4 ms·

Nuclear power has a lot of connections to the nuclear arms industry, and as such is highly secretive. Many nuclear reactors were in fact to make bomb fissile ma

Nuclear power has a lot of connections to the nuclear arms industry, and as such is highly secretive. Many nuclear reactors were in fact to make bomb fissile material, with power generation as a side effect. The disposal problem is often covered in a veil of secrecy, eg when it pertains to weapons. This is why debating these issues, which I've looked at my whole life, can be troublesome. We just don't have all the facts! https://cnduk.org/resources/links-nuclear-power-nuclear-weapons/ https://cnduk.org/resources/links-nuclear-power-nuclear-weap...

ch4s3 5y ago
The VAST majority of reactors ever built were not built to generate fissile material for weapons, and the VAST majority of nuclear weapons were built using centrifuge facilities which are cheaper to build and simpler in some respects to operate. Reactors have in fact been used to dispose of material from weapons. Civilian disposal plans in the west are all a matter of public record and there have been reams of paper generated about the topic. Yes, the weapons part is to some extent secretive, but the UNODA oversees disarmament so there is some multinational transparency.
- pydry 5y ago
  Keeping a nuclear industry around is still a good way to keep a lid on nuclear arsenal costs. There are supply chain efficiencies, a pipeline of necessary skills, etc. It's just a ridiculously expensive way to generate green energy. When Iran builds nuclear reactors for "100% peaceful non military purposes" suddenly the western media can see through the ruse and understands all this.
  - ch4s3 5y ago
    > Keeping a nuclear industry around is still a good way to keep a lid on nuclear arsenal costs. No it isn't. We aren't really building new weapons, we're just maintaining the ones we have. There shouldn't be any unique supply chain overlap. There's also transparently budget under DOD in the US for maintaining the nuclear arsenal. The CBO publishes the numbers, $643 billion over the next 10 years [1]. As for the skills, the military just trains people. A large number of civilian operators were trained by the military, not the other way around. Iran is building centrifuges which it claims are for medical isotopes and later some reactors or scientific purposes. They've allowed in inspectors at various points and the western press generally, but cautiously accepts this as the truth. The problem is that they have the ability to enrich further to bomb grade material. The whole original deal was about getting them to give up enrichment and accept material at enrichment level sufficient for energy and medicine from France. That fell apart and they are enriching material again themselves. > It's just a ridiculously expensive way to generate green energy. If coal were regulated like nuclear energy it would be far more expensive due to fuel costs. If you had to dispose of lithium such that it couldn't leak for more than 10k years batteries would be far more expensive. If we didn't changes the regulations every few years and appoint anti-nuclear activists to run the NRC, it would be much cheaper. But yes, nuclear is expensive. It's also incredibly safe, 0 carbon, and produces no air pollution. It also provides base load energy which other 0 carbon sources can't do yet. You're just spreading FUD. [1] https://www.cbo.gov/publication/57240#:~:text=If%20carried%20out%2C%20the%20plans,billion%20a%20year%2C%20CBO%20estimates https://www.cbo.gov/publication/57240#:~:text=If%20carried%2....
    - ncmncm 5y ago
      Coal is on its way out, so there is absolutely no point in comparing to coal, going forward. The only sensible cost comparisons to make today are with natural gas and renewables; and tomorrow renewables only.
    - pydry 5y ago
      >No it isn't. We aren't really building new weapons, we're just maintaining the ones we have... $643 billion over the next 10 years It's the opinion of the (pro nuclear) ex energy secretary Ernest J Moniz: https://web.archive.org/web/20180630220957/https://static1.squarespace.com/static/58ec123cb3db2bd94e057628/t/59947949f43b55af66b0684b/1502902604749/EFI+nuclear+paper+17+Aug+2017.pdf https://web.archive.org/web/20180630220957/https://static1.s... >$643 billion over the next 10 years You do see how that isn't exactly cheap, right? And how it would be a problem if it ballooned over a trillion or more? >If coal were regulated like nuclear energy The fact you're comparing nuclear to the fastest disappearing form of unprofitable dirty energy kind of says it all, really.
      - ch4s3 5y ago
        > It's the opinion of the (pro nuclear) ex energy secretary Ernest J Moniz He's talking about carbon emissions and non-proliferation goals which involves decommissioning weapons. There's 1 paragraph in the whole 38 page document about needing a reactor to produce tritium domestically to keep weapons functional until universal disarmament. You don't need anything more than a research reactor for that, and the DOD could probably just build one if they wanted to. Trying to connect civilian nuclear to weapons is FUD. > You do see how that isn't exactly cheap, right? I literally never commented on that. I was refuting your claim that it was a hidden, which it demonstrably is not. You completely made up that "Keeping a nuclear industry around is still a good way to keep a lid on nuclear arsenal costs." That is provably false, as demonstrated by the CBO publishing the costs. > The fact you're comparing nuclear to the fastest disappearing form of unprofitable dirty energy kind of says it all, really. You could say the same thing about natural gas, nickel mining, lithium mining, and on and on. Nuclear mine tailings are mitigated to the point that they are less radioactive than the background levels of the areas in which they are found. If dams had the kind of regulator scrutiny that nuclear receives, none would ever be built especially near centers of population.

