It occurs to me that nuclear proliferation is a very bad argument against nuclear power.

[TheWraith]

Why? Very simple: the biggest offenders in terms of CO2 emissions and pollution are nations which already either have nuclear weapons, or could build them if they wanted. Out of the top 8 emitters, five are already nuclear powers, and the other three are not because they choose not to be. The US, Russia, China, UK, India, Canada, Japan, Germany. Just those 8 account for about 75% of the global CO2 output annually.

[kristopher]

1. How many plants does a country need to help build a bomb?

Where is all the fuel going to be reprocessed and how is it going to be collected and distributed?

If a country (say like N. Korea or Iran) goes for nuclear, then they will be able to claim the right to reprocess under the authority of energy security.

They don't need 110 reactors to make this claim or to produce waste that is recyclable into material for weapons.

[Dead_Parrot]

2. Ahh, the "Belgium is planning world domination" ploy.

We've seen it before. Usually, it boils down to 'Brown People are teh Evil ', but we look forward to your totally new explanation of how Sweden can have nuclear power but Iran can't.

[joshcryer]

6. If Iran didn't waffle on treaties I'm sure they'd be running around with several plants by now.

They're the ones waffling about the treaties, it's not made up by some magical guy in the sky.

[Dead_Parrot]

8. Ahh, right

So, If Israel signed the NPT and allowed regular inspections, we'd let them have nuclear reactors - on the understanding that if they developed nuclear weapons, we'd bomb them back to the stone age?

Sorry. It's got more to do with whose club you're in than pieces of paper - and magical sky guy does seem to play a role, there.

[joshcryer]

17. Iran is a signee, Israel is not.

Iran had a very healthy nuclear program, it got squashed (literally, by bombs) due to regulatory misbehavior. Israel would not sign the treaty (and for the US we wouldn't really want them to anyway).

North Korea actually was part of the treaty at one point but they pulled out of it (it seems countries like India and Pakistan, who are not signatories, can manage better to acquire the bomb outside of the treaty).

The treaty does work.

[Dead_Parrot]

23. I never thought of the Iran-Iraq war as "regulatory misbehavior"...

...it puts a whole new spin on things. :)

I'm not arguing against the NPT - it is a vital treaty. But Iran, as signatories, have to jump (or more accurately be pushed) through hoops to rebuild their civilian program; Israel, as non-signatories, can do what ever they like - and don't get me started about article 6.

If the non-signatories were pushed into signing rather than given a free ride (a la nukes for mangoes), and the signatories stuck to the whole treaty, I'd be a lot happier about it.

[joshcryer]

48. That's why non-signers tend to have the bomb.

Nuclear non-poliferation does *not* mean you cannot build nuclear plants, and it seems that the real reason plants have not inundated the world is that the economics didn't scale, and that it wasn't competitive with fossil sources. Nuclear, as it does become more and more competitive, will become more pervasive. This is indusputable.

The USA is building a lot of new plants. Now let's just hope they do it *right*, make sure that they *fit the regulatory requirements* and we'll have decades of cheap energy for a long time (at least in our lifetimes anyway).

I will maintain my disagreement with nuclear fission as a long term solution, though.

[TheWraith]

3. All the fuel reprocessing plants are also under the control of the big nuclear powers.

In this case, mostly the US, UK, and France. But you're ignoring my central point--even if you never let a country outside the big 8 have a reactor, you're still talking about being able to curtail 75% of all global CO2 emissions.

[kristopher]

4. Aside from the economics that don't favor nuclear...

The basic problem with your thesis is the idea that one nation has the ability to tell another nation what to do. Implicitly it assumes that there is a mechanism for controlling this technology. There really isn't other than peaceful agreement and cooperation, or force.
The peaceful agreement and cooperation allows all nations to develop nuclear power because that type of equitable solution is the only thing everyone will agree to.

Just how do you intend on telling smaller countries they CAN'T have nuclear power? That is the dilemma in Iran right now, they claim they want nuclear power for peaceful purposes. They also claim the right, in the name of energy security, to enrich (and eventually I'm sure to reprocess) their fuel themselves.

The trouble is that once a nation is capable of doing that much, developing a nuclear weapon is just a secret project away.

Now personally, I would not attack Iran to prevent them from acquiring nuclear power technology, even though not doing so ensures they can develop nuclear weapons if they wish. There are Cold War type reasons to believe they wouldn't use them (either directly or through terrorists) if they had them. But I would much rather they not have them; and the only way we could have the moral authority to be persuasive is to reject increases in nuclear technology anywhere it is possible to do so AND to demonstrate the viability of alternative energy sources.

I haven't been there for a while, but Harvard's Belfer Center used to have some good information on this topic:
http://belfercenter.ksg.harvard.edu/

[joshcryer]

5. That's because fossil fuels are cheaper than nuclear.

There has to be a subsidized method of nuclear plant production or some incentive (like a carbon tax) to make nuclear competitive.

