Nuclear Energy

In this year’s MUN, Syria’s resolution will be to modify the Non Proliferation Treaty to ensure a maximized use of nuclear energy for peaceful purposes. With this resolution, Syria aims to make nuclear energy a useful, alternative source. Nuclear energy also benefits nations as it does to the world in several ways, such as financially, and ecologically. It is also a source of energy for countries that happen to have limited petroleum and oil resources.
Delegates, I’m looking forward to see your opinions and remarks on Syria’s resolution.

How exactly will the delegation of Syria intend to modify and strengthen the NPT?

There is a need in several nations in producing energy in alternative and peaceful ways, as stated our Infrastructure Minister Binyamin Ben Eliezer. It should always be kept as an extra choice, in order to expand the ways in which energy can be produced.

The delegation of Syria plans to adapt and reinforce the NPT with the idea that countries can develop nuclear energy for their own beneficial growth. However, any premeditated and deliberate violation of the policies, which states that no nation should take advantage of the nuclear technology to create weapons, will be severely punished and the nation will have a penalty, as a consequence for their consious infringement.
We should bear in mind, delegates, that countries SHOULD be allowed to create alternative sources of energy if the same does not have the same stability, as more developed countries, to have control over the petroleum market. It has been confirmed that it is not as expensive to generate uranium facilities and power plants, as it is to produce petroleum.
This modificiation in the NPT will favor many undeveloped countries, as well as those who have bigger and expanded power.

France totally supports this proposal to increase the use of nuclear energy. Through this type of energy program, countries are able to help fight global warming (since nuclear energy doesn't emit any greenhouse gases) and amplify their production of electricity. Nuclear energy produces more energy than wind turbines and is better for the environment over burning fossil fuels. As a way to prevent countries from using their nuclear programs for energy, the mandatory use of light water reactors could be implemented. Although light water reactors produce less energy, they assure the energy purpose only. The French Republic congratulates Syria for its initiative to spread nuclear energy to other countries.

Salut

Fellow delegates,

Nuclear energy is a valid and efficient form of energy production, but, as any other system, it has its downfalls. The production of nuclear energy enables it's producer to at any moment create nuclear weapons. Therefore, the delegate of South Africa reaffirms that there has to be strict control of such technology and severe limitations have to be imposed.

Furthermore heavy or light water reactors are not significantly diferent at any way and the choice relies upon various different points including: Firstly, Heavy water reactors do not reacquire enriched uranium and therefore would make the country independent in such manner; secondly, Heavy water reactor produce plutonium in larger amounts making the acquiring of nuclear weapons faster, but light water reactors can also be used for the acquiring of weapons if the country in question decides. There being the type of nuclear reactor does not imply any significant difference but if the country in trial is in any situation suspicious they have to be disallowed for the continuation of their nuclear program.

(Commenting on previous posts) the nuclear energy is an alternate form of energy, yes,especially if the nuclear waste is properly disposed, but for most countries it is more cost-effective to acquire other methods such as wind, geothermal, or even solar. Also improving research upon nuclear fusion may make it possible to use deuterium and tritium to produce nonradioactive nuclear energy which would be the ultimate electricity producing facility.

(Secondly) For most countries the excuse "We are creating nuclear weapons for research" is completely valid, but, Iran has many times in the past proven that it can be an unstable nation and thereby should be directly guided in its pursue for nuclear energy, if permitted.

For this reasons the delegate of South Africa generally agrees with the idea behind this resolution if it is developed in such way to impede any dangerous proliferation.

Pardon me delegate, France may have made a mistake by saying that light water reactors do not produce nuclear weapons. In fact, it's possible, but it would cost much more for the country to do so, than use heavy water reactors.

Quote:
Light-water reactors are designed for commercial use and can run for years at a time on a single batch of fuel. That long burn fills out the plutonium by-product with other isotopes that make it less useful for nuclear weapons.


