Skip to main content

Playing Nuclear Games in Ecuador

ecuador-quito-02 We were happy to hear but also trepidatious about this news:

Russia will help Ecuador develop a nuclear energy program for peaceful purposes, according to a new energy cooperation agreement between the countries, Ecuador’s government said Thursday.

Nuclear, good, but why “peaceful purposes?” We mean, the phrase, not the intention, as we don’t generally consider Ecuador a bad actor on the international stage. Might it be that Russia has gotten a little tarred by its association with Iran?

Well, the Times’ little story doesn’t say. This one does:

Ecuador is building two hydroelectric stations in an attempt to end its dependence on neighbouring Colombia for power.

The two countries broke diplomatic ties in March 2008 after Colombian soldiers raided a leftist Colombian guerrilla jungle camp in Ecuadoran territory.

All right, so Ecuador has a beef with Colombia and wants to divest itself of its electricity dependence on it. Sounds like energy security – not a bad thing.

But then there’s this:

Ecuador's leftist president Rafael Correa, who last year said he intends to strengthen ties with Moscow, is scheduled to travel to Russia in October.

Correa — like his regional ally President Hugo Chavez of Venezuela — is also seeking closer military ties with Russia.

And this:

Russia is pushing to increase ties with leftist Latin American governments in a move that has renewed some Cold War-era tensions with the United States.

Gets better and better, doesn’t it? And it sounds like the anti-American slant taken by some Latin American countries – let’s leave aside discussion of whether such disdain is justified for the moment – has put Russia in the mischievous mode it seems to favor in such situations. We can’t imagine this is going to get anywhere without heavy IAEA participation, but do expect the story to heat up (so to speak) as it penetrates the news cycle and American voices start piping up.

As for us? We’ll wait and see. Nuclear energy si, stalking horse for a new cold war no. We didn’t enjoy the last one very much.

The Presidential palace in Quito, Ecuador.

Comments

crf said…
Just because a country is developing closer ties with Russia does not mean it is increasing its anti-americanism.
SteveK9 said…
We've been in a triumphal, treat Russia like crap mode for years. I perfectly understand why they are disillusioned with us.

I have a feeling Russia is going to show the world how to build nuclear plants that are safe and don't cost an absurd amount of money. I read that India is very satisfied with the work at Kudankulam.
rsynnott said…
Sadly, "for peaceful purposes" is probably a necessary qualifier at this point, even if it doesn't mean much one way or the other. Everyone's so paranoid about this, now.

In practice, it probably IS for peaceful purposes; Ecuador doesn't fit the Iran profile, it's a developing economy and is dependent on electricity import. It makes sense for it to seek other solutions.

On the subject of US-Russia nuclear power relations, the 90s technology transfer of the TOPAZ space reactor (derivatives of which may be used on the moon) is an interesting story. :)
DW said…
The US needs to stay out of the affairs of LA countries. We are SO arrogant about it being out 'back yard' as to have turned every contintental gov't down there against the US except for Peru and Colombia. It's not our back yard, it's there front porch and we should stay away (meaning US transnational corporations).

Good for Ecuador in considering nuclear! If they are smart they will go with Russian nukes as there are far too many strings with US nukes for a country like Ecuador.
Rod Adams said…
When watching Russia develop closer ties with countries in Latin America, it would be good to remember American efforts to develop ties with Georgia, Ukraine, and Kazakhstan.

I think there was an old Michael Jackson song about "The Man in the Mirror. . ." that can be applied to international relationships by substituting the word "man" with the word "country".

Popular posts from this blog

Activists' Claims Distort Facts about Advanced Reactor Design

Below is from our rapid response team . Yesterday, regional anti-nuclear organizations asked federal nuclear energy regulators to launch an investigation into what it claims are “newly identified flaws” in Westinghouse’s advanced reactor design, the AP1000. During a teleconference releasing a report on the subject, participants urged the Nuclear Regulatory Commission to suspend license reviews of proposed AP1000 reactors. In its news release, even the groups making these allegations provide conflicting information on its findings. In one instance, the groups cite “dozens of corrosion holes” at reactor vessels and in another says that eight holes have been documented. In all cases, there is another containment mechanism that would provide a barrier to radiation release. Below, we examine why these claims are unwarranted and why the AP1000 design certification process should continue as designated by the NRC. Myth: In the AP1000 reactor design, the gap between the shield bu...

How many nuclear plants does it take to meet the world's energy needs?

Several weeks ago Joshua Pearce at Clarion University in Pennsylvania released a study titled “ Thermodynamic limitations to nuclear energy deployment as a greenhouse gas mitigation technology .” In the study he stated... nuclear energy production would have to increase by 10.5% per year from 2010 to 2050 to both replace fossil-fuel-energy use and meet the future energy demands. This line, of course, made the headlines and has been picked up by several outlets and blogs . When looking into his calculations for this statement, he made one assumption error that overstated the above sentence by nearly a factor of three. Page 121, Section 4.1 of the study states: Richard Smalley pointed out that in 2004, the global economy consumed the equivalent of 220 million barrels of oil per day, which converted into electricity terms is the equivalent of 14.5 TeraWatts (TW), or 14,500,000 MegaWatts (MW) (2005). … With a nuclear plant having about 1000 MW (1 GW) of capacity, we would need 14,500...

What Happens During a Refueling Outage?

You may have noticed over the past few weeks that a number of nuclear plants are shut down for refueling outages or are resuming operations after just returning from one. This type of routine outage usually occurs in the spring or fall when electricity demand is low so that nuclear reactors can replace about one-third of the spent fuel rods with new fuel and conduct other routine maintenance and repairs at the plant. To get a better sense of how refueling works at a nuclear energy facility, I spoke with Marcus Nichol, NEI’s senior project manager for used fuel storage and transportation, and asked him to explain the basics. Why does a nuclear plant need to replace one-third of its fuel? Nichol: The main purpose of a refueling outage is to replace older fuel that is depleted—meaning it can no longer efficiently produce energy from nuclear fission reactions—with new fuel. This “used fuel” has typically been used in the reactor for four-and-a-half to six years before it is pe...