Nuclear poliferation is more of a moral or ethical suggestion, it doesn't *stop* nuclear production, it just makes it *hard*.

Iran is sitting on tons of uranium, some of the richest deposits in the world. Logically they should be able to use those resources to build nuclear plants.

But if they don't want to allow inspections (which they have been back and forth on many times), if they don't want to obey the treaties, then clearly their nuclear program isn't just about power.

[kristopher]

7. How is a carbon tax an "incentive"?

Carbon released from fossil fuel combustion is a major pollutant. Charging a price for emitting such a pollutant isn't an "incentive", it is proper government management and oversight of the business community.

NOT charging for production of waste products that negatively impact the world we share is bad management on society's part. Just because it was overlooked until now doesn't alter the basic good/bad of the situation and it certainly doesn't constitute an "incentive".

[joshcryer]

16. It's not an incentive for carbon producers, it's an incentive for solar/alternate producers.

Producing carbon is dang cheap compared to the alternatives. I don't disagree with you; we simply chose different words for it (I don't think carbon taxes should be seen as "government management" but rather an "alternate fuels incentive"; it's much more palatable to the public at large and both are correct).

[kristopher]

19. Why not just admit you misused the word?

Or did you graduate from Wasilla HS? Words have meanings, and those meanings are important. It isn't an incentive. A Production Tax Credit is an alternative energy (not fuels) incentive.

[joshcryer]

32. Why be a prick about it? It most certainly is an incentive to non-carbon producers.

WTF is wrong with you? Is your need to be "right" so compelling that you have to call someone out for having a differing viewpoint?

[kristopher]

35. There is nothing wrong with me. Red isn't green.

Up isn't down, pushing isn't pulling and carbon caps or carbon taxes on fossil fuels aren't production tax credits or feed in tariffs for renewables.

It isn't a "viewpoint" oh denizen of an alternate reality, it is the proper use of the words in the reality based community; and it's just plain old sloppy fucking thinking and laziness that causes you to Palinate when called on it..

[joshcryer]

46. You are the first person I've met to claim a carbon tax isn't an incentive for alternate producers.

The fact that you continue to insult me verifies my suspicion.

OK fine you're perfectly right, saying a carbon tax is an incentive for certain producers is completely wrong. Good luck getting one passed using that language (then again I'm beginning to think that many people here aren't actually against increasing CO2 emissions, and that disappoints me greatly).

[TheWraith]

20. Correction: fossil fuels are cheaper short term.

And I'm not talking about intangible future costs, like, you know, your kids being able to breathe. :) Nuclear has a staggering up-front cost, but on a kilowatt-hour basis the fuel is dirt cheap. Even factoring in maintainence costs it's around the same price per kilowatt-hour as wind, and only slightly more expensive than coal.

To be honest, if I were the Iranians I'd be interested in a bomb too. Aside from the stress of having the US playing "maybe we will, maybe we won't bomb you" for the last five years, they've got a substantial border with Pakistan: a beyond dirt-poor country with nukes, and a population density four times that of Iran. It's hard to show how it wouldn't be profitable for the Pakistanis to nuke Tehran and all the major Iranian military bases, then roll in and take the place over.

[bananas]

27. When you include construction and financing, nuclear is much more expensive

Nuclear power plants don't appear out of thin air, building them is a long and expensive process which has to be paid for, when those costs are included in the per kilowatt-hour cost, nuclear is much more expensive than wind or coal. And ten years from now, it will be more expensive than solar PV, too.

[joshcryer]

33. Nuclear doesn't become competitive until you bring online 1GW plants.

And there's no need or demand for 1GW plants. Except, if there's a carbon tax, well, 1GW plants would look quite inticing.

But so would solar fields.

[kristopher]

37. Where did you get that number.

Current estimates place the lasets current and already outdated cost at $6000/kw for overnight cost. Once you add int the interest on the financing, the overrun and delays, you are going to be closer to $11Billion for your 1 GW reactor. Then we have to get fuel and find a way to deal with the waste, all the while maintaining tighter security and higher levels of personnel training that any other method of energy produciton.

Nuclear is also rated as one of the most undesirable of the available choices. The paper has been accepted but not yet published:


15. Summary This paper evaluated nine electric power sources
(solar-PV, CSP, wind, geothermal, hydroelectric, wave, tidal, nuclear, and coal with CCS) and two liquid fuel options (corn-13 E85, cellulosic E85) in combination with three vehicle technologies (BEVs, HFCVs, and 14
E85 vehicles) with respect to their effects on global-warming-relevant emissions, air 15
pollution mortality, and several other factors. Twelve combinations of energy source-16
vehicle type were considered in all. Among these, the highest-ranked (Tier 1 17
technologies) were wind-BEVs and wind-HFCVs. Tier 2 technologies were CSP-BEVs, 18
Geo-BEVs, PV-BEVs, tidal-BEVs, and wave-BEVs. Tier 3 technologies were hydro-19
BEVs, nuclear-BEVs, and CCS-BEVs. Tier 4 technologies were corn- and cellulosic-20
E85. 21 22

