If nuclear energy is to make a big dent globally, then we're going to have to be attentive to breaking the linkages between nuclear energy technology and nuclear weapons technology, and I think the administration will be attentive to how we can do that, as well."This statement is curious because it seems to suggest Mr. Holdren believes two things that are not obviously matters of fact. First there is the assertion that there is a linkage between nuclear energy technology and nuclear weapons technology that American policy seeks to break, it is not clear however what Dr. Holdren thinks that linkage is. For example in 1997 Dr Holdren wrote:
[Because] the isotopics are different, weapons using this plutonium would have to be redesigned, which would require nuclear tests. That means the path to reuse of spent fuel would be more difficult technically and politically — as well as easier to detect — than reusing weapons plutonium extracted from glass.This statement would tend to suggest a view that in the absence of bomb tests it would not be possible to build reliable nuclear weapons with reactor grade plutonium without bomb tests that could be detected. In the absence of such tests, it would appear that there would be no link between nuclear energy technology and nuclear weapons technology, since plutonium produced by civilian nuclear energy technology does not meet minimal standards for nuclear weapons technology.
The second curious aspect of this statement is that the postulates link is stipulated to effect global deployment of nuclear energy because this is United States policy. This smacks of the sort of unilateralism that damaged American foreign police during the last administration. i seriously doubt that the United States has the power to enforce its non-proliferation ploicy on Russia, China and India. Widespread deployment of nuclear energy technology is a matter of certainty regardless of Ameerican ploicy regarding nuclear proliferation,
What i find disturbing is that Holdern appears to be taking a position about link between nuclear energy technology and nuclear weapons technology that seems to contradict his own previously stated view. Further he seems to be offering an American policy towards large scale global nuclear deployment that appears to suggest that he believes that American views on proliferation will automatically prevail over the views of other countries.
Posts
4 comments:
The shuttering of the waste repository, the push for wind and solar, and now waking-up the proliferation bogyman, coupled with huge discoveries of shale gas in the Louisiana Basin and The St. Lawrence Valley doesn't look good for the Nuclear Renaissance in the U.S.
It is becoming increasingly clear to this non-American observer that the current US administration will not be supportive of nuclear energy beyond maintaining the status quo. Ironically, this may lead to a marginalization of American influence on nuclear matters world-wide which might have the effect of making the proliferation issue worse, not better.
Charles, some time ago I viewed an online video of Holdren giving a talk about global warming. He glossed over nuclear energy as a part of "possible solutions" by commenting with the usual cost-waste-proliferation problems rhetoric. And yet, here he is, the chief science adviser.
Perhaps the most obvious linkage of nuclear energy to weapons is on the part of the DOE for more than half its budget is dedicated toward the stewardship and development of nuclear weapons. This role ought to be parsed out from the DOE to another department so the bureaucratic relationship ends. I know of no other country which has this type of relationship with nuclear weapons stemming from an energy department.
It is especially dismaying to see the likes of Holdren hold such a narrow and irresponsible view of nuclear energy. I read recently there are about 40 nuclear plants currently under construction world wide. If the USA is to maintain any relevance in the nuclear field, the attitude of support needs to start changing at the top.
Charles Barton wrote:
Further he [Holdern] seems to be offering an American policy towards large scale global nuclear deployment that appears to suggest that he believes that American views on proliferation will automatically prevail over the views of other countries.Yeah, as if this worked really well when Jimmy Carter banned reprocessing of used fuel from light water reactors. That sure stopped the further development of nuclear weapons around the world, didn't it.
Oops, the weapons development continued. Let's see, the French reprocess their used fuel. So weapons development must be the fault of those French people.
Yeah, that's it, let's blame it on the French!
How dumb can you get...?
Don, we certainly can have nuclear proliferation without civilian nucleasr power, and we can have civilian nuclear power without nuclear proliferation, thus to slaim that there is a strong link between the two seems to belong in the realm of cognative error. South Africa, and Pakastan developed nuclear weapons programs without fuel reprocessing, while no nation developed a weapons program from reprocessing Light Water Reactor fuel. In fact the reactors used for producing nucleare weapons grade material all used world war II heavy water or graphite technology. I wonder why Dr Holdren has not noticed this.
Post a Comment