5 ms·

One generally underappreciated aspect to nuclear energy opposition is the intrinsic link to nuclear weapons. Some of it is scientifically illiterate nonsense (

by retrac 5y ago

One generally underappreciated aspect to nuclear energy opposition is the intrinsic link to nuclear weapons. Some of it is scientifically illiterate nonsense (a lot of people seem to think power reactors can have a nuclear explosion). And some of it is just historical association. But some of it is a lot harder to dismiss. A world without nuclear reactors or enrichment facilities is a world without nuclear weapons. Any medium or large industrialized country with power reactors could build nukes very quickly. It's bad enough half a dozen already have. This notion keeps some people up at night, I think. If you consider nuclear weapons to be an existential threat to the species -- perhaps worse than climate change -- then building infrastructure that would allow their more easy construction might seem like madness.

Slade1 5y ago
Would a world where we took initiative to reduce civilian air travel in preference of trains and boats also lead to the military no longer producing fighter jets?
- burnished 5y ago
  It would do a lot, yeah. Boeing services military and commercial contracts. If instead of commercial airlines taking off (lol) they just.. didn't, then even with an interested military you would have fewer engineers, smaller & poorer companies, just generally less advancement and less production. Your question is good but it doesn't have the answer you seem to think it does! These things feed into each other, so while it might be unreasonable to say "no commercial airlines means no military air vehicles" (I hesitate to say fighter jet because I do think that would be a casualty), it would also be unreasonable to say that "no commercial airlines means no impact on military air technology". You might think, hey, the military has got some strong advancements the rest of us don't even know about, whos to say that wouldn't be the case? Well, the people working on that tech went to college and got educations in a field that had employment opportunities, and likely would not have if those opportunities didn't exist. Just think about all the supporting industries that are very specific. The aluminum alloys, the manufacturing methods for these high tolerance parts, the electrical systems, the fuel systems etc. You just aren't going to get very far without a civilian populace implicitly backing the effort.
Ericson2314 5y ago
Global warming is worse than proliferation --- it is certainly harder to undo.
- Ericson2314 5y ago
  Also, I would expect more positive feelings about existing fission to increase R&D into thorium, fusion, etc., which do not have proliferation concerns.
asdff 5y ago
Then we will continue wringing our hands about the would be nuclear apocalypse while species continue to die, crops fail, seas rise, temperatures warm, and billions of humans starve to death in the mean time. There is justified fear and irrational fear, and this is irrational. It should probably be noted that the firebombing of Tokyo with conventional weapons was more deadly than the nuclear bombing of Nagasaki.
rich_sasha 5y ago
The he cat is out the bag I’m afraid, the only way nuclear weapons disappear is if they become obsolete, like mustard gas. It’s an interesting though actually, that coming up with new, presumably more deadly weapons, can lead to a less horrendous world.
- tim333 5y ago
  The trend has been to more specific weapons that can pick off the bad guys while missing the civilians. Drones and the like. Hopefully not Slaughterbots.
jrsdav 5y ago
I am calling out my ignorance here, but are there not reactor types that don't require enriched uranium? Sodium-cooled, Molten Salt, etc. I'm curious about the current state of reactor technology and if it addresses your concern.
- rich_sasha 5y ago
  They all need some enrichment, but then apparently it’s still very hard to go from a civilian reactor to weapons-grade uranium. Just, I guess, much easier than from a heap of coal. I understand that with adequate supervision from the IEA proliferation is generally a non-issue.
  - fy20 5y ago
    What is considered "adequate supervision" is of course debatable. Lithuania has made many complaints regarding it's safety concerns of the newly opened Belarusian power plant to the relevant international authorities - which have all so far fallen on deaf ears. Lithuania had its own nuclear power plant, which is currently being decommission, so it's not that they are just playing the NIMBY card without knowing what they are talking about. https://www.urm.lt/default/en/news/fundamental-problems-of-the-astravets-nuclear-power-plant-under-construction-in-belarus- https://www.urm.lt/default/en/news/fundamental-problems-of-t...
    - rich_sasha 5y ago
      I totally sympathise. In this case though, this isn’t to do with proliferation, right? But ultimately both are semi-opt-in so I guess your point stands.
jollybean 5y ago
Nuclear Enrichment is kind of hard actually. Nobody's going to get away with it without others knowing. The risk if Nuclear Energy proliferation is the waste being used in a dirty bomb. Nuclear waste spread out in Manhtatten might not kill people, but it could make the city, or parts of it unlivable for a long time. At minimum a big disaster. So in order for the Nuclear future to work, we'd need to set standards that have teeth. The issue is not Canada or Germany, it's Venezuela or Colombia where there is corruption, political instability, lack of oversight, and then a local antagonist can sneak in and grab materials. Cover ups, finger pointing, refusing to allow inspectors in lest they assess the level of corruption, it all falls down while the baddies take their stolen gear to other, more ideological bad actors. There are long term storage issues but I think those can be worked out. Nuclear Energy is basically free Energy to any group of people civil enough to manage it.
- freemint 5y ago
  Can we be civil enough under capitalism? Under the soviet union we couldn't. What does Fukushima tell us about that question?