Wind-BEVs performed best in six out of 11 categories, including mortality, 23
climate-relevant emissions, footprint, water consumption, effects on wildlife, thermal 24
pollution, and water chemical pollution. The footprint area of wind-BEVs is 5.5-6 orders 25
of magnitude less than that for E85 regardless of its source, 4 orders of magnitude less 26
than those of CSP-BEVs or solar-BEVs, 3 orders of magnitude less than those of nuclear- 27
or coal-BEVs, and 2-2.5 orders of magnitude less than those of geothermal, tidal, or wave 28
BEVs. 29 30

The intermittency of wind, solar, and wave power can be reduced in several ways: 31
(1) interconnecting geographically-disperse intermittent sources through the transmission 32
system, (2) combining different intermittent sources (wind, solar, hydro, geothermal, 33
tidal, and wave) to smooth out loads, using hydro to provide peaking and load balancing, 34
(3) using smart meters to provide electric power to electric vehicles at optimal times, (4) 35
storing wind energy in hydrogen, batteries, pumped hydroelectric power, compressed air, 36
or a thermal storage medium, and (5) forecasting weather to improve grid planning. 37 38

Although HFCVs are less efficient than BEVs, wind-HFCVs still provide a 39
greater benefit than any other vehicle technology aside from wind-BEVs. Wind-HFCVs 40
are also the most reliable combination due to the low downtime of wind turbines, the 41

distributed nature of turbines, and the ability of wind’s energy to be stored in hydrogen 1
over time. 2 3

The Tier 2 combinations all provide outstanding benefits with respect to climate 4
and mortality. Among Tier 2 combinations, CSP-BEVs result in the lowest CO2e 5
emissions and mortality. Geothermal-BEVs requires the lowest array spacing among all 6
options. Although PV-BEV result in slightly less climate benefit than CSP-BEVs, the 7
resource for PVs is the largest among all technologies considered. Further, much of it can 8
be implemented unobtrusively on rooftops. Underwater tidal powering BEVs is the least 9
likely to be disrupted by terrorism or severe weather. 10 11

The Tier 3 technologies are less beneficial than the others. However, 12
hydroelectricity is an excellent load-balancer and cleaner than coal-CCS or nuclear with 13
respect to CO2e and air pollution. As such, hydroelectricity is recommended ahead of 14
these other Tier-3 power sources. 15 16

The Tier-4 technologies (cellulosic- and corn-E85) are not only the lowest in 17
terms of ranking, but may worsen climate and air pollution problems. They also require 18
significant land relative to other technologies Cellulosic-E85 may have a larger land 19
footprint and higher upstream air pollution emissions than corn-E85. Mainly for this 20
reason, it scored lower overall than corn-E85. Whereas cellulosic-E85 may cause the 21
greatest average human mortality among all technologies, nuclear-BEVs cause the 22
greatest upper-estimate risk of mortality due to the risk of nuclear attacks resulting from 23
the spread of nuclear energy facilities that allows for the production of nuclear weapons. 24
The largest consumer of water is corn-E85. The smallest consumers are wind-BEVs, 25
tidal-BEVs, and wave-BEVs. 26 27

In sum, the use of wind, CSP, geothermal, tidal, solar, wave, and hydroelectric to 28
provide electricity for BEVs and HFCVs result in the most benefit and least impact 29
among the options considered. Coal-CCS and nuclear provide less benefit with greater 30
negative impacts. The biofuel options provide no certain benefit and result in significant 31
negative impacts. Because sufficient clean natural resources (e.g., wind, sunlight, hot 32
water, ocean energy, gravitational energy) exists to power all energy for the world, the 33
results here suggest that the diversion of attention to the less efficient or non-efficient 34
options would represent an opportunity cost that will delay solutions to climate and air 35
pollution health problems. 36 37

The relative ranking of each electricity-BEV option also applies to the electricity 38
source when used to provide electricity for general purposes. The implementation of the 39
recommended electricity options for providing vehicle and building electricity requires 40
organization. Ideally, good locations of energy resources would be sited in advance and 41
developed simultaneously with an interconnected transmission system. This requires 42
cooperation at multiple levels of government. 43 44

Acknowledgment 45
I would like to thank Cristina Archer, Ben Carver, Ralph Cavanagh, Bethany Corcoran, 46
Mike Dvorak, Eena Sta. Maria, Diana Ginnebaugh, Graeme Hoste, Holmes Hummel, 47
Earl Killian, Jon Koomey, Gilbert Masters, Eric Stoutenburg, Ron Swenson, John Ten 48
Hoeve, and Joe Westersund for helpful suggestions and comments. This work was not 49
funded by any interest group, company, or government agency. 50 51

Review of Solutions to Global Warming, Air Pollution, and Energy Security 2 3

Mark Z. Jacobson 4
Department of Civil and Environmental Engineering, Stanford University, Stanford, 5
Environ. Sci., 2008, doi:10.1039/b809990C In press, October 30, 2008 9

[Dead_Parrot]

38. Why go for unpublished estimates?

There are about two dozen plants under construction at the moment: It should be easy to list those costing more than $11 billion per GW, no?

