Nuclear Power and the Pathway to Nuclear Weapons

[kristopher]

For quicker clarity: the part that comes after the semicolon is the "loophole", not the fix.

The Flaw in the Non-Proliferation Treaty's Article IV: Nuclear Power and the Pathway to Nuclear Weapons
Closing a loophole that gives a reward to non-nuclear weapons countries who sign the treaty; promise never to make the bomb and you can build and operate nuclear reactors.
May 3, 2010

This week, the nuclear Non-Proliferation Treaty (NPT) will undergo a review that has taken place every five years since the treaty went into effect in 1970. Delegates from around the world will gather from May 3-28 at the United Nations in New York to assess the status of the treaty. The nuclear activities of Iran, a signatory to the treaty, are expected to play a major role in the discussions with Iranian’s president, Mahmoud Ahmadinejad expected to participate and speak early in the conference.

What likely will not happen is a revision of the treaty’s Article IV, which states: “Nothing in this Treaty shall be interpreted as affecting the inalienable right of all the Parties to the Treaty to develop research, production and use of nuclear energy for peaceful purposes. . .”

In effect, Article IV offers a nuclear reward to non-nuclear weapons countries who sign the treaty; promise never to make the bomb and you can build and operate nuclear reactors. Since the materials, and to a certain degree, the processing involved in arriving at fuel for a civilian reactor or to create an atomic bomb are basically the same, a civilian program can lead to – and has led to – the covert development of nuclear weapons. Examples of this pathway include India, Pakistan, Israel and North Korea – none of whom are signatories to the NPT. (South Africa also developed nuclear weapons from its civilian nuclear program but has since dismantled its arsenal and is now a NPT signatory.

Some, including Sergio Duarte, the U.N. high commissioner for non-proliferation, argue that Article IV is the cornerstone of the NPT on which the success of the entire treaty depends. But Dominque Lalanne, Director of Research in nuclear and particle physics at the French Center for Scientific Research, contends that Article IV is in fact the problem, because, Lalanne says, "nuclear power is the way to nuclear weapons"...

http://www.alternet.org/world/146710/the_flaw_in_the_non-proliferation_treaty%27s_article_iv%3A_nuclear_power_and_the_pathway_to_nuclear_weapons?page=entire

[Nederland]

1. Let me get this straight

India, Pakistan, Israel and North Korea all developed nuclear weapons, and they are not signatories to the NPT.

South Africa and Iran also (or are currently try to) developed nuclear weapons, and they are signatories to the NPT.

And this is evidence of what exactly?

It tells you that there is absolutely no relationship between signing the NPT and developing nuclear weapons. None.

Only two things are required to obtain nuclear weapons: money and time. There is only one way to insure that no more countries obtain nuclear weapons. Have a nuclear war and bomb the entire human race back to the stone age. Of course, even if you did that it would probably only be a few millennium before our mutant spawn came back and developed them all over again...

The cat is already out of the bag. Deal with it.

[kristopher]

2. Manufacturing nonsense isn't going to change the problem.

Your reasoning is becoming increasing devoid of reason. The article lays out a recognized issue in a cogent manner. Your hand waving dismissal of reality will not solve the recognized problem created by the link between nuclear power and nuclear weapons.

MIT nuclear study – findings

Over the next 50 years, unless patterns change dramatically, energy production and use will contribute to global warming through large-scale greenhouse gas emissions — hundreds of billions of tonnes of carbon in the form of carbon dioxide. Nuclear power could be one option for reducing carbon emissions. At present, however, this is unlikely: nuclear power faces stagnation and decline.

This study analyzes what would be required to retain nuclear power as a significant option for reducing greenhouse gas emissions and meeting growing needs for electricity supply. Our analysis is guided by a global growth scenario that would expand current worldwide nuclear generating capacity almost threefold, to 1000 billion watts,by the year 2050.Such a deployment would avoid 1.8 billion tonnes of carbon emissions annually from coal plants, about 25% of the increment in carbon emissions otherwise expected in a business-as-usual scenario. This study also recommends changes in government policy and industrial practice needed in the relatively near term to retain an option for such an outcome. (Want to guess what these are? - K)

We did not analyze other options for reducing carbon emissions — renewable energy sources, carbon sequestration,and increased energy efficiency — and therefore reach no conclusions about priorities among these efforts and nuclear power. In our judgment, it would be a mistake to exclude any of these four options at this time.

STUDY FINDINGS
For a large expansion of nuclear power to succeed,four critical problems must be overcome:

Cost. In deregulated markets, nuclear power is not now cost competitive with coal and natural gas.However,plausible reductions by industry in capital cost,operation and maintenance costs, and construction time could reduce the gap. Carbon emission credits, if enacted by government, can give nuclear power a cost advantage.

Safety.
Modern reactor designs can achieve a very low risk of serious accidents, but “best practices”in construction and operation are essential.We know little about the safety of the overall fuel cycle,beyond reactor operation.

Waste.
Geological disposal is technically feasible but execution is yet to be demonstrated or certain. A convincing case has not been made that the long-term waste management benefits of advanced, closed fuel cycles involving reprocessing of spent fuel are outweighed by the short-term risks and costs. Improvement in the open,once through fuel cycle may offer waste management benefits as large as those claimed for the more expensive closed fuel cycles.

Proliferation.
The current international safeguards regime is inadequate to meet the security challenges of the expanded nuclear deployment contemplated in the global growth scenario. The reprocessing system now used in Europe, Japan, and Russia that involves separation and recycling of plutonium presents unwarranted proliferation risks.

