Next Article in Journal
Variation of Greenhouse Gases Fluxes and Soil Properties with Addition of Biochar from Farm-Wastes in Volcanic and Non-Volcanic Soils
Previous Article in Journal
Storing E-waste in Green Infrastructure to Reduce Perceived Value Loss through Landfill Siting and Landscaping: A Case Study in Nanjing, China
 
 
Article
Peer-Review Record

Nonproliferation and Security Implications of the Evolving Civil Nuclear Export Market

Sustainability 2019, 11(7), 1830; https://doi.org/10.3390/su11071830
by Viet Phuong Nguyen 1,* and Man-Sung Yim 2
Reviewer 1: Anonymous
Reviewer 2:
Reviewer 3: Anonymous
Sustainability 2019, 11(7), 1830; https://doi.org/10.3390/su11071830
Submission received: 4 March 2019 / Revised: 14 March 2019 / Accepted: 21 March 2019 / Published: 27 March 2019

Round  1

Reviewer 1 Report

My general suggestion is for a minor revision

My (main) Comments for Authors are the following: The manuscript is interesting, although some points need to be addressed before accepting it for publication; among the others:

Pag. 1, line 36: The statement  it may take from five to ten years to construct a new NPP could be questionable because some new plants (e.g. SMR) could be built in a shorter time, while the construction of some FOAK big NPP may take more than ten years; my suggestion is to use an expression like from some years to more than a decade

I'd suggest to add further data/comments on the 3S technical implications, at least at a bibliographical level  (e.g. Contributing to the nuclear 3S's via a methodology aiming at enhancing the synergies between nuclear security and safety - Progress in Nuclear Energy - 2016)

Some further comments in the conclusions section on how to push for a stronger participation of Western Countries/Companies to the future nuclear market would be very useful


Author Response

Nonproliferation and security implications of the evolving civil nuclear export market

 

Responses to comments of Reviewer 1

 

Comment   1

Pag.   1, line 36: The statement it may take from five to ten years to construct a   new NPP could be questionable because some new plants (e.g. SMR) could be   built in a shorter time, while the construction of some FOAK big NPP may take   more than ten years; my suggestion is to use an expression like from some   years to more than a decade.

Response

The   authors fully agree with this important point made by the reviewer. To   clarify the meaning of the sentence (that the long operation time of a NPP   will require great attention at the safety, security, and nonproliferation   aspects of the responsible government for decades), the first sentence of the   second paragraph of Section I is now revised as:

“Although   the construction time of a nuclear power unit can vary from several years to   decades, in general a functional NPP can be operated for decades, thus the   stability and governance capability of the host country throughout such long   lifetime of the plant are crucial to the safety, security, and   nonproliferation of such a complex industrial project.”

Comment   2

I'd   suggest to add further data/comments on the 3S technical implications, at   least at a bibliographical level (e.g. Contributing to the nuclear 3S's via a   methodology aiming at enhancing the synergies between nuclear security and   safety - Progress in Nuclear Energy - 2016)

Response

The authors concur with the   reviewer’s remark. Consequently, the following sentence is added to the last   paragraph of the manuscript: “In addition, these metrics are not sufficient   to address the synergy between nuclear safety, security, and safeguards,   which have played an increasingly important role in the safe and secured   development of nuclear power in any country [54].” With [54] being the   reference the reviewer mentioned. In the follow-up research of this   manuscript, 3S and their synergy will be an important focus for the authors.

Comment   3

Some   further comments in the conclusions section on how to push for a stronger   participation of Western Countries/Companies to the future nuclear market   would be very useful.

Response

The   authors fully agree with this remark made by the reviewer that a push for the   Western companies is needed. For this exact reason, the third paragraph of   the Conclusions section was reserved for policy recommendations for Western   countries and companies on how to maintain their foothold in the development   of nuclear energy worldwide through smaller, niche even, markets like fuel   cycle services and patent and technology monitoring. The authors also   recognize that such policy recommendations require strong support from the   governments, as it is difficult for a company to “do good” without being able   to compete with formidable competitors from Russia or China with strong   backing from their respective governments.

