Australia. Australian Nuclear Science and Technology Organisation; AustraliaFil: Garbe, Ulf. Australian Nuclear Science and Technology Organisation; AustraliaFil: Li, Huijun. University of Wollongong; AustraliaFil: Wang, Yanbo. University of Sydney; AustraliaFil: Studer, Andrew J.. Australian Nuclear Science and Technology Organisation; AustraliaFil: Sun, Guangai. Institute of Nuclear Physics and Chemistry, CAEP; ChinaFil: Harrison, Robert P.. Australian Nuclear Science and Technology Organisation, Institute of Materials Engineering; AustraliaFil: Liao, Xiaozhou. University of Sydney; AustraliaFil: Vicente Alvarez, Miguel Angel. Comisión Nacional de Energía Atómica. Gerencia del Área de Energía Nuclear. Instituto Balseiro; Argentina. Consejo Nacional de Investigaciones Científicas y Técnicas; ArgentinaFil: Santisteban, Javier Roberto. Comisión Nacional de Energía Atómica. Gerencia del Área de Energía Nuclear. Instituto Balseiro; Argentina. Consejo Nacional de Investigaciones Científicas y Técnicas; ArgentinaFil: Kong, Charlie. University of New South Wales; Australi

United States Nuclear Export Controls

This article will explore the U.S. nuclear export controls regime. It will initially discuss controls affecting the export of nuclear material, facilities, and specially designed components of nuclear facilities. This section will specifically consider export licensing procedures and requirements, agreements for nuclear cooperation, the specific export criteria for major nuclear cooperation, as well as the necessary policy determination. Then the Article will discuss the procedures and requirements for obtaining a license to export dual-use equipment, the authorization necessary for the export of nuclear technology and the subsequent arrangement process, which further aids in the implementation of U.S. non-proliferation policies

Don’t Give up on Nuclear Energy

The nuclear power plant failures at Three Mile Island and Chernobyl in the late 1970s and 1980s split Americans into two passionate camps. For some, nuclear plants posed serious threats to both environmental and national security, and, for others, nuclear energy remained the most viable path to clean, reliable power in the United States. But following the fervent debates of the late 20th century, the national conversation around nuclear power stagnated. A few ardent advocates and opponents notwithstanding, nuclear power left the public eye. Popular energy debates—especially among young people—now center around flashier topics like the Green New Deal, electric vehicles, and Greta Thunberg. In light of the collective avoidance of nuclear power, support in the U.S. recently reached an all-time low—although the slight majority opposition fails to tell the entire story. Rather than carefully researching the pros and cons of new advancements in nuclear power, many Americans maintain decades-old opinions, parrot the viewpoints of media personalities, or avoid thinking about nuclear energy entirely. While brushing a topic as difficult as nuclear power under the rug seems the most convenient option, one problem remains—Americans can’t afford to abandon nuclear power. First, let’s state the obvious: Anthropogenic contributions to climate change pose serious threats to the planet, and carbon dioxide released into the atmosphere plays a sizeable role in humanity’s impact on the environment. Crucially, though, nuclear plants generate vast amounts of power without directly emitting CO2. Furthermore, nuclear energy’s current technological capabilities—unlike other renewable technologies—can provide reliable baseload electricity in nearly every corner of the world. Yet the current state of nuclear power is what causes such angst among nuclear skeptics. Most nuclear plants came online between 1970 and 1990, and the infamous disasters of Three Mile Island, Chernobyl, and Fukushima originated from freak failures in dated technology. Additionally, traditional nuclear plants take billions of dollars and many years to build, all while creating the problem of non-disposable, highly radioactive waste. The perceived health risks of nuclear power, though, falter under further examination. In fact, the use of nuclear power over fossil fuels such as coal or natural gas prevented an estimated 1.8 million net deaths between 1971-2009. As for cost and waste-related worries, traditional nuclear plants do come with high capital costs and create radioactive waste, but the levelized costs of nuclear energy—the minimum price of electricity for the project to break even—tell a different story. In 2020, the levelized cost of nuclear plants coming online was $95.2/MWh, comparable to conventional coal ($95.1/MWh) and below conventional combustion turbine natural gas-fired plants ($141.5/MWh). Additionally, new technologies promise to change the landscape of nuclear power. Companies like NuScale Power, for example, propose a small, modular reactor with a simplified design capable of shipment by truck, rail, or barge and projected to be commercially available by 2025. This modular reactor greatly reduces construction and operating costs, consequently emerging as a viable option for clean, baseload power generation in smaller communities. Another company, TerraPower, has designed a nuclear reactor capable of utilizing fuel made from depleted uranium, the byproduct of traditional nuclear plants. Commercial use of this technology would reduce nuclear proliferation concerns, lower costs, and protect the environment by eliminating existing nuclear waste. Countless additional examples of advanced nuclear technologies exist, and it is in our best interests—environmentally and financially—to give them serious consideration. Even if modern nuclear plants fail to act as a panacea to the world’s energy problems, they may prove beneficial in regions lacking the necessary conditions to survive off solar, hydro, and wind power alone—at least until large scale storage and transportation of renewable energy becomes viable. Simply put, advanced nuclear power’s potential justifies significant investment in further research. Considering the climate-related challenges before us, to outwardly dismiss such an impactful technology would be foolish