However, the cost of doing so would be too high for countries to really invest in this alternative of using light water reactors to create nuclear weapons. Therefore, countries prefer to use heavy water reactors for this purpose. Still, with the implementation of strict IAEA inspections and punishment for any misuse of the nuclear program, will encourage countries not to produce weapons.

France believes that countries should invest in nuclear energy for it will improve the population's lives and the environment. Investing in this program now, will prevent from investing in saving the world due to global warming.

The delegation of Iran is in favor on a small chance on the NPT, since we are already in favor of it, and any small change towards making it better and the rights of alternative sources of energy will have Iran support on it according to the changes made on the NPT.

Allah be praised!

Fellow delegates, Germany is in favor of this proposal. The delegation strongly believes that allowing with care is much more safe and effective than prohibiting, since prohibition usually awakens rebel intentions. Nuclear energy safety is an extremely serious task to be accomplished. From the environmental perspective, nuclear power has already proven to be a good choice. Safety however is still a concern. Germany’s nuclear safety is trying to stimulate reaction. Nuclear power plants and its owners are under constant pressure from politicians, regulators and the people themselves. Today, Det Norske Veritas (DNV), has become active at enhancing safety for the nuclear power industry in Germany, with the goal of making safety a priority for all other nations.

Greenpeace has already stated that nuclear energy is the best alternative for the 21st century. In fact, considering the effects of petroleum and other pollutant fuels in the earth's atmosphere, nuclear energy has a clear advantage. Besides that, with 1 ounce of uranium, a country can generate as much energy as with 800 gallons of petroleum or 5 and a half tons of coal. It is not impressive to say, then, that the nuclear facilities Angra I and Angra II, in Rio de Janeiro, if working simultaneously, can supply this populous state with 90% of the energy it needs.

However, do not forget, delegates, that there is also the problem of nuclear waste, which is hard to dispose, as well as the possible risks nuclear power plants impose to the population of a nearby region.

The delegate of Syria is grateful for the support given from the other delegates. The delegate would like to emphasize that nuclear energy is, in fact, the best alternative source for energy, for it helps to control a highly discussed problem, which is threatening and is affecting the entire world; global warming. Delegates, this is only one of the benefits nuclear energy brings with it. Once again, thanks for all the support given towards Syria's resolution.

Salam delegates!
The delegate of Afghanistan also would like to state its most truthful support to Syria’s proposal. Harmoniously, this resolution is in accordance with France, seeking for more safety in addition to Germany and Australia, who are deeply concerned about global warming. Keep in mind delegates, that nuclear energy is one of the most profitable and less pollutant, therefore nations should really invest on it. On the other hand, its security has been debated various times and there is also controversy among the nations who are trust worthy and does who doesn’t seem to be in relation to having an active nuclear program. For these reasons, it is more than important to allow nations develop nuclear power, keeping safety as a priority. إله يبارك أنت

Thanks delegate of Afghanistan! The syrian delegation really appreciates the support given and would like to emphasize the benefits provided by the nuclear energy program, stating that it has, indeed, the power to aid nations ecologically and economically.

Fellow delegate of Syria,
"Advantages of nuclear power generation:
- Nuclear power generation does emit relatively low amounts of carbon dioxide (CO2). The emissions of green house gases and therefore the contribution of nuclear power plants to global warming is therefore relatively little.
- This technology is readily available, it does not have to be developed first. It is possible to generate a high amount of electrical energy in one single plant." (http://timeforchange.org/pros-and-cons-of-nuclear-power-and-sustainability) إله يبارك أنت

Salam again delegate!
I just found another good site about the harmful effects and the environmental problems of burning fossil fuels, such as global warming, acid rain, air pollution, coal mining, oil spills, fuel resources, and more. It may not be necessary anymore for this year’s discussion, but it is important to know. Check this site: http://www.npcil.nic.in/nupower_vol13_4/npaavol4.htm إله يبارك أنت