Nuclear power for weapons? Mark Z. Jacobson's proliferation of errors

[wtmusic]

"In a new paper, Mark Z. Jaconson rejects consideration of nuclear power technology as a post carbon energy source:

...we do not consider nuclear energy (conventional fission, breeder reactors, or fusion) as a long-term global energy source. First, the growth of nuclear energy has historically increased the ability of nations to obtain or enrich uranium for nuclear weapons . . . and a large-scale worldwide increase in nuclear energy facilities would exacerbate this problem, putting the world at greater risk of a nuclear war or terrorism catastrophe . . . The historic link between energy facilities and weapons is evidenced by the development or attempted development of weapons capabilities secretly in nuclear energy facilities in Pakistan, India, Iraq (prior to 1981), Iran , and to some extent North Korea.

Jacobson's statements here are misleading to the point of disingenuousness in several respects. It is possible to produce nuclear power without the use of enriched uranium, and it is almost inconceivable that Jacobson does not know this. If he truly unaware of natural uranium thermal reactors, he has no business pretending to have enough knowledge to form valid judgements about nuclear technology. Natural, unenriched uranium can be used as a nuclear fuel in power reactors that use graphite or heavy water as moderators. All Canadian power reactors are designed to operate with natural uranium, thus enriched uranium is not required by a nuclear power industry. The first American reactors built during World War II, used natural uranium fuel."

http://nucleargreen.blogspot.com/2011/01/mark-z-jacobsons-proliferation-of.html

[defendandprotect]

1. k/r

[kristopher]

15. Rec for nuclear industry shill Barton trying to prove that up is down?

Barton is a shill for the nuclear industry. As he does in this piece, he routinely distorts facts and ignores science in an effort to prop up and promote arguments created within the bowels of the nuclear industry. His lack of interest the truth couldn't be displayed better than in this attempt to attack a highly respected researcher for the high crime of daring to contradict the propaganda of the nuclear industry.

There is abundant PEER REVIEWED research from institutions across the board supporting the link between the spread of civilian nuclear technology and nuclear weapons whlie there is NO PEER REVIEWED WORK that denies this link. Barton's absurd denial of the link contradicts not only Jacobson's paper, but underlying work on nonproliferation at institutions like Harvard and MIT.

Jacobson lists 3 reasons in his paper for excluding nuclear fission, only a snip of the first is included in the OP. Here is the remainder of that first reason:

For several reasons we do not consider nuclear energy (conventional fission, breeder reactors, orfusion) as a long-term global energy source. First, the growth of nuclear energy has historically increased the ability of nations to obtain or enrich uranium for nuclear weapons (Ullom <1994>), and a large-scale worldwide increase in nuclear energy facilities would exacerbate this problem, putting the world at greater risk of a nuclear war or terrorism catastrophe (Kessides, 2010; Feiveson, 2009; Miller and Sagan, 2009; Macfarlane and Miller, 2007; Harding, 2007). The historic link between energy facilities and weapons is evidenced by the development or attempted development of weapons capabilities secretly in nuclear energy facilities in Pakistan, India (Federation of American Scientists, 2010), Iraq (prior to 1981), Iran (e.g., Adamantiades and Kessides, 2009. p. 16), and to some extent North Korea. Feiveson (2009) writes that “it is well understood that one of the factors leading several countries now without nuclear power programs to express interest in nuclear power is the foundation that such programs could give them to develop weapons” (p. 65). Kessides (2010) asserts, “a robust global expansion of civilian nuclear power will significantly increase proliferation risks unless the current non- proliferation regime is substantially strengthened by technical and institutional measures and its international safeguards system adequately meets the new challenges associated with a geographic spread and an increase in the number of nuclear facilities” (p. 3860). Similarly, Miller and Sagan (2009) write, “it seems almost certain that some new entrants to nuclear power will emerge in the coming decades and that the organizational and political challenges to ensure the safe and secure spread of nuclear technology into the developing world will be substantial and potentially grave” (p. 12).

If the world were converted to electricity and electrolytic hydrogen by 2030, the 11.5 TW in resulting power demand would require ~15,800 850-MW nuclear power plants, or one installed every day for the next 43 years. Even if only 5% of these were installed, that would double the current installations of nuclear worldwide. Many more countries would possess nuclear facilities, increasing the likelihood that these countries would use the facilities to hide the development of nuclear weapons as has occurred historically.

