“In terms of weapons, the best disarmament tool so far is nuclear energy. We have been taking down the Russian warheads, turning it into electricity. Ten percent of American electricity comes from decommissioned warheads. We haven't even started the American stockpile.”
Stewart Brand
February
2010
TED
Conference Debate: Does the World Need Nuclear Energy?
“The ability to construct a weapon from
reactor-grade plutonium was demonstrated decades ago. It is dangerous even to
consider it an open question. Hans Blix, director-general of the IAEA, informed
our Institute that there is 'no debate' on this point in the
Safeguards Department of the IAEA, and that the agency considers virtually all
isotopes of plutonium, including high burn-up reactor-grade plutonium, to be
usable in nuclear weapons. In June
1994, U.S. Energy Secretary Hazel O'Leary declassified further details of a
1962 test of a nuclear device using reactor-grade plutonium, which successfully
produced a nuclear yield.”
Steven Dolley, Research Director
Nuclear Control Institute, Washington, DC. Using warhead plutonium as reactor
fuel does not make it
unusable in nuclear bombs.
March 28, 1997. http://www.nci.org/i/ib32897c.htm
It is
one thing to lie in error or ignorance. One may be young, or new to a field of
knowledge. If one is not taking speaking and consulting fees as an expert on
the topic, and makes no claims to expertise, no one will think twice about the
occasional utterance of pure bullshit. But this is not the case with Stewart
Brand. He describes himself as a former member of Greenpeace, a veteran of the
environmental movement who now speaks about the heresies of the movement he
helped found. He gets to speak at TED conferences and
earn a living being one of the select few who lead the conversation on how to save the world. He is a man of science, and as such he should
apply the scientific method to his own assumptions. So if he wants to believe
that nuclear energy is a fantastic disarmament tool, the first thing he should
do is test this idea for negative evidence. Perhaps he has. It is not difficult
to do. Reliable sources on the topic are found easily, and when he finds that
the UN agency charged with promoting
nuclear power disagrees with his assumption, he ought to desist from spreading
this wrong information. Only he can answer why he hasn't done his homework, or
if he has, why he deliberately lies about this question of nuclear power plants
as disarmament tools.
This is not a trivial matter because this lie about nuclear power plants' capacity to “burn up” reactor grade plutonium is repeated often and taught to novices in the nuclear priesthood. They take it in as gospel truth and, like their teachers, are not inclined to question their beliefs as they solidify.
Many
others have written about the nuclear proliferation implications of nuclear
power plants. To speak of nuclear reactors as a solution to proliferation
issues is a bad joke. If nuclear power plants were such a good solution to disposing of bomb-grade plutonium, Israel and the US would give their surplus plutonium to Iran and help them build a reactor to "burn it" up.
There is a shred of truth in the argument because the
bomb-grade fuel that is "burned" in reactors is turned into something more difficult
to make a bomb with, but that’s all. The use of bomb-grade plutonium as fuel is
not a solution to the ever increasing amounts of nuclear waste, nor will it
ever lead to a final disarmament. Decommissioned warheads could just as well be
sabotaged with impurities and put in permanent disposal. And we should not
overlook the fact that, while some people talk of neutralizing Russian
warheads, the
US is still producing replacement plutonium pits in Los Alamos in order to
refresh the aging inventory of plutonium in its arsenal. Have your weapons if
you must, but don’t con us with some fairy tale that proliferation is slowing
and disarmament is really happening.
Other
sources:
In United
States Circumvented Laws To Help Japan Accumulate Tons of Plutonium,
Joseph Trento described how the US government at first worried about Japan
accumulating plutonium from reactors if the US agreed to share nuclear
technology. Later, the US was a willing
accomplice in letting Japan’s plutonium stockpile increase.
Herman
Scheer (1944-2010) in The Energy
Imperative wrote:
"Clearly, the existing nuclear weaponry
or its aspired possession cannot be seen separately from the question of
nuclear power. No state which owns and wishes to retain nuclear weapons (and
none who is secretly striving for nuclear weapons or, without the knowledge of
its own population, want to keep this option open) will be willing to give up
its own nuclear power plants. If you have, or want, atomic bombs, not only do
you need nuclear power plants, you also need the basis for the an atomic
technology industry. For every nuclear power, nuclear technology is a 'double-use technology': having nuclear weaponry without one's own
atomic technological potential is unthinkable, and maintaining such a potential
solely to build nuclear weapons is almost unaffordable. Thus for as long as we
have nuclear weapons, attempts will be made to stimulate a 'renaissance in
nuclear power'. But no government will admit to holding on to its nuclear
power plants simply to maintain this status. Instead, together with the atomic
energy organizations, nuclear powers desperately seek justification for arguing
that renewable energy alone is insufficient to meet energy demands. And this is
how excellent nuclear scientific knowledge comes to be paired with ignorant
arguments against renewable energy. Putting a stop to nuclear energy means
nuclear disarmament, otherwise there will be ever greater and more influential
attempts to limit renewable energy. Governments that recognize and work towards
the target of using renewable energy to meet all their energy needs must also
accept the goal of nuclear disarmament. Any other path would be inconsistent or
blind to the true circumstances."
-Hermann Scheer, Social Democrat member of the German
Bundestag Parliament, President of Eurosolar (The European Association for
Renewable Energy) and General Chairman of the World Council for Renewable
Energy. The Energy Imperative. p. 160-161. Routledge, 2012.
Hi Dennis - can you write a blog on the elections in Japan (or is that too touchy of a subject at the moment?) I'm just curious to get an insider's view on the election results.
ReplyDeleteJust today, 2 articles in the mainstream media talk about Japan restarting nuclear because of the election results.
Also, I'm not sure if you're limited in what news you get, so this link gives each day's latest nuclear news:
http://nucnews.com/whatsnew.php
Take care.
Hi, Anonymous;
ReplyDeleteThanks for the link and the comment. I might write about the political situation in Japan at some time, but so far I have refrained from doing so because I feel that future energy policy will not be determined by a particular party. I think any party that gets power will be forced by the bureaucracy and business community to restart some nuclear plants. If nuclear energy is to be stopped, it will have to be stopped by popular resistance.