What to do about Nuclear Energy

Now, don't get me wrong, the title of this blog may give the impression that I am here to solve all of our nuclear woes. That seems unlikely. However, as I was reading today about US worries over Iran's nuclear program I asked myself a question, "why do we assume that Iran's true purpose in developing a nuclear program is to develop nuclear weapons rather than nuclear power?" In other words, how closely are nuclear power and nuclear weapons related? Does any country with the capacity for nuclear power have the ability to build nuclear weapons? These questions are relevant because often times the same parties who are pro-nuclear (power) in the US are the ones vehemently opposed to allowing Iran to build a nuclear program. Don't get me wrong, I fear the idea of a world in which Iran, under its current anti-American and Israel leadership, obtains nuclear weapons. However, I would like the chance to think a bit about these questions anyways.



The above picture is of a nuclear reactor facility - you can see the clouds of vapor arising from the giant cooling towers. Actually, if any of you guys drive route 95 on George Washington Bridge from New Jersey to New York City (a route I take waay too often) you can see similar nuclear reactors while coming over the bridge.

From what I can gather, part of the reason that nuclear energy for civilian electricity generation and nuclear weapons are so intimately associated is that the technology underpinning both was first used to create nuclear weapons - during WWII. First the uranium bomb and then the plutonium bomb were created and "tested" during that time. It was not until 1954 that the first nuclear electricity plant for civilian use was built in Russia. The first United States plant was built in 1956 in Pennsylvania. In the years that followed the success of nuclear energy was shaky at best - although nuclear power plants run very efficiently when operated, they require tremendous capital to build. During the 1970's, 80s and 90s, very few new power plants were built. Currently, there are 103 (soon to be 104) operating nuclear power plant in the United States. They generate 20% of our electricity (this number varies from state to state.)

Another historical reason that nuclear energy and nuclear weapons have been coupled is that it takes a great deal of capital to finance a nuclear reactor - therefore, proponents of nuclear weapons research decided that it would be expedient to make the plant a producer both of nuclear material and of nuclear power. (from the Nuclear Energy Information Service http://www.neis.org/literature/Brochures/weapcon.htm).


http://www.nrdc.org/nuclear/images/chart.gif


The above chart is from an MIT study by Professor Paul Joskow entitled, "The Future of Nuclear Power." He believes that overall, nuclear power is more expensive given the extreme capital required to build and maintain one. Nuclear power relies on high federal subsidies of nuclear projects - and when those do not exist, the private sector is unwilling to invest in them. Recently, the federal government has looked favorably upon nuclear energy and has included hefty subsidies in recent energy bills.

Now lets turn to the trickier issue of nuclear weapons. I am poking around on the NRDC website and found that the NRDC, FAS (Federation of American Scientists) and GoogleEarth have teamed up to give free downloads of the location of America's nuclear weapons stockpiles. Obviously, the political statement they are making is that we have too many of them (although they are down from the cold war peak). I hope that the map below will show up (it is a tricky file) - but if not the information is readily accessible a number of places. Which makes you wonder. (Nuclear stockpiles are excellent terrorist targets, as are, incidentally, nuclear power plants.)

http://www.nrdc.org/media/docs/061109.kmz


As for the question of a connection between nuclear power and nuclear weapons, here are two telling quotes from The Nuclear Energy Information Center.


"There is no technical demarcation between the military and civilian reactor and there never was one. What has persisted over the decades is just the misconception that such a linkage does not exist." ("Some Political Issues Related to Future Special Nuclear Fuels Production," LA- 8969-MS, UC-16).4

"The connections linking nuclear power and weapons is more than political or historic. Consider: l FISSIONABLE MATERIALS: It is the same nuclear fuel cycle with its mining of uranium, milling, enrichment and fuel fabrication stages which readies the uranium ore for use in reactors, whether these reactors are used to create plutonium for bombs or generate electricity. In the end, both reactors produce the plutonium. The only difference between them is the concentration of the various isotopes used in the fuel. Each year a typical 1000 mega-watt (MW) commercial power reactor will produce 300 to 500 pounds of plutonium -- enough to build between 25 - 40 Nagasaki-sized atomic bombs."

Hmmm. Well, at least I got some answers. What to do about all this (the tie-in between energy policy and national security is far deeper than simply nuclear) is another can of worms.

Now, I am about to go hear the Attorney General of Connecticut speak about Connecticut's role in the global warming debate. Should prove most interesting.

Thanks for tuning in.
Emily