In   addition, to reinforce the conclusion following this advice of the reviewer,   the following path is now added to the path before the second-to-last   paragraph as following:

“Transparency   and openness, such as the public distribution of reports related to IAEA   safeguards funding, are also necessary in order to mobilize third-party   support for such reform of the funding mechanism for the Agency. Besides,   newcomers looking for an acquisition of research reactor require equal   attention to other constructing nuclear power plants, as the financial   demands for safeguarding these two types of facilities are comparable. It is   easier for states to provide legitimate rationales for this type of projects,   which are also less demanding nature in terms of technology and funding,   whereas a small reactor can still be directly used for proliferation purposes,   or indirectly for increasing nuclear latent capabilities through manpower   development. Therefore, the nonproliferation and security of the civil   nuclear market can only be ensured if the export of research reactors,   especially to developing countries with no prior nuclear experiences, is   properly addressed with necessary scrutiny of the implication of such   projects.”


Author Response File: Author Response.docx


Reviewer 2 Report

1) Page 3, Line 101 – it is written “Presented in Figure 1 is ...” - it should be written “In Figure 1 is presented...”


2) Page 5, Line 194 – it is written “(Kimball, 2012).”  - what does it mean? It is not a reference, therefore should be additionally explained.


3) Page 6, Line 230 – sentence “25 potential customers include. ” should be deleted because in the same paragraph are described “25 prospective importers” .


4) Figure 3 – The values presented in the graph should be explained (with a formula or the ranges must be given in the text). As presented, it is unclear which each number presents – for example, political stability of nuclear importers of -0.35 means what? Worse than in the case with no government? Of course not – so, it must be explained.


5) References – in the reference list, each reference which has it should contain doi.


***


The paper is well written, interesting and informative – according to my opinion appropriate for wider scientific community.


Some additional explanations and corrections must be made (listed above) in order to improve paper quality and comprehensibility.


According to my opinion, the biggest problem of this paper is lack of original scientific contribution. It presents an interesting review with the usage of known techniques and principles. Used data are also well known and previously published – in this paper are summarized. In the conclusion are presented guidelines and recommendations for future development of civil nuclear market - which can hardly be considered as an important scientific contribution.


Therefore, according to my listed comments, I will require MINOR REVISION of this paper, but my proposal to the Editor will be to set a classification of this paper not ARTICLE but REVIEW.


I hope the authors can agree with my suggestion.


Author Response

Comment   1

Page   3, Line 101 – it is written “Presented in Figure 1 is ...” - it should be   written “In Figure 1 is presented...”

Response

The   authors agree with the suggestion made by the reviewer, the sentence thus is   further simplified as: “The comparison of estimated HHI in 1995 and 2015 of   the six major sections of the nuclear export market is presented in Figure 1.”

Comment   2

Page   5, Line 194 – it is written “(Kimball, 2012).”  - what does it mean? It is not a reference,   therefore should be additionally explained.

Response

This   is indeed a copy-edit error made by the authors (the manuscript was   originally written with APA style referencing). The aforementioned quote is   now removed from the revised manuscript.

Comment   3

Page   6, Line 230 – sentence “25 potential customers include. ” should be deleted   because in the same paragraph are described “25 prospective importers” .

Response

The   authors fully agree with the finding and suggestion made by the reviewer. “25   prospective importers” is accordingly removed from the revised manuscript.

Comment   4

Figure   3 – The values presented in the graph should be explained (with a formula or   the ranges must be given in the text). As presented, it is unclear which each   number presents – for example, political stability of nuclear importers of   -0.35 means what? Worse than in the case with no government? Of course not –   so, it must be explained.

Response

For   this figure, the authors used the concept of governance effectiveness   previously mentioned in Section II, specifically the paragraph immediately   above Equation (2). Therefore, to clarify the figure 3, the following   sentence is added: “According to the scale of the previously-mentioned   Worldwide Governance Indicators, the value of -2.5 represents the weakest conditions   for each category, the 2.5 the strongest.”

Comment   5

References   – in the reference list, each reference which has it should contain doi.

Response

Following   the reviewer’s request, doi and ISBN-13 are added when available.

Comment   6

According   to my opinion, the biggest problem of this paper is lack of original   scientific contribution. It presents an interesting review with the usage of   known techniques and principles. Used data are also well known and previously   published – in this paper are summarized. In the conclusion are presented   guidelines and recommendations for future development of civil nuclear market   - which can hardly be considered as an important scientific contribution.

 

Therefore,   according to my listed comments, I will require MINOR REVISION of this paper,   but my proposal to the Editor will be to set a classification of this paper   not ARTICLE but REVIEW.