[Nederland]

3. The underlined portion is wrong (nt)

[kristopher]

4. Riiiiight.....

MIT nuclear study – findings

Over the next 50 years, unless patterns change dramatically, energy production and use will contribute to global warming through large-scale greenhouse gas emissions — hundreds of billions of tonnes of carbon in the form of carbon dioxide. Nuclear power could be one option for reducing carbon emissions. At present, however, this is unlikely: nuclear power faces stagnation and decline.

This study analyzes what would be required to retain nuclear power as a significant option for reducing greenhouse gas emissions and meeting growing needs for electricity supply. Our analysis is guided by a global growth scenario that would expand current worldwide nuclear generating capacity almost threefold, to 1000 billion watts,by the year 2050.Such a deployment would avoid 1.8 billion tonnes of carbon emissions annually from coal plants, about 25% of the increment in carbon emissions otherwise expected in a business-as-usual scenario. This study also recommends changes in government policy and industrial practice needed in the relatively near term to retain an option for such an outcome. (Want to guess what these are? - K)

We did not analyze other options for reducing carbon emissions — renewable energy sources, carbon sequestration,and increased energy efficiency — and therefore reach no conclusions about priorities among these efforts and nuclear power. In our judgment, it would be a mistake to exclude any of these four options at this time.

STUDY FINDINGS
For a large expansion of nuclear power to succeed,four critical problems must be overcome:

Cost. In deregulated markets, nuclear power is not now cost competitive with coal and natural gas.However,plausible reductions by industry in capital cost,operation and maintenance costs, and construction time could reduce the gap. Carbon emission credits, if enacted by government, can give nuclear power a cost advantage.

Safety.
Modern reactor designs can achieve a very low risk of serious accidents, but “best practices”in construction and operation are essential.We know little about the safety of the overall fuel cycle,beyond reactor operation.

Waste.
Geological disposal is technically feasible but execution is yet to be demonstrated or certain. A convincing case has not been made that the long-term waste management benefits of advanced, closed fuel cycles involving reprocessing of spent fuel are outweighed by the short-term risks and costs. Improvement in the open,once through fuel cycle may offer waste management benefits as large as those claimed for the more expensive closed fuel cycles.

Proliferation.
The current international safeguards regime is inadequate to meet the security challenges of the expanded nuclear deployment contemplated in the global growth scenario. The reprocessing system now used in Europe, Japan, and Russia that involves separation and recycling of plutonium presents unwarranted proliferation risks.

[Nederland]

9. It's just a matter of opinion is all

The reprocessing system now used in Europe, Japan, and Russia that involves separation and recycling of plutonium presents unwarranted proliferation risks

I believe this statement is wrong. You think its right. Nothing more to be said.

[kristopher]

10. It isn't a matter of opinion where all "opinions" are equal.

Unless you have a value system that disregards human life the facts completely support the conclusion that the threat of nuclear weapons proliferation is tied to the spread of nuclear power.

You can disregard the evidence and state an "opinion" that the conclusion is false, but your "opinion" is as wrong as those those that have an "opinion" denying Obama is a legitimate president.

[Nederland]

11. You are correct

My opinion is supported by the facts, yours is not.

My opinion is consistent with the fact that in 50 years of nuclear power, nobody has every stolen nuclear waste from a nuclear reactor and built a bomb from it. My opinion is consistent with the fact that every country that has ever developed a nuclear weapon did so either by building their own "research" reactor to breed plutonium or bought thousands of centrifuges to purify uranium. The fact that nobody ever choose to steal nuclear waste and then purify it doesn't seem to influenced your opinion in the slightest. The fact that getting bomb material that way is orders of magnitudes harder than doing it the other ways I listed doesn't seem to influenced your opinion either. And to continue on with the theme, your opinion also doesn't seem to be influenced by the fact that even if you eliminated every nuclear reactor on the planet, countries could still obtain bomb material the same way they always have in the past.

Must be interesting living in a world where you don't let a little things like facts get in the way of having an opinion.

[kristopher]

12. Yes I am.

We are discussing the types of events where you don't WANT to learn by experience. Your list of "proofs" prove nothing about the future for the essence of your logic is that if something has never happened before it can not possibly happen in the future and therefore we can disregard possible consequences no matter how extreme they might be.

Your opinion is supported by nothing except your desire to promote nuclear power. Facts and truth are superfluous to your goal.

[Confusious]

5. Bullshit talk

Top carbon producers

China
United States
European Union
Russia
India
Japan
Germany
United Kingdom
Canada

Seems to me, all those countries either have nuclear weapons, or use nuclear power from a country that does.

Besides that, it's been shown to you that you don't need nuclear power to make nuclear weapons,you just don't seem to remember.
I'd get that checked out.

[Dead_Parrot]

6. I'm pretty sure Germany and the UK are part of the EU.

Counting them twice seems a little harsh

[Confusious]

7. They are two of the biggest producers

though like 1.9% for the UK and 2.8% for Germany, while 13.1% for all of the EU.

If each one of those was to switch to wind, solar, nuclear, worldwide carbon emissions would be reduced 65%-75%.

[Nihil]

8. Either your maths or your English is faulty ...

> though like 1.9% for the UK and 2.8% for Germany
+
> If each one of those was to switch to wind, solar, nuclear,
> worldwide carbon emissions would be reduced 65%-75%.

?

Now if you were meaning the first few on your previous list
(China, United States, ...) then you'd be close.
:hi:

[Confusious]

13. My English

I was tired.

If they ALL.

[Nihil]

14. OK - thanks. (n/t)

:hi: