Nuclear insanity

Posted by David Roberts at 4:58 PM on 10 Jul 2006

So, I've been thinking about a non-shrill way to discuss this, but ... the world has gone insane. Batshit insane.

First of all, Bush is going to sign a deal with Vladimir Putin to establish broad cooperation between U.S. and Russian domestic nuclear industries. In practice, this means that Russia gets billions of dollars to store thousands of tons of our nuclear waste. Even Bush supporters seem a little mystified -- the U.S. has balked at this kind of deal for about a decade. Why? Let us count the ways:

Russia has long supported Iran's nuclear program (not to mention North Korea's); it has resisted, and continues to resist, U.S. pleas to support economic sanctions on Iran.
Russia is notoriously lax about the nukes and spent nuclear fuel already littering the country. It's one of the major security threats Bush has neglected while pursuing his dimwitted messianism in the Middle East.
Putin is increasingly flagrant in his drive to reverse democratic reforms and reassert totalitarianism in Russia. Needless to say, there was no nationwide referendum on Russia becoming the world's nuclear dumping ground.

So why this deal, and why now? I'll give you one guess. No, I'll tell you: Bush wants Putin's support in our coming drive to war with Iran. He needs votes in the U.N. This is early maneuvering.

So, OK, that's insane. But this is even insaner:

The G8 nations, meeting this weekend in St. Petersburg, will unveil a concerted plan to spread nuclear technology across the globe. On purpose!

An action plan for "global energy security" to be agreed in St Petersburg next weekend envisages a network of nuclear fuel plants in G8 countries combined with the widespread sale of reactors to developing countries -- as long as they promise not to use them for making nuclear bombs.

Oh, they'll promise? Well then!

The idea is to keep the more sensitive nuclear facilities that can be easily diverted for making bombs within the G8. Other countries would not be allowed to enrich uranium fuel, or to reprocess spent fuel to extract plutonium.

Let me ask you: If this regime went into effect, how long would it last? We're talking about a reification of the developed/developing line, with a permanent set of first-class countries that hold the key to the energy security of second-class countries. That sound stable to you?

But it gets insaner:

At the same time, G8 leaders are proposing to bring back fast breeder reactors, which were scrapped in Germany, France and the UK in the 1990s because they were too expensive. They are designed to create and burn plutonium and are much less reliant on imports of uranium.

...

This is a dramatic change, since fast reactors have been off the political agenda in Western countries for at least a decade. And it will run into fierce opposition because of the risks it poses for international efforts to control the spread of nuclear weapons.

So the rich-kid G8 club will be selling hundreds of fast breeder reactors to the poor kids -- the very kind of reactors that pose the greatest proliferation dangers. And the poor kids will remain dependent on the rich kids for fuel for those reactors, forever. And they'll promise not to do anything naughty.

As dessert, here's one final bit of insanity:

The drive for nuclear power is being led by Putin, who is keen to maximise Russia's technology expertise. He has a plan for mass producing reactors, installing them on barges and selling them around the world as "floating nuclear power plants."

We're doomed.

For story: Nuclear insanity
10 Comments | Post a Comment

Alternatives

Let me begin by defending the Russian support for the Iranian nuclear program. (Which is not the same as thinking the Iranian nuclear program is a good idea.)

The Russians seem to believe that Iran has a right to develop peaceful uses of nuclear energy. Guess what, they're right!! We may not like it, but they have such a right under treaty. Nuclear weapons are another matter.

There are currently three basic problems with US criticism of Iranian nuclear weapons programs. India, Israel, and Pakistan. All three of which have gone ahead and developed their own nuclear weapons without so much as a peep from the US. (Except for India, but Bush just told them it's okay).

It is said that the South African government (during apartheid) developed and possesses a number of such weapons.

In terms of sanctions against Iran, are they the best way to achieve our desired results? (Umm, what are those, regime change? Return of the Shah?)

Sanctions sounds pretty, but again, what do we think will happen if they are in place? Remember that sanctions against Iraq starved the people but didn't bother Saddam Hussein one bit.

We really need to think before we act in the foreign arena.

And really, how many nationwide referenda have there been on US nuclear plans, or anything? We should be careful of double standards here.

"So the rich-kid G8 club will be selling hundreds of fast breeder reactors to the poor kids -- the very kind of reactors that pose the greatest proliferation dangers. And the poor kids will remain dependent on the rich kids for fuel for those reactors, forever. And they'll promise not to do anything naughty."

This is not what will happen. First of all, the "poor kids" will not doubt cut their own deals for fuel, and work on developing their own technology.

I hate to remind people, but one of the non-G8 nations is China, another is India, both have pretty advanced scientific industries. It is a sad and strange dream to believe that they will never catch up (or even surpass) the G8 countries.

Is the world wide spread of nuclear power as part of the answer to Global Warming a good idea?

Unless people can promote realistic alternatives (carefully prepared plans showing in detail how they would work), then it is likely to happen.

The nuclear industry will have the graphs, charts and everything else ready. It will show where the financing can be found. It will market itself.

