Comments on: The case for nuclear power http://climateanswers.info/2009/03/the-case-for-nuclear-power/ What we can and should do to prevent dangerous climate change and also to make us more secure, richer and happier Wed, 11 Jan 2012 08:25:19 +0000 hourly 1 http://wordpress.org/?v=3.3.1 By: T-Squared http://climateanswers.info/2009/03/the-case-for-nuclear-power/comment-page-1/#comment-1350 T-Squared Wed, 10 Mar 2010 00:06:14 +0000 http://climateanswers.info/?p=116#comment-1350 Stephen: I am pretty sure that Pakistan had a nuclear bomb before it had nuclear power reactors. I would even suggest they blazed the trail for nations seeking to enter the nuclear weapons club without building reactors first by enriching uranium to 90%-plus using centrifuges. And the Iraqis came close to build a nuclear bomb without a reactor. Yes, they did try and build a reactor to possibly produce weapons-grade plutonium, but that was too provocative and obvious to the Israelis. This forced Saddam to enrich uranium to 90%-plus using calutrons, i.e. no reactors needed. (I say "possibly produce weapons-grade plutonium", because there is a school of thought that Saddam did intend to use the French built-and-designed reactor for peaceful purpose, but after the Israeli attack he dedicated his nuclear program to creating a nuclear deterrent against such actions.) I should also be noted that it is much more efficient to construct a research reactor to produce weapons-grade plutonium, e.g. the North Koreans, rather than commerical nuclear reactors. A nuclear reactor run to produce commerical energy will not produce weapons-grade plutonium. When you remove the spent fuel after the year to year-and-a-half in the commerical reactor, the plutonium will be adulterated. You can get around this by construct a reactor that allows for on-line re-fueling, which is what India did and the Americans did at Hanford, to remove the plutonium before it becomes poisoned and effectively useless for weapons production. I guess my point after all of that is: there a number of ways to construct a nuclear bomb, but using nuclear reactors whose primary purpose is power production is the least efficient and a bit too obvious. T-Squared: You are correct that there are other ways to build nuclear bombs than building nuclear power stations. But Pakistan began considering nuclear power in the 1950s, when it joined Eisenhower's Atoms for Peace programme. The first power plant, near Karachi, began operating in 1972, and the first highly-enriched uranium was announced in 1978. A good chronology can be found at http://www.stimson.org/southasia/?SN=SA200908182294. Pakistan was also not particularly worried that its ambitions to build a bomb were obvious. India had tested a nuclear weapon in 1974. Pakistan in not a signatory of the Non-Proliferation Treaty (as India is not). Stephen: I am pretty sure that Pakistan had a nuclear bomb before it had nuclear power reactors. I would even suggest they blazed the trail for nations seeking to enter the nuclear weapons club without building reactors first by enriching uranium to 90%-plus using centrifuges.

And the Iraqis came close to build a nuclear bomb without a reactor. Yes, they did try and build a reactor to possibly produce weapons-grade plutonium, but that was too provocative and obvious to the Israelis. This forced Saddam to enrich uranium to 90%-plus using calutrons, i.e. no reactors needed. (I say “possibly produce weapons-grade plutonium”, because there is a school of thought that Saddam did intend to use the French built-and-designed reactor for peaceful purpose, but after the Israeli attack he dedicated his nuclear program to creating a nuclear deterrent against such actions.)

I should also be noted that it is much more efficient to construct a research reactor to produce weapons-grade plutonium, e.g. the North Koreans, rather than commerical nuclear reactors. A nuclear reactor run to produce commerical energy will not produce weapons-grade plutonium. When you remove the spent fuel after the year to year-and-a-half in the commerical reactor, the plutonium will be adulterated. You can get around this by construct a reactor that allows for on-line re-fueling, which is what India did and the Americans did at Hanford, to remove the plutonium before it becomes poisoned and effectively useless for weapons production.

I guess my point after all of that is: there a number of ways to construct a nuclear bomb, but using nuclear reactors whose primary purpose is power production is the least efficient and a bit too obvious.

T-Squared: You are correct that there are other ways to build nuclear bombs than building nuclear power stations. But Pakistan began considering nuclear power in the 1950s, when it joined Eisenhower’s Atoms for Peace programme. The first power plant, near Karachi, began operating in 1972, and the first highly-enriched uranium was announced in 1978. A good chronology can be found at http://www.stimson.org/southasia/?SN=SA200908182294.

Pakistan was also not particularly worried that its ambitions to build a bomb were obvious. India had tested a nuclear weapon in 1974. Pakistan in not a signatory of the Non-Proliferation Treaty (as India is not).

]]>