17 ms·
North Korea Is Starting Up a Nuclear Reactor
- alphabettsy 9y agoIs it me or is the electricity generation bit barely mentioned?
- johnny313 9y agoIt seems like there is some ambiguity around the purpose of the reactor: "It has the potential to make 25 to 30 megawatts of electricity, enough to power a small town. The plant could also potentially produce about 20 kilograms of weapons-grade plutonium each year" A bit further down the article says: "Analysts also found some evidence that could support North Korea’s assertion that the new reactor would be used for power generation. Satellite images appeared to show that power lines and a transmission tower had been erected around the site." Without weapons inspectors, or some other outside group taking a look, there is no way to know for sure.
- eloff 9y agoAs far as I know, a reactor can be used for both purposes at the same time.
- ExcelSaga 9y agoTo be efficient as a power plant a reactor needs to spend most of its time operating. If you want to make nuclear material for bombs with this kind of reactor it will enter a number of startup-shutdown cycles, which would make it inefficient, and would be very noticeable. Of course they recently extended the coolant outflow quite a bit to mask the thermal signature of operation, but it should still be possible to determine a rough operational schedule.
- stordoff 9y ago[1] suggests that it is at least possible to do both simultaneously, and it would be a relatively cheap way to address suspicions to add the power lines even if they aren't being used (would a plutonium-producing reactor also require a connection to the grid?). I agree that without inspection you can't really say how it is being used. [1] https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Plutonium-239 https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Plutonium-239 : "[C]ommercial nuclear power reactor designs [...] could have machinery added that would permit U-238 slugs to be placed near the core and changed frequently, or it could be shut down frequently, so proliferation is a concern".
- trisimix 9y agoHey good for them.
- leggomylibro 9y agoSure, right up until it goes all Fukushima and people only find out because someone in Vladivostock runs a Geiger counter over their tap water.
- some_random 9y agoIf it's for power generation, absolutely. >But the new reactor can also make plutonium and >It has the potential to make 25 to 30 megawatts of electricity, enough to power a small town. The plant could also potentially produce about 20 kilograms of weapons-grade plutonium each year, according to the Institute for Science and International Security I'm not convinced it's for power generation to be honest.
- ttul 9y agoIt’s for making plutonium. A 30MW plant is a TINY source of electricity. You don’t build a 30MW plant for power. If you need that amount of power, you build a tiny hydro dam or gas power plant.
- sgtmas2006 9y agoWhat's the power demand actually like in NK?
- ttul 9y agoLoL probably about 30MW for the whole country.
- Ice_cream_suit 9y agoThere are over 100 nuclear reactors in the USA. A significant number of these ARE used for nuclear warhead production. Different rules for us and for our enemies of the moment.... Geopolitics is so much fun.
- madez 9y agoRest assured that there are others who think that the nuclear weapons of the USA are equally indefensible. We must bannish them globally.
- soperj 9y agoAbsolutely. There's the possibility that other countries could use Nukes on human populations. The USA already has.
- dahdum 9y agoThere is a reasonable school of thought that banning them would increase the amount of warfare in the world, by drastically reducing the risk and scope of retaliation. As it stands, they make the cost of war too high between major powers. Do you believe otherwise? Perhaps that it is worth the cost in lives from smaller wars to prevent mass casualties in nuclear ones?
- mikeash 9y agoWhat’s worse, repeated cycles of conventional conflicts between major powers, or peace between major powers with a ~1% chance per year of total annihilation? (Adjust the percentage as you see fit. I think that’s a reasonable guess but it’s definitely a guess.) I think the second one is clearly worse. The idea that nuclear weapons are good because they’ve resulted in peace only makes sense if you think the chances of a nuclear world war are negligible. I don’t think that’s true but some people seem to.
- madez 9y agoI don't have an opinion on how having nukes saves lives, but in either case I think there is a better solution. An international, democratically legitimized world council that has the competence to bind nations governments and override their decisions. Akin to the EU, but globally. That is an alternative, successful way to keep peace. The security council of the UN is not up to the task because of many obvious shortcomings. But many people still hang on to their nation as if it were a good thing.
- Antifragile1 9y agoDon't these media clowns always point out the fact that picture taken during the night of asia shows North Korea as the darkest country? And now that they want to do something about it, it's a problem too?
- Ice_cream_suit 9y agoCities destroyed by North Korea : 0 Cities destroyed by the US : Hiroshima, Nagasaki... I wonder whose weapons and nuclear reactors we should be worried about.