Response

In   the opinion of the authors, this manuscript is among the first papers in   nonproliferation literature addressing the nonproliferation and security   issues of the changing nuclear export market in a systematic and holistic   approach through quantitative analysis of available datasets, and qualitative   assessment of important mechanisms of the nonproliferation regime. In   addition, new and useful policy recommendations were provided by this paper   based on detailed analysis of the nuclear export market. Among these,   recommendations like which sections of the nuclear fuel cycle services market   should be approached by Western suppliers, or how the financial contributions   to the safeguards system of the IAEA need to be reconsidered have never been   proposed by any other paper.

For   the above-explained reasons, the authors believe that this manuscript, once   accepted and published, would serve as a new, and original academic article   for the current literature on nuclear energy research. Nevertheless, the   authors respect the well-explained point of view of the reviewer on such a   policy-oriented manuscript like this one. Therefore, the authors would like   to propose to the reviewer, and the editors to retain the manuscript as an   Article, but would not object if the editors decide to re-categorize it. The   most important point is that the approach in this manuscript can inspire more   studies on the policy aspects of nuclear energy, as well as reach a wider   audience among scientists and policy-makers.


Reviewer 3 Report

The nuclear energy is a 'political' energy as the present review wrote in a paper issued by Academy of Science in Argentina. Therefore the manuscript is of interest and (nuclear) scientists should be invited  to work or to think about the topics of the manuscript.

In relation to the relevance of the manuscript of this particular Journal, any comment/decision from the Chief Editor is welcome/needed.

A few comments the authors might consider are:

1) Distinction between 'nuclear' importers and 'exporters' is interesting, however other possibilities to identify nuclear Countries should be mentioned

2) Potential new-comer Countries that may take the largest benefit from Nuclear Energy (for different  reasons: Japan, China,  Bangladesh  ...) should be distinguishes from  Countries for which  benefits are highly debatable (e.g. those Countries with low population who will not have any possibility to set-up a government infrastructure to control the safety of the nuclear plant).

3) more emphasis to be given to EU Countries where politics and internal political fights plus the tight connection with US were at the basis of decision to phase-out nuclear power (situation in each Country may need further details) .

4) more subsection may be includes to better guide the reader to conclusions

5) Conclusions should be more synthetic (maybe supported by another chapter (e.g. 'Discussion') where a table is added (possible column: Countries, nuclear situation, motivation, notes).

6) in the title the words 'export market' could be substituted by 'technology', making the paper context a bit more general.

7) the role of oil market (fossil fuel: gas & oil) and renewables (mainly solar, wind) could be discussed more deeply.

 

The manuscript is acceptable because of the importance of the topic and (sometimes) the low importance given to this topic by involved scientists

 

Author Response

Comment   1

The   nuclear energy is a 'political' energy as the present review wrote in a paper   issued by Academy of Science in Argentina. Therefore the manuscript is of   interest and (nuclear) scientists should be invited to work or to think about   the topics of the manuscript.

Response

In   submitting this manuscript, the authors do share with the reviewer the same   interest in exploring the political side of nuclear energy.

Comment   2

Distinction   between 'nuclear' importers and 'exporters' is interesting, however other   possibilities to identify nuclear Countries should be mentioned.

Response

The   authors agree with the reviewer’s point on the need to differentiate nuclear   countries. Therefore, at the beginning of section IV, the authors did provide   another categorization of nuclear countries based on their commitment to   nuclear power development. To further clarify this categorization, a new   Table (Table 1) is now added to the manuscript at the beginning of section   IV, presenting the list of nuclear countries based on their commitment to   nuclear power development.

Comment   3

Potential   new-comer Countries that may take the largest benefit from Nuclear Energy   (for different reasons: Japan, China,    Bangladesh  ...) should be   distinguishes from  Countries for   which  benefits are highly debatable   (e.g. those Countries with low population who will not have any possibility   to set-up a government infrastructure to control the safety of the nuclear   plant).