Barton is in the same class as those on the right wing that try to undermine climate science by attacking the body of academic work behind it with lies and smears on those doing the research.

[defendandprotect]

18. Many have said that the basis for introducing nuclear power was to make atomic weapons

seem less dangerous --

sorry, I only quickly scanned most of your post --

and hope to read more of it later -- but did want to add that comment.

[NNadir]

19. I know Charles Barton. Charles Barton is a friend of mine. His father was in fact a scientist

at Oak Ridge National Laboratory and was active in the development of the MSRE, under direction of Alvin Weinberg, who, among other things, collaborated on the first nuclear engineering textbook with Nobel Laureate Eugene Wigner.

Somehow I very much doubt that there IS ONE, anti-science, anti-intellectual anti-nuke here (or anywhere else) whose family hung out with Nobel Laureates, but no matter. We know how much anti-nukes hate nuclear science, much as creationists hate molecular biology.

As usual, the anti-nukes go about making wild assumptions with no basis in fact, something that has been habitual ever since the ridiculous paid off anti-nuke Amory Lovins contended, in 1980, that a failure to abandon nuclear power would lead inevitably to nuclear war. (A similar stupid scientifically illiterate anti-nuke, Repuke Ralph Nader, said in 1975 that if nuclear power was not abandoned within 5 years - bringing him up to the time of the dumbbell Lovins' time - a civil war was inevitable)

Here's a link to the driveling prediction of the dipshit:

http://www.foreignaffairs.com/articles/33962/amory-b-lovins-l-hunter-lovins-and-leonard-ross/nuclear-power-and-nuclear-bombs">Gas man, I mean Gas bag, Amory Predicts Nuclear War.

Since these stupid types made their stupid predictions - not one of which was experimentally verified - nuclear power production on this planet increased by a factor of 4 - 400% in the percent talk that dumb "solar will save us" types so love. The number of nuclear wars observed since Jan 1, 1946, 64 years ago remains, irrespective of the paranoia of dumb anti-nukes, exactly zero.

Now, I don't believe that the anti-science anti-intellectual anti-nuke squad here is paid by the dangerous fossil fuel industry that they work so hard to support through elevating fantasy over reality. I would think that the dangerous fossil fuel industry tends to be more sophisticated with marketing, which is why they hire Lovins - who is as slick as the slick on the Gulf of Mexico - and not any of the mindless brats here.

Therefore I would never dream of saying that the anti-nukes here are paid by BP, Shell, etc, even if they work for BP, Shell, etc on a volunteer basis.

But the fact is that many anti-nukes are paid openly by the dangerous fossil fuel industry.

http://www.rmi.org/rmi/Amory+B.+Lovins">Famous Anti-nuke Amory Lovins describes his revenue sources:

Mr. Lovins’s other clients have included Accenture, Allstate, AMD, Anglo American, Anheuser-Busch, Bank of America, Baxter, Borg-Warner, BP, HP Bulmer, Carrier, Chevron, Ciba-Geigy, CLSA, ConocoPhillips, Corning, Dow, Equitable, GM, HP, Invensys, Lockheed Martin, Mitsubishi, Monsanto, Motorola, Norsk Hydro, Petrobras, Prudential, Rio Tinto, Royal Dutch/Shell, Shearson Lehman Amex, STMicroelectronics, Sun Oil, Suncor, Texas Instruments, UBS, Unilever, Westinghouse, Xerox, major developers, and over 100 energy utilities. His public-sector clients have included the OECD, the UN, and RFF; the Australian, Canadian, Dutch, German, and Italian governments; 13 states; Congress, and the U.S. Energy and Defense Departments.

Since 100% of the anti-intellectual anti-nukes here are blank and blind materialists, they would not understand how anyone else does anything as a result of ethics and morality. The fact that they do this says everything we need to know about this abysmal set of nincompoops and whence they come.

Charles is a fine man and though we've only met via correspondence, and although he and my friend Rod Adams (who I have met in person) are at odds these days, I have only good things to say about Charles.