ch4s3 5y ago

The VAST majority of reactors ever built were not built to generate fissile material for weapons, and the VAST majority of nuclear weapons were built using centrifuge facilities which are cheaper to build and simpler in some respects to operate. Reactors have in fact been used to dispose of material from weapons. Civilian disposal plans in the west are all a matter of public record and there have been reams of paper generated about the topic. Yes, the weapons part is to some extent secretive, but the UNODA oversees disarmament so there is some multinational transparency.

pydry 5y ago
Keeping a nuclear industry around is still a good way to keep a lid on nuclear arsenal costs. There are supply chain efficiencies, a pipeline of necessary skills, etc. It's just a ridiculously expensive way to generate green energy. When Iran builds nuclear reactors for "100% peaceful non military purposes" suddenly the western media can see through the ruse and understands all this.
- ch4s3 5y ago
  > Keeping a nuclear industry around is still a good way to keep a lid on nuclear arsenal costs. No it isn't. We aren't really building new weapons, we're just maintaining the ones we have. There shouldn't be any unique supply chain overlap. There's also transparently budget under DOD in the US for maintaining the nuclear arsenal. The CBO publishes the numbers, $643 billion over the next 10 years [1]. As for the skills, the military just trains people. A large number of civilian operators were trained by the military, not the other way around. Iran is building centrifuges which it claims are for medical isotopes and later some reactors or scientific purposes. They've allowed in inspectors at various points and the western press generally, but cautiously accepts this as the truth. The problem is that they have the ability to enrich further to bomb grade material. The whole original deal was about getting them to give up enrichment and accept material at enrichment level sufficient for energy and medicine from France. That fell apart and they are enriching material again themselves. > It's just a ridiculously expensive way to generate green energy. If coal were regulated like nuclear energy it would be far more expensive due to fuel costs. If you had to dispose of lithium such that it couldn't leak for more than 10k years batteries would be far more expensive. If we didn't changes the regulations every few years and appoint anti-nuclear activists to run the NRC, it would be much cheaper. But yes, nuclear is expensive. It's also incredibly safe, 0 carbon, and produces no air pollution. It also provides base load energy which other 0 carbon sources can't do yet. You're just spreading FUD. [1] https://www.cbo.gov/publication/57240#:~:text=If%20carried%20out%2C%20the%20plans,billion%20a%20year%2C%20CBO%20estimates https://www.cbo.gov/publication/57240#:~:text=If%20carried%2....
  - ncmncm 5y ago
    Coal is on its way out, so there is absolutely no point in comparing to coal, going forward. The only sensible cost comparisons to make today are with natural gas and renewables; and tomorrow renewables only.
  - pydry 5y ago
    >No it isn't. We aren't really building new weapons, we're just maintaining the ones we have... $643 billion over the next 10 years It's the opinion of the (pro nuclear) ex energy secretary Ernest J Moniz: https://web.archive.org/web/20180630220957/https://static1.squarespace.com/static/58ec123cb3db2bd94e057628/t/59947949f43b55af66b0684b/1502902604749/EFI+nuclear+paper+17+Aug+2017.pdf https://web.archive.org/web/20180630220957/https://static1.s... >$643 billion over the next 10 years You do see how that isn't exactly cheap, right? And how it would be a problem if it ballooned over a trillion or more? >If coal were regulated like nuclear energy The fact you're comparing nuclear to the fastest disappearing form of unprofitable dirty energy kind of says it all, really.
    - ch4s3 5y ago
      > It's the opinion of the (pro nuclear) ex energy secretary Ernest J Moniz He's talking about carbon emissions and non-proliferation goals which involves decommissioning weapons. There's 1 paragraph in the whole 38 page document about needing a reactor to produce tritium domestically to keep weapons functional until universal disarmament. You don't need anything more than a research reactor for that, and the DOD could probably just build one if they wanted to. Trying to connect civilian nuclear to weapons is FUD. > You do see how that isn't exactly cheap, right? I literally never commented on that. I was refuting your claim that it was a hidden, which it demonstrably is not. You completely made up that "Keeping a nuclear industry around is still a good way to keep a lid on nuclear arsenal costs." That is provably false, as demonstrated by the CBO publishing the costs. > The fact you're comparing nuclear to the fastest disappearing form of unprofitable dirty energy kind of says it all, really. You could say the same thing about natural gas, nickel mining, lithium mining, and on and on. Nuclear mine tailings are mitigated to the point that they are less radioactive than the background levels of the areas in which they are found. If dams had the kind of regulator scrutiny that nuclear receives, none would ever be built especially near centers of population.