4 ms·

> An empirical survey of the 674 nuclear power plants that have ever been built showed that private economic motives never played a role. Instead military inter

> An empirical survey of the 674 nuclear power plants that have ever been built showed that private economic motives never played a role. Instead military interests have always been the driving force behind their construction. Even ignoring the expense of dismantling nuclear power plants and the long-term storage of nuclear waste, private economy-only investment in nuclear power plant would result in high losses— an average of five billion euros per nuclear power plant, as one financial simulation revealed. https://www.diw.de/documents/publikationen/73/diw_01.c.670581.de/dwr-19-30-1.pdf https://www.diw.de/documents/publikationen/73/diw_01.c.67058...

LtdJorge 5y ago
What?
belorn 5y ago
How does that explain countries with a lot of nuclear power plants that been operating for several decades, and yet no military application. To take an specific example, the Swedish nuclear weapon program was decommissioned 1968 and official ended 1972. Sweden first commercial operated nuclear plant was built 1972. Sweden has shown no military interests in nuclear weapons for as long the power plants has existed, and nuclear power was built up to 50% of Swedish energy demands by around 1985, and kept nuclear power plants operated since then. 4 nuclear plants, 12 reactors, and 0 bombs, all built between 1972 and 1985.
- Gwypaas 5y ago
  Anchored in the previous weapons program. Sold as the energy source of the future. Which as we know today did not pan out without huge subsidies. It's like renewables from 1990-2010, the difference being they entered escape velocity and now stand on their own legs. The ones still investing all have nuclear military ambitions and want to share the costs and industry with the civilian side.
  - belorn 5y ago
    Anchored in what way? The military did many concepts during the 1960s, like training pinniped to attack military subs. They didn't pan out. The plants that were built, especially those during the 1980, had nothing to do with the failed projects for nuclear weapons 2 decades earlier. > Which as we know today did not pan out without huge subsidies. Feel free to look up Swedish subsidies in the energy sector. Renewables get much more each year, as does fossil fuel. Nuclear power is currently the energy source in Sweden that get taxed highest per watt produced. Considering that those plants been operating for 40-50 years non-stop delivering consistently energy without releasing greenhouse gases, is taxed more than any other energy source, the claim of "huge subsidies" is plainly false in context of Swedish nuclear plants. No nuclear bombs, less subsidies than any other energy source, no greenhouse gases. The military did not help fund the construction for them, nor are they using any aspect of the operation to research or build weapons. Sweden signed the Treaty on the Non-Proliferation of Nuclear Weapons in 1968, 4 years before the first commercial nuclear plant. Sweden has been an active advocate for the Non-Proliferation Treaty for 50 years now. Countries that combine nuclear power and nuclear weapons are those who refuses to sign the treaty, like the US, UK, France, China, Russia, India, Israel, Iran, Pakistan, North Korea. Sweden is not on that list.
erentz 5y ago
Hard to buy that conclusion. 35 countries with existing or under construction nuclear power. But only 9 countries with nuclear weapons, 2 of which do not even have any nuclear power. And when you go through the history countries seeking nuclear weapons don't start by building nuclear power, they tend to go straight to fit for purpose reactors dedicated to producing plutonium (e.g. Dimona or Hanford or the French and English equivalents) or to enrichment plants (e.g. as Pakistan did long before it ever had a civilian power plant).

LtdJorge 5y ago

What?

belorn 5y ago

How does that explain countries with a lot of nuclear power plants that been operating for several decades, and yet no military application. To take an specific example, the Swedish nuclear weapon program was decommissioned 1968 and official ended 1972. Sweden first commercial operated nuclear plant was built 1972. Sweden has shown no military interests in nuclear weapons for as long the power plants has existed, and nuclear power was built up to 50% of Swedish energy demands by around 1985, and kept nuclear power plants operated since then. 4 nuclear plants, 12 reactors, and 0 bombs, all built between 1972 and 1985.

Gwypaas 5y ago
Anchored in the previous weapons program. Sold as the energy source of the future. Which as we know today did not pan out without huge subsidies. It's like renewables from 1990-2010, the difference being they entered escape velocity and now stand on their own legs. The ones still investing all have nuclear military ambitions and want to share the costs and industry with the civilian side.
- belorn 5y ago
  Anchored in what way? The military did many concepts during the 1960s, like training pinniped to attack military subs. They didn't pan out. The plants that were built, especially those during the 1980, had nothing to do with the failed projects for nuclear weapons 2 decades earlier. > Which as we know today did not pan out without huge subsidies. Feel free to look up Swedish subsidies in the energy sector. Renewables get much more each year, as does fossil fuel. Nuclear power is currently the energy source in Sweden that get taxed highest per watt produced. Considering that those plants been operating for 40-50 years non-stop delivering consistently energy without releasing greenhouse gases, is taxed more than any other energy source, the claim of "huge subsidies" is plainly false in context of Swedish nuclear plants. No nuclear bombs, less subsidies than any other energy source, no greenhouse gases. The military did not help fund the construction for them, nor are they using any aspect of the operation to research or build weapons. Sweden signed the Treaty on the Non-Proliferation of Nuclear Weapons in 1968, 4 years before the first commercial nuclear plant. Sweden has been an active advocate for the Non-Proliferation Treaty for 50 years now. Countries that combine nuclear power and nuclear weapons are those who refuses to sign the treaty, like the US, UK, France, China, Russia, India, Israel, Iran, Pakistan, North Korea. Sweden is not on that list.

erentz 5y ago

Hard to buy that conclusion. 35 countries with existing or under construction nuclear power. But only 9 countries with nuclear weapons, 2 of which do not even have any nuclear power. And when you go through the history countries seeking nuclear weapons don't start by building nuclear power, they tend to go straight to fit for purpose reactors dedicated to producing plutonium (e.g. Dimona or Hanford or the French and English equivalents) or to enrichment plants (e.g. as Pakistan did long before it ever had a civilian power plant).