Have a nice coal fired evening.

[kristopher]

21. Barton and Adams are both lying shills for the nuclear industry.

The proof for Barton is in the OP. It isn't a matter of opinion whether the spread of civilian nuclear technology contributes to nuclear weapons proliferation, it is a fact; making Barton's entire premise a blatant lie.

Lovins donates the proceeds of his work with corporations to charity - and has been doing so since at least 1977.

[Name removed]

22. Deleted sub-thread

Sub-thread removed by moderator. Click here to review the message board rules.

[XemaSab]

2. Jacobson has dedicated his career to

figuring out how many angels can dance on the head of a pin.

[DCKit]

3. Wait until the Taliban starts dropping TOKAMAKS on our heads.

You'll be singing a different (flatter) tune.

[Confusious]

6. They'll be dropping fusion reactors on our heads?

Ones that are usually the size of buildings? I'll stand by to see that!

[jpak]

4. Jacobson is correct - the first American reactors built during WW2 used natural uranium

to produce plutonium

which was used to build the Fat Man Bomb

which destroyed Nagasaki Japan on August 9, 1945

historic linky 1

India used CANDU technology to produce plutonium bombs as well

historic linky 2

yup

[Confusious]

7. Well, if you don't have enrichment facilities you can't get to that plutonium

Now can you? Jacobson was talking about enriched uranium, not plutonium. Missed the point.

Yup Yup

Nope Nope

[jpak]

9. The asshole that wrote the anti-Jacobson hit-piece talked about unenriched uranium

and you can use heavy water reactors fueled with unenriched uranium to make plutonium for bombs.

It has been done

:nuke:

yup

[Confusious]

11. Very difficult considering the high radioactivity of the fuel

I'm sure most terrorist groups have the facilities lying around to do that.

Besides which, the largest producers of greenhouse gasses already have nuclear power, and if they all used it, global warming would go away.

There are probably three times the number that have nuclear power then bombs.

[jpak]

13. We are talking state sponsored nuclear proliferation - not "terrorists"

India
Pakistan
Israel
North Korea

all used "peaceful" commerical nuclear techology to produce bomb material.

yup

[Confusious]

16. Which country has India given tech to?

and for that matter, Israel? They have never even admitted to having a bomb.

Unless you're trafficking in rumors, which wouldn't be surprising.

[jpak]

23. Canada sold CANDU technology to India, France sold Israel its heavy water "research" reactor

to make plutonium for bombs

If you don't believe Israel has dozens of plutonium bombs then...

:rofl:

[Confusious]

25. I asked what country india gave tech to

If you stopped long enough, you would have been able to read and answer the question.

And actually, after reading about it, I seriously doubt that anyone got a bomb from a commercial reactor, considering it's cheaper and easier to build a plant specifically to make plutonium.

The rods from a commercial reactor are so radioactive that it becomes a nightmare, and the density of plutonium would be almost nothing, considering that they are only enriched to ~5%. Military reactors to breed plutonium use a higher enrichment. Easier to build a that and not deal with it.

Plutonium from civilian reactors differs from plutonium from made for purpose reactors. It is explosive, but it poses big problems for weapons designers, and while explosive, it may explode with a force that is far weaker than the force created by plutonium from a weapons production reactor. Reactors intended to produce plutonium for weapons are simple to design and cheap to build. Building a plutonium weapons production reactor is not beyond the capacity of even an economically backward country like North Korea. Thus the risk of a would be proliferating nation using plutonium from civilian power reactors to build nuclear weapons is quite low.

Besides, as I'm sure you know, the United States commercial nuclear program didn't start until the 1950's, which by that time we had produced hundreds of bombs.

[jpak]

26. CANDU reactors produce plutonium using natural uranium and India used them to make bombs

CANDU reactors are proliferation friendly as they can be fueled while in operation - India used this feature to clandestinely irradiate uranium for plutonium production.

Clue - India's military and civilian nuclear infrastructure are one in the same.

:nuke:

[Confusious]

27. Where is the proof of this?

I sorry, but taking your word for it just ain't gonna happen.

In terms of safeguards against nuclear proliferation, CANDU reactors meet a similar level of international certification as other reactor designs. However, there is a common misconception that the plutonium for India's first nuclear detonation, conducted in 1974 Operation Smiling Buddha, was produced in a CANDU design. In fact, the plutonium was produced in the unsafeguarded CIRUS reactor whose design is based on the NRX, a Canadian research reactor. In addition to its two CANDU reactors, India has some unsafeguarded pressurised heavy water reactors (PHWRs) based on the CANDU design, and two safeguarded light-water reactors supplied by the US. Plutonium has been extracted from the spent fuel from all of these sources in the PREFRE reprocessing facility.<15> While all of these reactors could in principle be used for plutonium production, India uses an Indian designed and built military reactor for plutonium production called Dhruva. It is believed that the Dhruva reactor design is derived from the CIRUS reactor, with the Dhruva being scaled-up for more efficient plutonium production. It is this reactor which is thought to have produced the plutonium for India's more recent (1998) Operation Shakti nuclear tests.<16>

Oops, you have it wrong. Figures.

[jpak]

28. Oops I was right

"Plutonium has been extracted from the spent fuel from all of these sources in the PREFRE reprocessing facility"

yup

:nuke:

[Confusious]

29. Wrong

However, there is a common misconception that the plutonium for India's first nuclear detonation, conducted in 1974 Operation Smiling Buddha, was produced in a CANDU design.

While all of these reactors could in principle be used for plutonium production, India uses an Indian designed and built military reactor for plutonium production called Dhruva.


The underlying point of the argument is that you seem to think that they couldn't figure out for themselves how to make a bomb, or design a reactor. They never signed to the nuclear non proliferation treaty, and hence, never broke their word like Pakistan or North Korea. Israel has never admitted to having a bomb, so the point there is moot. You have one country. among....

Argentina
Armenia
Belgium
Brazil
Bulgaria
Canada
Czech Republic
Finland
Germany
Hungary
Japan
South Korea
Mexico
Netherlands
Romania
Slovakia
Slovenia
Croatia
Spain
Sweden
Switzerland
Republic of China Taiwan
Ukraine

The fact is also, I don't think most people here want to give nuclear power to everyone. If you take the 5 with Nuclear power and bombs, and they used Nuclear, global warming would go away.

[jpak]

31. Sorry, they subverted non-military nuclear technology to build plutonium-production reactors

to make bombs and reprocessed spent fuel from CANDU reactors to extract plutonium that was used in bombs.

Without Canadian nuclear technology, their nuclear weapons program would not exist.

yup

[Confusious]

32. Without Canadian nuclear technology

Kinda like the United States, or France or Russia or china over 50 years ago? What would we have done without that Canadian equipment?

In a country as large as India, if they wanted a bomb, they would have gotten one. Now If you want to talk about Luxembourg or North Korea, that's a different story.

They also have experimental reactors that need plutonium, such as the thorium reactors. It's easier to get plutonium for bombs from a reactor that is designed to do that, which a commercial reactor is not.

However, there is a common misconception that the plutonium for India's first nuclear detonation, conducted in 1974 Operation Smiling Buddha, was produced in a CANDU design.

I thought I would highlight it so you can see it.

[jpak]

33. It was from a Canadian-supplied research reactor - you common misconception is wrong

It was not a indigenous design - it was sold to India by Canada.

yup

[Confusious]

34. You started by saying it came from a CANDU design

and that that design posed a serious proliferation risk because the rods can be removed during operation.

Now it's just Canadian design.

You also stated that India was a proliferation risk, except that it was Canada that gave them the tech.

You were wrong.

So by extension, since the plutonium didn't come from a CANDU design, which we have established, Jacobson is full of shit.

[jpak]

35. India extracted plutonium from CANDU fuel - and used CANDU technology to build plutonium production

reactors

Anyway *YOU* want to spin it, they used Canadian research and commercial nuclear technology to build their military nuclear infrastructure.

yup

[Confusious]

38. It's hard to argue with people who can't read and understand.

It came from a Canadian experimental reactor, not a CANDU reactor. Reactors they obtained before the non proliferation treaty which they did not sign.