[kristopher]

40. You cant even keep a very simple point straight, can you?

Apparently you don't bother to (or can't) read the posts you respond to. What do you do, skim and do a cursory verification of your previous expectations, then start typing some irrelevant crap? I guess when you don't even know fundamentals like the difference between energy storage and energy production, it all kind of looks the same to you, eh?

1) the document quoted has been accepted for publication at the time stated and in the journal indicated at the end.

2) Cost estimates have been posted on this board ad nauseum. If you missed the last 5000 such posts you'll just have to wait until it comes around again. Or you could probably find it by browsing Bananas journal http://journals.democraticunderground.com/bananas

Estimates for overnight cost are around $6k and no one expects that to be even close to the actual final cost to bring the plant online; much less operate and provide for waste disposal.

[Dead_Parrot]

43. Actually, reality is pretty straightforward

I know you have a fondness for projections over hard data - I recall the time you posted a PDF of China's five year plan as proof the Chinese weren't building a new coal plant every few days.

Anyone with an interest can google up a list of recently completed or in progress reactors, and check the bill. (Except possibly Jpak. I know he got confused about the difference between 1 and 2 reactors in a previous thread ;) ).

Whether or not you have an interest in reality won't actually change those figures.

[joshcryer]

47. $11 billion for a 1GW reactor? Seriously? Are you being obtuse for a reason?

I know you're more intelligent than this.

The AP1000 is a nuclear reactor that costs roughly 5 times less than that. And is being built all over the world, including in America (oh nos!).

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/AP1000

http://www.ap1000.westinghousenuclear.com/

Man, this is disgusting. Take coal offline, kill CO2 emissions, and I guarantee you they'd be building these (or a varient) everywhere. A scary prospect I believe for people like you.

[kristopher]

49. Assessing Nuclear Plant Capital Costs - 2008

Assessing Nuclear Plant Capital Costs for the Two Proposed NRG
Reactors at the South Texas Project Site

Arjun Makhijani, Ph.D.1

March 24, 2008

1. Main Findings

Careful industry analysis of new nuclear power plant costs indicates that the NRG
estimate of $6 billion to $7 billion for the cost of the two new nuclear units proposed to
be built at the South Texas Project site is obsolete and likely incomplete. The best
currently available analyses indicate that it is a serious underestimate of the capital costs
of the project.
An analysis of new nuclear power plant costs filed by Florida Power & Light (FPL) with
the Florida Public Service Commission is the most complete and rigorous analysis of new
nuclear power plant capital costs publicly available to date. The FPL analysis is based on
the same reactors, G.E. Advanced Boiling Water Reactors (ABWRs) as the proposed
NRG project. Using this analysis, we find that the all-in total capital cost of the proposed
NRG two-reactor project would be in the $12 billion to $17.5 billion range. This range is
two to three times the lower NRG value of $6 billion and 1.7 to 2.5 times NRG’s higher
estimate of $7 billion. Moody’s October 2007 estimates are within this range, as is the
Progress Energy’s March 2008 estimate. Even these estimates do not take into account
higher imported component cost risks created by a falling dollar or possible continued
real cost escalation due to rising global demand for raw materials and skilled labor.
A 40 percent CPS’ share of the project would make its likely investment in the project in
the $4.8 billion to $7 billion range. Even the lower end of this range is considerably
higher than the total net value of CPS’s total electric plants of $3.9 billion as of the end of
its 2007 fiscal year. The high end would make CPS’s share equal to the high end of the
total NRG cost estimate.
As a municipal utility partnering with a merchant generator, the risks to CPS ratepayers
and San Antonio taxpayers of a large, long-lead time, capital intensive project in a time
of financial turbulence are considerable and need to be carefully evaluated. They should
be publicly disclosed and discussed.
CPS completed its own study of the costs of the proposed project and compared it to
some alternatives in 2007. This study has not been made public; it is being updated.
CPS has made a commendable commitment to the concept that efficiency should be
treated on a par with new investments in coal or nuclear plants. However, this
commitment is only in the very initial stages of operationalization and is at very low
levels of implementation relative to economic potential. The efficiency study of 2004
commissioned by CPS did not cover some technical elements and did not include
combined heat and power or distributed renewable energy sources within its scope. It is
also in urgent need of a financial update in light of increased costs of new coal and
nuclear plants.
An early decision to invest in the nuclear units would pre-empt and possibly even
foreclose full operationalization of the concept that efficiency, distributed generation, and
distributed renewables should be treated on a par with central station investments. This
could result in needless rate increases and financial risk. Additional financial risk may
accrue due to NRG’s approach to the project. For instance, NRG filed an incomplete
Combined Operating License Application with the Nuclear Regulatory Commission, a
fact that has could result in delays in the licensing process. ...