Governments everywhere tend to go with what they believe is proven, it is a safer solution (which is why Microsoft dominates the PC market).

It is not enough to talk about the things wrong with nuclear power. The alternatives must be shown to be clearly better, now.

Governments that are planning for economic and population growth (and increased energy needs) will be making decisions.

What about the alternatives? Are they organized and do they have other plans to present?

patrick

by bookerly at 9:51 PM on 10 Jul 2006

Wind and Solar, to name two

Wind is growing like never before, and is getting cheaper and cheaper. Solar is growing precipitously as well. Renewables combined could supply our energy demands, solar, wind, tidal, biomass, etc.

The advantage of renewables like wind and solar is that, in addition to commercial plants, small scale and individual production centers can be developed to meet demands.

The economics is there, we just need the politics to begin putting most of its weight behind these technologies rather than behind fossil fuels and nuclear.

Diana

by DianaJardine at 10:23 AM on 11 Jul 2006

Why not Wind and Solar

Hi Diana,

Let me play devil's advocate. (smile) Pretend I am a government planner in the nation of (your choice) (smile).

Run the current numbers for me on wind and solar vs. nuclear. Are they cheaper now?

Can either industry ramp up production to meet my current needs plus a projected 400% increase in the next ten years (what I need to plan for)?

If I have many little plants and production centers, who will manage them and guarantee their success and continued operation?

I guess what I am wondering is why, if solar and wind are so great, they are not being looked at to provide more of the future energy needs? We say it is just politics, but what reasons do the decision makers give?

I feel a disconnect between the advocates of renewables and the decision makers. Before we can make the switch, we need to better understand what it is.

Any help would be appreciated!

thanks,

patrick

by bookerly at 2:07 PM on 11 Jul 2006

Greed is Green

Diane is correct, wind and solar can compete with historical energy sources, largely due to new technologies. Efficiency is even more competitive than wind and solar.

If I had a multi-billion dollar solar industry and suddenly a new clean coal technology emerged that was half the cost of my solar business then I would buy every politician running for public office to make sure that new coal technology does not see the light of day. However, if that new technology is more expensive than my main products then I am all for it.

"I am just a CEO doing my job protecting our shareholders."

by sunflower at 4:31 PM on 11 Jul 2006

Get Back to Regulation

I think it is time we get back to the regulatory model and simply tell the utilities to build so much renewable generation and then allow them to charge appropriate rates.

I have seen little good out of de-regulation of electricity markets.

by ffletcher at 7:06 PM on 11 Jul 2006

Fighting Greed and De-regulation

If the only reason why renewables aren't winning is that the existing energy company structure doesn't support, then how can that be changed?

Is there a plan or a vision for making the change, or are we stuck complaining, going nowhere (I ask this in all sincerity)?

Would enough politicians (local) tell utilities to build renewable generation to make a difference? Or would it be something that occurred in only a few places, and merely be chic?

patrick

by bookerly at 8:58 PM on 11 Jul 2006

Who is Going After Renewables

California municipal electrics, the utilties whom the state could not force into de regulation are the ones seeking renewables in the West. Further, I have found that the local public support for renewables is quite positive. Work is underway in the legislature to require Southern Califonia Edison, San Diego Gas and Electric, and Pacific Gas and Electric to do likewise and include such purchases or developments in their rate base. Further AB 35, the greenhouse gas legislation, is under development and it to is being considered for the tradiation rate base return on equity approach. Unless such rate base approaches are implemented renewables, generally considered less proven than tradiational sources, will require a greater developmental cost and be subject to greater technological risk and thus higher cost of capital. If it were a rate base asset, it would significantly reduce the cost of capital for these developments. Recent estimates for cost of taxable bonds for tradiational non-by passable utility development is 5% compared with an equity cost of capital of nearly 15% for venture capital.

by ffletcher at 11:25 PM on 11 Jul 2006

Good one Dave

"Oh, they'll promise?"

Do these big shots who play with the lives of the rest of us ever experience reality at all?

Is it all exexcutive jets and expense account living from cradle to grave for the princes of the divine right of capital? Yep.

http://amazngdrx.blogharbor.com/blog

by amazingdrx at 4:17 AM on 12 Jul 2006

Hehehehey

"floating nuclear power plants."

Has Pooty poot been corresponding with atomicrod?

We need nuclear buses too pooty. Put 'em on the barges to deliver a complete energy solution!

http://amazngdrx.blogharbor.com/blog

by amazingdrx at 4:22 AM on 12 Jul 2006

California Renewables

FFletcher, thanks for your post. (I left the state a while back, and haven't been following the issue that closely.)

What percent of California's energy needs look likely to be produced using renewable sources, and in what time frame?

thanks,

patrick

by bookerly at 5:17 PM on 12 Jul 2006

ADVERTISING POLICY

You are not logged in. Thus, you cannot post a comment. If you have an account, log in. If you don't have an account, well, by all means go make one! Meet you back here in five.