Greenpeace urges NPT delegations to recognise proliferation risks of nuclear energy expansion

[bananas]

http://www.greenpeace.org/international/en/news/Blogs/nuclear-reaction/the-nuclear-non-proliferation-treaty-review-c/blog/11820

The nuclear Non-Proliferation Treaty review conference Greenpeace urges delegations to recognise proliferation risks of nuclear energy expansion

Blogpost by jmckeati - May 21, 2010 at 1:07 PM

The nuclear Non-Proliferation Treaty is undergoing its latest five-yearly review at the United Nations in New York right now.

Yesterday Greenpeace held an official NPT side event where independent experts highlighted the growing nuclear weapons proliferation risks linked to the expansion of nuclear power across the world. The experts Dr. Frank Barnaby and Shaun Burnie presented a critique of the impact of Multilateral Nuclear Approaches (MNAs) currently under discussion as means to reduce proliferation risks. In particular, they highlighted the relative ease with which plutonium can be separated from spent nuclear fuel from light water reactors, using a clandestine reprocessing facility.

Dr. Frank Barnaby warned: "The military atom and the peaceful atom are identical. The technology to produce nuclear weapons is the same as that used in civil nuclear reactors. Any nation operating a light water reactor will have the means to acquire plutonium within days of operating a secret reprocessing plant."

Nuclear expert Shaun Burnie added: "Multilateral approaches proposed to control the trade in uranium fuel in practice will play no role in the multibillion nuclear fuel market. Those promoting the multilateral approaches create an illusion that you can expand nuclear power without proliferation risks - you can't."

The proposed ‘solutions’ to tackle proliferation risks are merely excuses to allow for a global expansion of the nuclear energy. Further spread and growth of nuclear energy would lead to dramatic and unacceptable increase of proliferation risks through the growing production of accessible spent nuclear fuel and, hence, nuclear weapons materials such as plutonium, and the uncontrollable spread of (potentially) dual technologies.

Countries proposing new regimes in controlling civil nuclear power are those that promote a global nuclear expansion, including to states that currently have no nuclear program. The NPT delegations should acknowledge that the only way of reducing the nuclear proliferation risks is to phase out the use of nuclear energy.

You can watch a video of the event right here.

Via http://nuclear-news.net/2010/05/22/alternative-nuclear-non-proliferation-meeting-held/

[kristopher]

1. Holdren (President's Science and Technology advisor) on nuclear and renewables

A new Yucca Mountain every 2 years

The renewable option: Is it real?
SUNLIGHT: 100,000 TW reaches Earth’s surface (100,000 TWy/year = 3.15 million EJ/yr), 30% on land. Thus 1% of the land area receives 300 TWy/yr, so converting this to usable forms at 10% efficiency would yield 30 TWy/yr, about twice civilization’s rate of energy use in 2004.

WIND: Solar energy flowing into the wind is ~2,000 TW. Wind power estimated to be harvestable from windy sites covering 2% of Earth’s land surface is about twice world electricity generation in 2004.

BIOMASS: Solar energy is stored by photosynthesis on land at a rate of about 60 TW. Energy crops at twice the average terrestrial photosynthetic yield would give 12 TW from 10% of land area (equal to what’s now used for agriculture). Converted to liquid biofuels at 50% efficiency, this would be 6 TWy/yr, more than world oil use in 2004.

Renewable energy potential is immense. Questions are what it will cost & how much society wants to pay for environmental & security advantages.

The nuclear option: size of the challenges
• If world electricity demand grows 2%/year until 2050 and nuclear share of electricity supply is to rise from 1/6 to 1/3...

–nuclear capacity would have to grow from 350 GWe in 2000 to 1700 GWe in 2050;

– this means 1,700 reactors of 1,000 MWe each.

• If these were light-water reactors on the once-through fuel cycle...
---–enrichment of their fuel will require ~250 million Separative Work Units (SWU);
---–diversion of 0.1% of this enrichment to production of HEU from natural uranium would make ~20 gun-type or ~80 implosion-type bombs.

• If half the reactors were recycling their plutonium...
---–the associated flow of separated, directly weapon - usable plutonium would be 170,000 kg per year;
---–diversion of 0.1% of this quantity would make ~30 implosion-type bombs.

• Spent-fuel production in the once-through case would be...
---–34,000 tonnes/yr, a Yucca Mountain every two years.

Conclusion: Expanding nuclear enough to take a modest bite out of the climate problem is conceivable, but doing so will depend on greatly increased seriousness in addressing the waste-management & proliferation challenges.

Conclusion: Expanding nuclear enough to take a modest bite out of the climate problem is conceivable, but doing so will depend on greatly increased seriousness in addressing the waste-management & proliferation challenges.

Mitigation of Human-Caused Climate Change
John P. Holdren

[bananas]

2. kick. nt