I think the main objection, which is mentioned briefly in the article, is that the infrastructure for nuclear energy generation is largely identical with that required for nuclear weapons production and maintenance. It is difficult to envision nuclear energy as a global solution without also envisioning new nuclear weapons proliferation problems.
One position that seems attractive is keeping some nuclear plants online where they exist, but not building any new capacity. On a long enough time scale, we can engineer around base load requirements.
> infrastructure for nuclear energy generation is largely identical with that required for nuclear weapons production and maintenance
Total nonsense.
> It is difficult to envision nuclear energy as a global solution without also envisioning new nuclear weapons proliferation problems.
Totally false. In fact to opposite is true. Many nations with civilian nuclear power don't have nuclear weapons. While many countries with nuclear weapons don't have civilian power.
Very different technology.
> One position that seems attractive is keeping some nuclear plants online where they exist, but not building any new capacity.
Very attractive if you are pro climate change I guess.
> On a long enough time scale, we can engineer around base load requirements.
Yeah ok, so we are faced with climate change and we have a 100% proven technology, both in scale AND in terms of being green.
But you would rather wait for some hopeful future technology that might happen as some point and then might be able to scale.
I honestly don't buy into the nuclear proliferation objection to fission power for several reasons:
1. Uranium is abundant. There are parts of the US you can walk around and pick up rocks that contain Uranium compounds that can be extracted without anything complicated;
2. Enriching uranium is relatively trivial. You basically need the ability to make UF6 and to make and operate centrifuges. That's it. This is 80+ year old tech; and
3. The design of an atomic bomb as was dropped on Hiroshima is likewise "primitive" and easily reproducible.
There is really no substantial barrier-to-entry to nuclear weapons. The only thing that's missing now is the political will.
The biggest factor in nuclear proliferation is nation-states seeking to guarantee their future existence (ie North Korea, Iran). Foreign policy by the dominant developed powers is far more significant than any imagined or real technological or industrial barrier.
Iran has not had a nuclear weapons program, not 20 years ago and not now. This has been proven again and again. Even the CIA confirmed as much and told this to Bush and every other president since.
Iran has the best monitored nuclear industry in the world by a large margin. Iran is a signatory of the non-proliferation treaty (unlike US or Israel) and always had the proper monitoring.
The Iran nuclear-weapons is pure political thing power play by the US. It has nothing to do with nuclear weapons and everything with Iran not wanting to accept US power.
Iran literally didn't even want to do this infrastrucutre. They had a deal with France to provide them with low enriched nuclear fuel, and France would then take the spent fuel back. All this monitored by the IAEA according to international non-proliferation standards. The US got involved and prevented any such deal.
Only then Iran then started trying to make its own fuel instead. They literally had zero infrastructure to do any of that stuff. The US basically forced them to develop the infrastructure themselves. As soon as they did this, US started claiming they were building nuclear weapons.
> Iran is a signatory of the non-proliferation treaty (unlike US or Israel)
The US, contrary to your claim, is a party to the NPT, but as one of the five recognized nuclear powers under the treaty it applies somewhat differently to the US.
I think nuclear energy is the solution to climate change, but this post is trivializing the issue. Yes, the steps to make the first atomic bombs are simple in concept, but in practice requires an enormous amount of resources (money and time).
Some of those resources overlap with nuclear power plants, hence the proliferation concern. Existing nuclear power infrastructure reduces the resources required to build a bomb.
Can't wait for the nuclear version of Western Europe facing gas shortages because of Russian disputes with Eastern European states their gas pipelines run through, then.
One position that seems attractive is keeping some nuclear plants online where they exist, but not building any new capacity. On a long enough time scale, we can engineer around base load requirements.