...The Wall Street credit rating firm Moody’s estimated the all-in costs of new nuclear plants,
including transmission integration, in October 2007, only two months after the NRG statement
that project costs would be $6 billion to $7 billion. Moody’s describes the context of its cost
estimates as follows:

Throughout our due diligence process, Moody’s has not been able to make a finite
determination of the range for the all-in cost associated with new nuclear. As a result, we
believe the ultimate costs associated with building new nuclear generation do not exist
today – and that the current cost estimates represent best estimates, which are subject to change.

[bananas]

51. Kristopher is right, nobody believes those estimates anymore

China ordered those reactors with fixed-cost contracts - the vendors are going to lose megabucks on those projects.

Current estimates average $6500/kW in the DOE loan applications: http://www.democraticunderground.com/discuss/duboard.php?az=view_all&address=115x173575

The Wall Street Journal is one of the most pro-nuclear, pro-industry, pro-business, pro-Republican publications in the world, and they *openly mock* the nuclear industry cost estimates:
"The Congressional Budget Office just finished a rosy-glasses report on nuclear economics. Even while acknowledging that historical costs for nuclear plants always doubled or tripled their initial estimates, the CBO took heart from promises made by manufacturers of next-generation reactors and a single on-time and on-budget project in Japan to project cheaper nuclear construction costs in the future."
http://blogs.wsj.com/environmentalcapital/2008/05/12/its-the-economics-stupid-nuclear-powers-bogeyman/

Hmm...what's "double or triple" $6500/kW? Kristopher's estimate may be optimistic!

Here's what a pro-nuke wrote on the NEI blog last year, when estimates were *only* around $4000/kW:
"The fact that the "official" capital cost estimates for new reactors has been going up, oh, about 50% per year for several years now is annoying enough ($1000/kW ~7 years ago, then $1500/kW, then $2000, then $2500, and now I'm even hearing about $3000-$4000). Am I being lied to now or was I being lied to then? Inflation and materials cost escalation is nowhere near enough to explain this."
http://neinuclearnotes.blogspot.com/2007/06/keystone-report-on-nuclear-energy.html

The trend continues - they've gone up about 50% since last year.
Next year, the "official" cost estimates could easily be $10,000/kW.

More info and links in this post: http://www.democraticunderground.com/discuss/duboard.php?az=show_mesg&forum=115&topic_id=167577&mesg_id=167602

[joshcryer]

52. While I'll give you guys the benefit of the doubt, this is the first time mass manufacture of...

...nuclear plants has been approached in a very long time, using very intuitive designs. And this is the first time that there's actually been demand for it (especially in light of Global Warming).

So I'd rather lean on the optimistic side of things, rather than cite doom and gloom scenarios that don't seem to take into account the power of mass manufacture and standardization (every nuclear plant in the world that I know of is a practically unique design, there is no fabrication process like there is with coal plants).

[kristopher]

53. Standardization isn't enough

Nuclear is a dead end because it is a very energy intensive system for producing power. Its EROI is between 1:5 and 1:15 (depending on the technology) and getting worse as easy to find fuel becomes more scarce - and recycling uses more energy than mining.

It isn't gloom and doom to recognize that fact, it is just common sense. The renewable options are much better: solar is between 1:20 and 1:40 while wind ranges from 1:50 thru 1:80 - and both technologies are improving their energy return quickly.

Take the time to look into how much solar production capacity could be built for $11 billion dollars. Say it builds 20 plants that each produce 1 GW of panels per year for 30 years; at the end of their life cycle they will have produced 20 GW x 30 years = 600 GW worth of panels. Each of those panels will, in turn, produce power for about 30 years (probably more) with virtually no further investment of energy.

Now multiply that by 1/2 the number of nuclear reactors you think we should build and tell me what you come up with.

Gloom and doom? No, just basic math.

[joshcryer]

55. We'll see if the $11 billion number is true, then.

[jpak]

9. It occurs to me this is bullshit

How did India get the bomb?

"Peaceful civilian nuclear technology"

How did Israel get the bomb?

"Peaceful civilian nuclear technology"

How did Pakistan get the bomb?

"Peaceful civilian nuclear technology"

How did North Korea get the bomb?

"Peaceful civilian nuclear technology"

How did South Africa get the bomb?

"Peaceful civilian nuclear technology"

If Iran chooses to go nuclear - how will they get the bomb?

"Peaceful civilian nuclear technology"

How did the US, UK, France, China, and Russia develop ""Peaceful civilian nuclear technology"???

From their bomb programs.

nuclear power = nuclear bombs = nuclear power = nuclear bombs = nuclear power = nuclear bombs = nuclear power = nuclear bombs.

The way this bullshit works.

[Dead_Parrot]

10. An excelent point, Jpak, with just a couple of flaws:

How did Argentina acquire nuclear power without acquiring nuclear weapons?

Through the peaceful application of nuclear technology.

How did Belgium acquire nuclear power without acquiring nuclear weapons?

Through the peaceful application of nuclear technology.

How did Brazil acquire nuclear power without acquiring nuclear weapons?

Through the peaceful application of nuclear technology.

How did Bulgaria acquire nuclear power without acquiring nuclear weapons?

Through the peaceful application of nuclear technology.

How did Canada acquire nuclear power without acquiring nuclear weapons?

Through the peaceful application of nuclear technology.

How did the Czech Republic acquire nuclear power without acquiring nuclear weapons?

Through the peaceful application of nuclear technology.

How did Finland acquire nuclear power without acquiring nuclear weapons?

Through the peaceful application of nuclear technology.

How did Germany acquire nuclear power without acquiring nuclear weapons?

Through the peaceful application of nuclear technology.

How did Japan acquire nuclear power without acquiring nuclear weapons?

Through the peaceful application of nuclear technology.

How did Mexico acquire nuclear power without acquiring nuclear weapons?

Through the peaceful application of nuclear technology.

How did the Netherlands acquire nuclear power without acquiring nuclear weapons?

Through the peaceful application of nuclear technology.

How did Romania acquire nuclear power without acquiring nuclear weapons?

Through the peaceful application of nuclear technology.

How did Slovenia acquire nuclear power without acquiring nuclear weapons?

Through the peaceful application of nuclear technology.

How did South Korea acquire nuclear power without acquiring nuclear weapons?

Through the peaceful application of nuclear technology.

How did Spain acquire nuclear power without acquiring nuclear weapons?

Through the peaceful application of nuclear technology.

How did Sweden acquire nuclear power without acquiring nuclear weapons?

Through the peaceful application of nuclear technology.

How did Switzerland acquire nuclear power without acquiring nuclear weapons?

Through the peaceful application of nuclear technology.

How did Taiwan acquire nuclear power without acquiring nuclear weapons?

Through the peaceful application of nuclear technology.

Stating a supposed "fact" that supports your beliefs whilst ignoring the evidence is fundamentalism.
And fundamentalism = bullshit = fundamentalism = bullshit = fundamentalism = bullshit = fundamentalism.

[jpak]

11. an excellent point with a few flaws

:rofl:

:rofl:

:rofl:

:nuke::evilgrin::nuke:

[TheWraith]

21. I'm glad you admit that you can't actually argue with DP's point. nt

[jpak]

28. Noper and Negatory little fella

Any nation that possesses civilian nuclear power plants can reprocess spent fuel for plutonium and make bombs.

Any nation that has the ability to enrich uranium for nuclear reactor fuel can also make bombs.

Changes in the global political climate can initiate a nuclear arms race at any time.

Nonnuclear NATO countries benefit from the US nuclear umbrella. If that was withdrawn, would Germany and Poland go nuclear if faced with a threat from Russia?

Japan has tons of reprocessed plutonium - and could "go nuclear" at any time in response to threats from China, Russia or North Korea.

Will Saudi Arabia or Egypt go nuclear in response to threats from Iran, Russia or the US?

Will Brazil and Argentina resurrect their nascent nuclear programs if relations sour?

With nuclear power - they all possess the means to build bombs.

The Way of the World.

[Dead_Parrot]

34. Hey, let me help you with that goalpost. It looks heavy.

So we've gone from "Nuclear power = nuclear weapons" - which I think I've already dealt with - to "nuclear power could mean nuclear weapons, if..." which has an element of truth to it: I'd actually go a stage further, and say that any state that had the the resources, and really wanted one, could have a nuclear weapon.

I hope that this is blindingly obvious, but lets dwell on for a second: it means that whilst Haiti are probably not going to have a nuclear bomb any time soon, Ireland could probably slap one up in a couple of years if they really wanted to: Tuvalu can probably be ignored, but maybe you should keep an eye on New Zealand.

As you mentioned in your post, the original nuclear-armed states developed their weapons without access to civilian nuclear power: it should therefore be obvious that any state capable on re-running the Manhattan project - a lot easier now we have computers - could have a nuclear weapon.

Yes, a lot of these resource-rich states have developed nuclear power. Come to think of it, a lot of them have developed solar power: They are rich in terms of technical savvy and resources, and want to generate electricity, yet they want to do so cleanly: All but one of them has signed & ratified the Kyoto protocol.

Guess which one hasn't.

Seriously, have a go.

Hint: It's the only state to actually use nuclear weapons against small children.

Second hint: It's full of hypocrites who get most of their energy from fossil fuels.

You live in a country that developed a nuclear bomb with nothing but manpower, electricity, diesel and a slide rule. I suggest you should stop shitting yourself over "means" and start worrying more about "motive".

Edit to add: Non of which actually deals with Wraith's OP. You do have something to comment on there, I assume?

[Nihil]

39. More good points there but especially this one:

> You live in a country that developed a nuclear bomb with nothing but
> manpower, electricity, diesel and a slide rule. I suggest you should
> stop shitting yourself over "means" and start worrying more about "motive".