CIRUS (Canada India Research U.S.) is a research reactor at the Bhabha Atomic Research Center (BARC) in Trombay near Mumbai, India. CIRUS was supplied by Canada in 1954, but uses heavy water supplied by the U.S. (hence its name). It is the second oldest reactor in India. It is modeled on the Canadian Chalk River National Research X-perimental NRX reactor.<1> The 40 MW reactor burns natural uranium fuel, while using heavy water (deuterium) as a moderator.<2> It is a tank reactor type with a core size of 3.14 m (H)x2.67 m (D). It first went critical July 10, 1960.<2>

The reactor is not under IAEA safeguards (which did not exist when the reactor was sold) ( So basically you're saying that someone should be charged with a crime after the laws have been changed)

India, being a non-signatory of the Nuclear Non-Proliferation Treaty, has been subjected to a defacto nuclear embargo from members of the Nuclear Suppliers Group (NSG) cartel. This has prevented India from obtaining commercial nuclear fuel, nuclear power plant components and services from the international market, thereby forcing India to develop its own fuel, components and services for nuclear power generation.This has resulted in the creation of a large pool of nuclear scientists, engineers and technicians that have developed new and unique innovations in the areas of Fast Breeder Reactors, Thermal Breeder Reactors, the Thorium fuel cycle, nuclear fuel reprocessing and Tritium extraction & production. Ironically, had the NSG sanctions not been in place, it would have been far more cost effective for India to import foreign nuclear power plants and nuclear fuels than to fund the development of Indian nuclear power generation technology, building of India's own nuclear reactors, and the development of domestic uranium mining, milling and refining capacity.

Uranium used for the weapons program has been separate from the power program, using Uranium from indigenous reserves.

~20 Other countries have nuclear power but do not have a nuclear weapon program.

As I said before, the top CO2 producers all have nuclear power.

* China produced 6,017 million metric tons of carbon dioxide.

* The United States are second with 5,902 million metric tons.

* Russia is third with 1,704 million metric tons.

* India is fourth with 1,293 million metric tons.

* Japan is a close fifth with 1,246 million metric tons.

* Germany is sixth with 857 million metric tons.

* Canada is seventh with 614 million metric tons.

* The United Kingdom is eight with 585 million metric tons.

* South Korea is ninth with 514 million metric tons.

* Iran is tenth with 471 million metric tons.

per person:

* The United States produces 19.05 metric tons of carbon dioxide per person.

* Australia is second with 18.78.

* Canada is third with 16.47.

* Russia is fourth with 11.14.

* Germany is fifth with 10.00.

* Korea is sixth with 9.87.

* Japan is seventh with 9.41.

* New Zealand is eight with 8.99.

* The United Kingdom is ninth with 8.84.

* Greece is tenth with 8.44.

all except Greece and New Zealand have nuclear power.

If the top nine used nuclear power, global warming would be a non issue.

Proliferation is a scare issue when you talk about Nuclear power, since most nuclear supporters are only talking about the United States and those states with highest CO2 production, which amazingly also have nuclear power and Nuclear weapons.

[Nihil]

41. I don't often agree with you but you are spot on with these two points:

> If the top nine <CO2 producers> used nuclear power, global warming would be
> a non issue.

+

> Proliferation is a scare issue when you talk about Nuclear power, since most
> nuclear supporters are only talking about the United States and those states
> with highest CO2 production, which amazingly also have nuclear power and
> Nuclear weapons.

:applause:

[Nederland]

40. Let's discard the strawman please

If I were to say that I agree that heavy water reactor designs represent a serious proliferations risk and should be banned, would you be all in favor of building lots and lots of light water reactors?

Yeah, didn't think so.

This entire CANDU technology sub thread is nothing more than a strawman because everyone here knows that you are irrationally opposed to all types of nuclear power.

[NNadir]

20. Really? "As well?"

The CANDU is the same technology? Do tell.

Anti-nukes hate nuclear science the same way creationists hate molecular biology: From a position of vast ignorance.

Um, let's get the fundementalist perspective on nuclear war: What kind of weapons destroyed Hanoi?

Couldn't care less?

I thought so.

Um, how many nuclear bombs were dropped on Baghdad?

If it wasn't nuclear what was it?

Couldn't care less?

No suprise there...

How about Guernica? Hamburg? Tokyo?

