Submitted by EnergyTransitionNews t3_zy8f24 in Futurology
This article analyses the history of nuclear power programs in every state that has them. The author found that historically only 12-15% of nuclear power programs were not part of a weapons program and makes the case that the innate ability of nuclear power to enable proliferation will slow its growth compared to renewable energy. The authors find that there are numerous examples of countries who slow down or cease power reactor programs after abandoning a weapons program. Civil power reactor programs have provided cover for weapons programs, for training personnel, and obtaining materials for weapons and there are some cases of weapons grade material being produced in civil power reactors.
The conclusion is reached that geopolitical concerns will inherently limit nuclear power compared to renewables.
For those who disagree, and think nuclear should power the world, how happy are you with Iran's nuclear power program, and how many would be happy with other belligerent countries starting a nuclear power program?
e.g.
The history of nuclear power in North Korea is closely related to the country's development of nuclear weapons.
North Korea began researching nuclear technology in the 1950s, with the Soviet Union providing assistance. In the 1980s, North Korea began construction on a 5 megawatt experimental nuclear power plant at Yongbyon, with the intention of using it to generate electricity. However, the plant was not completed until 1986, and it was not connected to North Korea's power grid.
In the late 1980s, it was discovered that North Korea had been using its nuclear power program as a cover for a secret nuclear weapons development program. The International Atomic Energy Agency (IAEA) conducted inspections of North Korea's nuclear facilities in 1992 and 1993, and discovered evidence of a nuclear weapons program.
In 1994, North Korea signed an agreement with the United States known as the "Agreed Framework," in which it agreed to freeze its nuclear weapons program and to allow IAEA inspections in exchange for assistance in building two modern, proliferation-resistant nuclear power plants. However, North Korea later withdrew from the agreement and resumed its nuclear weapons program.
In 2006, North Korea conducted its first nuclear test, and it has conducted several more nuclear tests since then. North Korea has also continued to develop its nuclear power program, and it has constructed several additional nuclear power plants at Yongbyon. However, these plants are not believed to be connected to North Korea's power grid and are thought to be primarily used for research and development purposes.
Same for Pakistan:
Pakistan began researching nuclear technology in the 1950s, with the goal of developing a domestic nuclear power program. In 1972, Pakistan signed the Nuclear Non-Proliferation Treaty (NPT), which commits signatory countries to not develop nuclear weapons.
However, in the late 1970s, Pakistan began secretly developing a nuclear weapons program, with the assistance of other countries such as China and North Korea. Pakistan conducted its first nuclear weapons test in 1998, in response to nuclear tests conducted by India.
Also, any country in a potentially unstable region will be looking very closely at the current Ukraine war when considering fission plants. Look at how many close calls, near disasters, and potential outright blackmail Ukraine has had to deal with from its fission plants. Both sides have accused each other of planning to use them as dirty bombs. And, as a precaution, all the Ukrainian nuclear plants have been taken offline.
It's all well and good to design a fifth generation reactor with automatic safety features that rely on the laws of physics alone for safety. Your molten salt reactor still ends up as a puddle of radioactive ooze on the ground if someone blows it up, and your pebble bed reactor turns into radioactive grapeshot if someone lobs a bunker-busting bomb right through your containment dome.
These aren't things engineers typically consider, but they are things nations have to consider. Add to this that a distributed grid based on lots of solar, wind, and batteries is much more resilient to artillery and missile attacks. If a nation is entirely powered by rooftop turbines and solar, the only way to cut off their power is to destroy every one of their buildings. And at that point, even the most fortified nuclear plant is irrelevant, as they have no customers left to deliver power to.
>Your molten salt reactor still ends up as a puddle of radioactive ooze on the ground if someone blows it up
It does solidify tho. But maybe an easily controlled solid doesn't sound as scary?
>and your pebble bed reactor turns into radioactive grapeshot if someone lobs a bunker-busting bomb right through your containment dome.
That's inventive if nothing else.
They’re doing it anyway.
Not very happy. In fact, it's frankly embarrassing that Iran can figure it out and we can't
Viewing a single comment thread. View all comments