:applause:

[kristopher]

41. I used to think you were worth having a discussion with.

I was wrong. When you popped out with the remark about pumped storage being an energy source, it suddenly made sense why your posts are always not quite on target, always missing the point and going off into irrelevancies.

You are arguing that the proliferation of nuclear power is is unrelated to nuclear weapons proliferation and your "proof" is that some countries that have nuclear power haven't developed nuclear weapons.

That is an idiotic statement that would get you laughed out of any serious discussion. If you think you ave successfully defended it, that can only be because you are proceeding from a position of profound and possibly irremedial ignorance of the same type that confuses energy storage with an energy source.

[Dead_Parrot]

44. This may shock you, Kris, but...

...I don't actually care what you think.

[jpak]

42. Let me diagram the sad history of nuclear power for you

Manahattan Project -> Hiroshima -> Atoms for Peace -> nuclear proliferation

and a branch

Manhattan Project -> naval reactor program -> civilian nuclear reacors (+ ballistic missile submarines) -> nuclear proliferation

[Dead_Parrot]

45. Exactly

The road from nothing to Hiroshima and Nagasaki did not actually include civillian reactors.

Ergo, they are not a requirement. Ergo, shitting bricks over (for example) Morocco's planned power reactor is just a waste of good underwear.

Glad you are catching on. :thumbsup:

[kristopher]

12. Typical shallow thought process

Virtually all the countries you've listed are under the nuclear umbrella of either the US or Russia. Remove our support and watch how fast they have their own arsenals.

[Dead_Parrot]

13. No wonder Switzerland keeps getting invaded.

So you're saying it's only the threat of instant nuclear death that's stopping Germany from invading Belgium again? And that if the US wasn't prepared to glass Berlin at a moments notice, the Belgians would have to get tooled up?

Scary. No wonder the Germans have no sense of humour.

[kristopher]

14. WTF are you talking about?

You have as little understanding of international relations as you do energy. What you wrote in that post makes no sense. Perhaps you could (try to) elaborate and make an actual argument instead of hiding behind nonsensical attempts as sarcasm.

Before you do, however, you might want to learn a little about NATO.

[Dead_Parrot]

15. lol

So, your argument is that vital to be covered by a nuclear umbrella, except when it isn't.

I can hardly argue with that. Now perhaps you'd like to revisit your "Remove our support and watch how fast they have their own arsenals" statement, in view of the fact that developed countries do not automatically declare war on each other, and can actually resolve issues without resorting to violence.

[kristopher]

18. What does this mean?

"So you're saying it's only the threat of instant nuclear death that's stopping Germany from invading Belgium again? And that if the US wasn't prepared to glass Berlin at a moments notice, the Belgians would have to get tooled up?"

Again, learn something about NATO (as one example of how our nuclear umbrella functions) before replying or don't bother replying at all.

[Dead_Parrot]

24. It means...

...that first-world countries simply do not resort to war to settle disputes. Your argument "Remove our support and watch how fast they have their own arsenals" is utter drivel.

Which is exactly why countries like Finland and Argentina, which have no 'umbrella' cover, can continue to develop nuclear power without pissing around with weapons: It simply isn't necessary.

The world does not share your paranoia.

[kristopher]

25. That is probably the most naive post ever written.

As a clear an unequivocal example of the wrongness of your words, the main lesson of the invasion of Iraq was that the possession of nuclear weapons (N. Korea) insulates a country from being pushed around and invaded.
Countries that are under our nuclear umbrella don't need to develop nuclear weapons because they are protected, not because they don't feel threatened. Withdraw our support and fail to eliminate the threats (such as Russia) and they will arm themselves. Take for example, your "example" of Argentina not having nuclear weapons...

How can you be sure? No one else is. During the Cold War they rejected the NNPT and had a weapons program for thirty years; only suspending it finally in 1990. There is no legitimate way to account for what may or may not have been produced in that period.



First world countries don't resort to war to settle disputes? That is simply preposterous; or haven't you heard of WWII, Korea, Vietnam, Afghanistan and Iraq?

If you are trying (in your usual very poor fashion) to say that nuclear powers don't fight wars because of MAD, I'd agree to that with the stipulation that MAD was never a policy that anyone was comfortable depending on. There are far too many versions of the GWBush gene in this world for that to be something we can count on as more and more nations go nuclear.

[Dead_Parrot]

26. Wow. You've actually starting channeling Ronald Reagan.

First off, North Korea's nuclear weapons are a joke. Whilst the prospect of a 1kt warhead on a missile that blows up more often that it reaches it's target may fill you with terror, it's unlikely going to fell a modern army: It's unlikely to get off the launchpad, to be honest.