When was the last time a dumb anti-nuke showed being something other than a dumb ass and called for banning refineries because oil was diverted to incinerate Dresden?

Zero. By coincidence zero represents how much nuclear science anti-nukes know.

Good one about the CANDU and the Hanford N-reactor. Never let it be said that anti-nukes have enough shame to be embarrassed by their extreme stupidity.

[jpak]

24. Hanford-N produced pluutonium for the Fat Man bomb - is this a lie

nope

Did India use CANDU technology to produce plutonium for its bombs (which were tested).

yup

Never let it be said that pro-nukes have enough shame to be embarrassed by their extreme stupidity.

:rofl:

[Confusious]

30. Wrong

However, there is a common misconception that the plutonium for India's first nuclear detonation, conducted in 1974 Operation Smiling Buddha, was produced in a CANDU design.

[jpak]

5. If there is no proliferation risk from uranium enrichment for nuclear power why did McCain want to

"bomb bomb Iran"

:rofl:

If there is no proliferation risk from uranium enrichment for nuclear power why is "someone" assassinating Iranian nuclear scientists and cyber-attacking their uranium enrichment facilities?

The moran that wrote that piece also failed to see the link between North Korea's 5 MW(e) nuclear power plant and the reprocessed spent fuel from that plant that was used to supply plutonium for their bomb program.

But morans will be morans.

yup!

[Confusious]

8. Really, did you even read the blurb?

Enrichment is not required for a nuclear reactor, and that's the point.

Yup Yup

Nope Nope.

[jpak]

10. Do you know anything about heavy water or graphite reactors that use unenriched uranium

to produce plutonium that can be extracted during reprocessing of spent fuel and used for bombs?

Ever hear of Savannah River Site and its heavy water plutonium production reactors that used unenriched uranium?

Do you know how Israel and India made their bomb plutonium?

clue - heavy water natural (unenriched) uranium reactors.

yup

duh

[Confusious]

12. Yes I do know that

But considering the fact that the largest producers of greenhouse gasses already have nuclear power, and if they all used it, global warming would go away. duh

Proliferation is an issue you folks bring up 'cause you got nothing else. duh

[jpak]

14. Nothing else? Like Chernobyl? like tritiated ground water? like the $1bn TMI accident?

like the $100 billion price tag for Yucca Mountain? like the sea turtle killing Oyster Creek nuclear plant, like the West Vallley NY reprocessing plant fiasco, like the $112 in stranded costs from canceled US nuclear plants, like the Energy Employees Occupational Illness Compensation Program Act of 2000???

nothing else indeed...

duh

duh

duh

:rofl:

[Confusious]

17. More and more things, that if you looked close enough

TMI accident, Really didn't amount to a hill of beans, lawsuits dismissed.

Chernobyl, Bad design, illegal in the US.

$100 billion price tag for Yucca Mountain, paid for by the government, because the government creates the most waste building those nuclear weapons.

$112 in stranded costs from canceled US nuclear plants, because of anti-nuclear nuts, you can build it, but you can't charge for the energy it creates.

Energy Employees Occupational Illness Compensation, That would be the government wouldn't it? Maybe from building nuclear weapons, not the Commercial energy companies.

In May 2010, the New Jersey DEP announced that water from the leak had spread to a nearby aquifer, though it stated there "was no imminent danger" to water supplies. At the current rate of migration, the water will reach the closest public wells within 10 to 15 years. The DEP stated there are several ways to address the problem, such as pumping out the tainted water, or injecting fresh water to force the tainted water backwards. A spokesman for Oyster Creek said they are working with the state on the issue, and have seen contamination levels steadily dropping, sometimes by "as much as 90%".<24>

RUN PANIC OH NOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOO!!!! WHAT WILL WE DOOOOO!!!! THERES NO TIIIIIMMME!!!!

10 to 15 years?

[Dogmudgeon]

36. So THIS is why the Anti-Nuclear Warriors are all up in arms tonight!

When do we get to claim that Wind Farms equal the Luftwaffe?

--d!

[Nihil]

37. Yeah, they had their New Year injection ...

... and rather than seeing the doctor when it stayed up after four hours
they decided to wank all over E/E instead ...

:shrug:

[Kolesar]

39. weak...eom