by retrac 5y ago

Slade1 5y ago

Would a world where we took initiative to reduce civilian air travel in preference of trains and boats also lead to the military no longer producing fighter jets?

burnished 5y ago
It would do a lot, yeah. Boeing services military and commercial contracts. If instead of commercial airlines taking off (lol) they just.. didn't, then even with an interested military you would have fewer engineers, smaller & poorer companies, just generally less advancement and less production. Your question is good but it doesn't have the answer you seem to think it does! These things feed into each other, so while it might be unreasonable to say "no commercial airlines means no military air vehicles" (I hesitate to say fighter jet because I do think that would be a casualty), it would also be unreasonable to say that "no commercial airlines means no impact on military air technology". You might think, hey, the military has got some strong advancements the rest of us don't even know about, whos to say that wouldn't be the case? Well, the people working on that tech went to college and got educations in a field that had employment opportunities, and likely would not have if those opportunities didn't exist. Just think about all the supporting industries that are very specific. The aluminum alloys, the manufacturing methods for these high tolerance parts, the electrical systems, the fuel systems etc. You just aren't going to get very far without a civilian populace implicitly backing the effort.

Ericson2314 5y ago

Global warming is worse than proliferation --- it is certainly harder to undo.

Ericson2314 5y ago
Also, I would expect more positive feelings about existing fission to increase R&D into thorium, fusion, etc., which do not have proliferation concerns.

asdff 5y ago

Then we will continue wringing our hands about the would be nuclear apocalypse while species continue to die, crops fail, seas rise, temperatures warm, and billions of humans starve to death in the mean time. There is justified fear and irrational fear, and this is irrational. It should probably be noted that the firebombing of Tokyo with conventional weapons was more deadly than the nuclear bombing of Nagasaki.

rich_sasha 5y ago

The he cat is out the bag I’m afraid, the only way nuclear weapons disappear is if they become obsolete, like mustard gas. It’s an interesting though actually, that coming up with new, presumably more deadly weapons, can lead to a less horrendous world.

tim333 5y ago
The trend has been to more specific weapons that can pick off the bad guys while missing the civilians. Drones and the like. Hopefully not Slaughterbots.

jrsdav 5y ago

I am calling out my ignorance here, but are there not reactor types that don't require enriched uranium? Sodium-cooled, Molten Salt, etc. I'm curious about the current state of reactor technology and if it addresses your concern.

rich_sasha 5y ago
They all need some enrichment, but then apparently it’s still very hard to go from a civilian reactor to weapons-grade uranium. Just, I guess, much easier than from a heap of coal. I understand that with adequate supervision from the IEA proliferation is generally a non-issue.
- fy20 5y ago
  What is considered "adequate supervision" is of course debatable. Lithuania has made many complaints regarding it's safety concerns of the newly opened Belarusian power plant to the relevant international authorities - which have all so far fallen on deaf ears. Lithuania had its own nuclear power plant, which is currently being decommission, so it's not that they are just playing the NIMBY card without knowing what they are talking about. https://www.urm.lt/default/en/news/fundamental-problems-of-the-astravets-nuclear-power-plant-under-construction-in-belarus- https://www.urm.lt/default/en/news/fundamental-problems-of-t...
  - rich_sasha 5y ago
    I totally sympathise. In this case though, this isn’t to do with proliferation, right? But ultimately both are semi-opt-in so I guess your point stands.

jollybean 5y ago

Nuclear Enrichment is kind of hard actually. Nobody's going to get away with it without others knowing. The risk if Nuclear Energy proliferation is the waste being used in a dirty bomb. Nuclear waste spread out in Manhtatten might not kill people, but it could make the city, or parts of it unlivable for a long time. At minimum a big disaster. So in order for the Nuclear future to work, we'd need to set standards that have teeth. The issue is not Canada or Germany, it's Venezuela or Colombia where there is corruption, political instability, lack of oversight, and then a local antagonist can sneak in and grab materials. Cover ups, finger pointing, refusing to allow inspectors in lest they assess the level of corruption, it all falls down while the baddies take their stolen gear to other, more ideological bad actors. There are long term storage issues but I think those can be worked out. Nuclear Energy is basically free Energy to any group of people civil enough to manage it.

freemint 5y ago
Can we be civil enough under capitalism? Under the soviet union we couldn't. What does Fukushima tell us about that question?