No, the reason no-one wants to invade NK is they have a standing army of over 1.2 million brainwashed fanatics, so unless you carpet-nuked the entire country beforehand you would lose. And given that the country is a resource-stripped shithole, you probably wouldn't want to. The 2003 Iraqi army, on the other hand, consisted of 375,000 pissed off conscripts in clapped out equipment, most of whom wanted to surrender at the first opportunity. Given that the invading force was about the same size, it was a walk over.

Again, your statement that that countries not under a nuclear umbrella must develop nuclear weapons is demonstrably false, as evidenced by Switzerland, Finland, Sweden, Belarus, Ukraine, Kazakhstan, Mexico, Argentina, Brazil, and South Africa. Maybe if you say it again it will come true?

As signatories of the NPT, Argentina (along with everybody else) agree to inspections and audits by the IAEA. Now, I've already noticed that you are experiencing extreme paranoia, so maybe you believe Argentina have a secret underground lab where they are storing a nuclear arsenal: The IAEA disagrees with you there, but maybe you're more knowledgeable than them.

Korea, Vietnam, Afghanistan and Iraq are not first world countries. Maybe you have misunderstood, I'm talking about starting a war against a first world country - invading Belgium, conquering Finland, occupying Sweden, the sort of thing we used to worry about during the cold war. It's a safe bet that a developing country is not going to do anything significant against a first world country, but another first world country could feasibly have a go.

Finally, no, I wasn't referring to MAD. First world countries don't fight wars because it's just too damn expensive: The closest thing we've had recently is the Ossetian conflict, which Georgia started on the grounds that it would be a simple re-taking of it's own territory - a miss-calculation that has cost Georgia billions of dollars even without it blowing up into a full scale war. The US occupation of Iraq - a full scale invasion, but of a decidedly second rate country - is expected to have a total cost to the US economy of between 3 and 8 trillion dollars, depending on who you ask. The cost of occupying Switzerland? Forget it, even the Chinese don't have that sort of cash lying around. The Russians certainly don't.

Remember, wars are no longer fought - at least in the first world - by lines of cheap, disposable infantry firing cheap, disposable bullets: It's a world of smart bombs, cruise missiles, very high-tech aircraft and stupidly expensive armoured vehicles. The cost of firing a rifle is around 30 cents: The cost of firing a hellfire is $68,000, and you might have to fire a few to take out one modern MBT. Nobody can keep that up for long.

[kristopher]

50. Will Saudi Arabia Acquire Nuclear Weapons?

Will Saudi Arabia Acquire Nuclear Weapons?
Kate Amlin
James Martin Center for Nonproliferation Studies (CNS)
Monterey Institute of International Studies
August 2008


Introduction

Since the mid-1990s, media reports have periodically alleged that Saudi Arabia is attempting to acquire nuclear weapons. Such rumors have spread in recent years amidst speculation that the Saudis would seek such armaments in reaction to Iran developing a nuclear arsenal. This issue brief seeks to examine the accuracy of these allegations and elucidate the factors that would motivate Saudi decisions to acquire or forgo nuclear weapons.

After outlining past claims that Saudi Arabia has sought nuclear weapons, this issue brief with provide an overview of Saudi Arabia’s technical capabilities related to nuclear weapons development will be given. Next, potential motivations and disincentives behind Saudi Arabia’s proliferation decisions will be discussed. The issue brief will conclude by highlighting several issues that could alter Saudi Arabia’s proliferation calculus in the future.

This issue brief finds that it is unlikely that Saudi Arabia would seek nuclear weapons capacity under current security and economic circumstances, due to a combined lack of technical capabilities and a desire to maintain friendly relations with other countries. However, in the event that Iran develops working nuclear weapons or the U.S.-Saudi relationship significantly deteriorates, Saudi nuclear weapons development would become more likely in the future. ...

http://www.nti.org/e_research/e3_40a.html

[jpak]

29. I agree and well done

The genie is out of the bottle - thanks to nuclear power...

[NNadir]

30. Details, details, details..... Basically, as you know, no amount of reality can affect

faith based reasoning.

The turkey, locally grown in Maine of course, couldn't give a rat's ass about diversion of the dangerous fossil fuel oil to weapons of mass destruction, even though that sort of thing happens continuously and not just in the compost heap of his imagination.

[jpak]

31. LOL!!!!!11111

Go take your meds...

:rofl:

[Dead_Parrot]

36. True, but...

...It's always fun wringing their necks and stuffing them.

[TheWraith]

22. And congratulations on completely missing the point.

And I'm sure deliberately, since your simple jingoistic responses don't seem to cover actual debate.

75% of all the world's CO2 emissions come from countries with extensive nuclear capability and knowledge. If you never built another plant outside those 8 countries, you could still reduce global CO2 emissions by 75%. You seem to want to pretend that using nuclear power to curb greenhouse emissions means handing a dozen ICBMs each to Bosnia and Upper Volta.

[Oerdin]

54. That's a pretty dumb argument.

a much better summary would be to simply say only rich, highly developed countries have nuclear weapons and it is no surprise that rich, highly developed countries produce the most CO2.