+- +-


Welcome, Guest.
Please login or register.
Forgot your password?

+-Stats ezBlock

Total Members: 51
New This Month: 0
New This Week: 0
New Today: 0
Total Posts: 14120
Total Topics: 268
Most Online Today: 12
Most Online Ever: 137
(April 21, 2019, 04:54:01 am)
Users Online
Members: 0
Guests: 4
Total: 4

Author Topic: No We NEVER Needed LWR Nuclear Power Plants to Make Nuclear Weapons  (Read 810 times)

0 Members and 0 Guests are viewing this topic.


  • Administrator
  • Hero Member
  • *****
  • Posts: 31108
  • Location: Colchester, Vermont
    • Renwable Revolution

Brian Donovan   
 July 1, 2014 

Gilbert, I signed your petition. When I have long comments, I do everything I can to organize them by topic, and eliminate all excess spaces. I use an indent for paragraphs, rather than a whole line.
 But let me read through and respond to your comment. While I agree that the argument was probably used to sell commercial nuclear power, and commercial nuclear is not the most direct route to nuclear weapons....weapons consideration do apply in many ways. Commercial nuclear power is a great cover for weapons programs. Yes, reactor spent fuel rods can be refined more easily than ores to produce weapons grade materials. All the tech used for commercial nuclear power is applicable to weapons. http://www.slate.com/articles/news_and_politics/explainer/2003/04/how_does_reprocessing_fuel_rods_help_build_nuclear_bombs.html
It is easier to chemically separate plutonium from spent fule than to enhance uranium. http://www.ricin.com/nuke/bg/bomb.html
 You also completely leave out the CANDU reactor's bomb potential http://ep.probeinternational.org/1998/06/07/why-candus-are-bomb-kits/
 Yes, if all the subsidize and gov breaks were removed, new fossils and nuclear would lose in the market, but it's still not fair not to give solar, wind and waste to fuels the sort of the gov breaks fossils and nukes got for 100 and 50 years.
 Your graphic is good, but it's even worse:
Without subsidies breaks and protection, electricity prices would
be: rooftop solar Power: 3-6 cents/KWH
Wind Power: 6-7 cents/kWh
Nuclear Power: 11-20+ cents/kWh
Coal Power: 9-32+ cents/kWh
solar 2.3, wind 12B, ethanol 17B, 70B fossils. nukes 120B$
 Yes, turns out peaking and reserve generators were fist installed because "baseload" nuclear and coal cannot throttle, and thus NEED BACKUP POWER. At least as much as solar and wind. What a joke, huh?
 Do you have a link for the injected Pu?
Then I have to ask the question. Did we really have a lot of choices back then? Fossils would have been worse in some ways. I agree, NOW it's no contest. :solar, wind backed by waste to fuels beats the daylights out of nuclear of fossils, but it wasn't always so.
 Don't stop commenting, but you are pushing the wonderful lack of limits renewableworld has given us. Try for efficiency of comment.

A. G. Gelbert   
 July 2, 2014 


Thank you for your serious, logical and fact based response.

I'll try to shorten my comments in the future. The formatting here is a little crazy. If I correct some grammar, everything gets spread out with umpteen spaces and I have to painstakingly go back and reduce the spaces. I'll try to get my grammar right the first time.

Of course, since the nukers think I can't do "basic math", they won't be surprised that I make grammatical errors.

For them I have but one thing to say about their "position" and why they cling to it:

They are part of corruptus in extremis cui prodest scelus is fecit tag team.

Prison is too good for them.

About the 1950's. Here's the straight skinny. The USA went nuts in the 1930s and 40s building hydroelectric facilities. Our electrical grid was about 35 to 40% powered by DAMS! We have yet to achieve those percentages again in renewable energy (yes, I know the grid is MUCH bigger now). The nukes put the dams on the back burner. That was a bad mistake. We had choices. We weren't allowed to make them; the big boyz made them without consulting us, period.

Reactor grade plutonium has way to high a percentage of Pu-240 (> 18%). It's HARD to get it below 7% for weapons grade. A special purpose reactor, as far as I know from what I read, is used for that because you just can't go around shutting down large nukes at exactly 9 or ten weeks after you cooked some fuel rods in them to harvest the low pu240 weapons grade stuff. It makes even less economic sense than the nuclear power plant does!

But I don't know my "maths" according to the nukers so I'll have to go home and eat a uranium sandwich or something!

Thanks for signing the petition!

I'll get back to you on the links. I'm tied up with some legal eagle stuff right now. Take care.
Hope deferred maketh the heart sick: but when the desire cometh, it is a tree of life. Pr. 13:12


+-Recent Topics

Doomstead Diner Daily by Surly1
November 19, 2019, 05:41:17 am

Corruption in Government by AGelbert
November 18, 2019, 11:23:39 pm

Future Earth by AGelbert
November 18, 2019, 09:31:24 pm

🚩 Global Climate Chaos ☠️ by AGelbert
November 18, 2019, 09:18:31 pm

Pollution by AGelbert
November 18, 2019, 05:58:47 pm

The Fabulous Plant Kingdom by AGelbert
November 18, 2019, 05:38:06 pm

November 18, 2019, 04:42:07 pm

Comic Relief by AGelbert
November 18, 2019, 03:50:36 pm

Resisting Brainwashing Propaganda by AGelbert
November 18, 2019, 02:58:02 pm

Genocide by AGelbert
November 18, 2019, 02:27:36 pm