Welcome to DU! The truly grassroots left-of-center political community where regular people, not algorithms, drive the discussions and set the standards. Join the community: Create a free account Support DU (and get rid of ads!): Become a Star Member Latest Breaking News Editorials & Other Articles General Discussion The DU Lounge All Forums Issue Forums Culture Forums Alliance Forums Region Forums Support Forums Help & Search

kristopher

(29,798 posts)
8. "We need...a roadmap for guarding against weapons proliferation"
Sat Jun 22, 2013, 05:07 PM
Jun 2013

There isn't one. If you have a way to do it, let's hear it, because no one in the past 50 years has been able to devise a way to sell nuclear power with the "energy self sufficiency" argument while simultaneously denying countries the right to refine their own fuel if they wish.

Inspections don't work for two reasons:
1) they are voluntary. Once a country has the facilities in place for refining they can halt inspections if they wish.
2) the amount of "slop" in the fuel cycle accounting system allows for the gradual accumulation of enough material for making weapons.

The idea of using breeder reactors (IFR, thorium or otherwise) just makes the problem worse.

Since we're on the topic.

Fukushima, Nuclear Power Plants And The Middle East: What Could Go Wrong?

TEL AVIV, Israel -- As Western democracies re-evaluate their dependence on nuclear energy in the wake of Japan’s Fukushima plant meltdown in 2011, the Middle East is forging ahead into the atomic age. According to projections from Nuclear Energy Insider, which supplies forecasts and analysis on the nuclear energy markets in the Middle East and North Africa, about $200 billion will be spent over the next 15 years in the two regions, where a total of 37 new reactors will be built...

http://www.ibtimes.com/fukushima-nuclear-power-plants-middle-east-what-could-go-wrong-1316621


With solar prices plummeting as they are I doubt if 37 reactors are going to be built, but the non-economic dynamics laid out in the article are pretty accurate.

Recommendations

0 members have recommended this reply (displayed in chronological order):

Fully half from russian nukes? RobertEarl Jun 2013 #1
Don't doubt it; believe it - it's TRUE PamW Jun 2013 #9
Hi Pam RobertEarl Jun 2013 #10
Not half of total PamW Jun 2013 #11
So you proved wt was wrong RobertEarl Jun 2013 #16
Not odd at all - different parts of the government PamW Jun 2013 #18
How much $$ do they need? RobertEarl Jun 2013 #19
Answers to questions PamW Jun 2013 #20
What about Columbia Generating Station? That's the operational nuclear plant on the Hanford site. suffragette Jun 2013 #21
What is "Hanford" PamW Jun 2013 #22
The State of Washington disagrees with you suffragette Jun 2013 #23
Reading Comprehension Problem??? PamW Jun 2013 #25
Compared to Pandora's Promise, the Breakthrough Institute and the nuclear industry writ large... kristopher Jun 2013 #2
This is what the corporate media uniformly do cprise Jun 2013 #3
We've shot ourselves in the foot on Iran. wtmusic Jun 2013 #4
There is no inspection regime that is good enough cprise Jun 2013 #5
I guess that's my point wtmusic Jun 2013 #6
This is a nuclear problem cprise Jun 2013 #7
You do know that it's impossible to build a weapon with reactor grade fuel, don't you? wtmusic Jun 2013 #14
"We need...a roadmap for guarding against weapons proliferation" kristopher Jun 2013 #8
100% WRONG as ALWAYS PamW Jun 2013 #12
What a fucking flake. kristopher Jun 2013 #15
Nothing of substance, I note PamW Jun 2013 #17
Ha! oldhippie Jun 2013 #24
They argeed. PamW Jun 2013 #13
Latest Discussions»Issue Forums»Environment & Energy»Memo to Fox News: Nuclear...»Reply #8