Response

The   authors agree with this point made by the reviewer. For that reason, the   paragraph immediately below the Table 1 is now revised as:

“Further   corroborated by the forecast of the International Energy Agency [35], the   projection made by the World Nuclear Association shows that, despite the loss   of demands from traditional customers, future nuclear demand would be   sustained by the rise of China and other nuclear newcomers. However, in the   short term, the global nuclear industry has to rely on a relatively small   group of customers from Asia like China, India, the Middle East, and Eastern   Europe like Romania, Czech Republic, or Hungary. In some cases (i.e. in ROK   or Russia), the sizeable market for new builds has been dominated by domestic   suppliers and thus become almost impenetrable to international exporters. In   addition, many newcomers had declared their intention to acquire NPP   technology and later cancelled the projects due to political, economic, or   social reasons like Thailand or Vietnam. Therefore, one may argue that to   maintain nonproliferation and security of nuclear power development, the   focal point should be this small group of significant customers so that the   limited resources for nuclear security and safeguards can be maximally   utilized. However, to prepare for a possible nuclear expansion to newcomers,   not only committed users but also significant newcomers should be examined in   term of stability, and governance capability [36].”

As   the reviewer mentioned, the feasibility of nuclear power development in a   country also depends on the specific conditions of that country in terms of   demography, geology, economics, and more. These aspects have been addressed   in IAEA studies on nuclear infrastructure development, or papers like J.   Jewell, Energy Policy 39 (2011), 1041–1055.   Therefore, the authors would like to avoid repeating previous research and   focus instead on lesser-addressed issues like the nonproliferation and   security implications of the introduction of nuclear energy to newcomers,   which are the subject of this manuscript.

Comment   4

More   emphasis to be given to EU Countries where politics and internal political   fights plus the tight connection with US were at the basis of decision to   phase-out nuclear power (situation in each Country may need further details)

Response

By   submitting this manuscript, the authors would like to shed light on the   nonproliferation and security issues in the development of nuclear power in   newcomer countries. Therefore, a detailed discussion on the situation in EU   countries, although very important and meaningful to the literature in   nuclear policy research, is beyond the scope of this manuscript, as the EU countries,   whether they want to phase out nuclear or not, are often very good at   complying with the nuclear nonproliferation and export control regime. Thus,   the authors would like to ask for the reviewer’s understanding in not   corroborating further this important point made by the reviewer.

Comment   5

More   subsection may be includes to better guide the reader to conclusions

Response

This   point is further addressed in the authors’ response to comment 6 below. In   addition, Section IV is now divided into IV.1 Overview, and IV.2 Issues in   order to address the reviewer’s reasonable request.

Comment   6

Conclusions   should be more synthetic (maybe supported by another chapter (e.g.   'Discussion') where a table is added (possible column: Countries, nuclear   situation, motivation, notes).

Response

To   address this point, a new table is added (Table 2) presenting a comparison of   completion percentage of the 1540 Resolution of different countries in 2006   [41] and 2015 (our study) as was reflected through the 1540 Committee   approved matrices [39]. In the authors’ opinion, this Table presents more   clearly and quantitatively an important point made by this manuscript, that   is the lack of good compliance to the nuclear nonproliferation and export   control regime in numerous newcomer countries. These findings also reinforce   the conclusions, as requested by the reviewer.

The   new pressure on the capability of the IAEA to carry out safeguards in order   to maintain the robustness of the nuclear nonproliferation regime is further addressed   in the last paragraph of section IV. A new figure (Figure 4) is also added to   illustrate this point.

Comment   7

In   the title the words 'export market' could be substituted by 'technology',   making the paper context a bit more general.

Response

The   authors agree that this useful suggestion by the reviewer would make the   paper context more general. However, since the authors approached the issue   based on the importer-exporter duality of the market, which has rarely been   addressed by previous studies (that often generalize nuclear power   development without distinguishing the rather different characteristics of   suppliers and recipients). Therefore, the authors would like to retain the   current title of the manuscript and hope that the reviewer would agree with   this decision.

Comment   8

The   role of oil market (fossil fuel: gas & oil) and renewables (mainly solar,   wind) could be discussed more deeply.


The   correlation between low oil price and Russia’s financing capability for   nuclear power projects is now added to the first paragraph of section III.

A   new sentence (“The low oil and gas price, and the availability of cheaper   renewable technologies have also affected the attractiveness of nuclear   energy, especially in newcomer countries.”) is also added to the paragraph   immediately below the Table 1 to address this point made by the reviewer.

Nonetheless,   the authors acknowledge that the oil market and renewables have played a very   important role in the dim future of nuclear energy, and thus they should be   discussed in a more detailed fashion that is beyond the scope of this   manuscript. The authors would like to address them in future manuscripts.


Author Response File: Author Response.docx

Back to TopTop