Welcome to DU!
The truly grassroots left-of-center political community where regular people, not algorithms, drive the discussions and set the standards.
Join the community:
Create a free account
Support DU (and get rid of ads!):
Become a Star Member
Latest Breaking News
General Discussion
The DU Lounge
All Forums
Issue Forums
Culture Forums
Alliance Forums
Region Forums
Support Forums
Help & Search
Environment & Energy
In reply to the discussion: ERRORS in rebuttal to "Pandora's Promise" [View all]kristopher
(29,798 posts)67. And that brings us full circle
WHO SAYS WE HAVE TO GIVE THIS TECHNOLOGY TO THE PROLIFERANTS???
Why can't the USA alone use IFR technology; and then we don't have to worry about the technology being misused by the rest of the world.
The USA is a country that fits the description of the sentence you emphasized. The USA has a substantial nuclear development; and how nuclear waste is disposed of, and the security of our energy facilities ARE priorities for the USA.
Why can't the USA alone use IFR technology; and then we don't have to worry about the technology being misused by the rest of the world.
The USA is a country that fits the description of the sentence you emphasized. The USA has a substantial nuclear development; and how nuclear waste is disposed of, and the security of our energy facilities ARE priorities for the USA.
Your admission that the dual use nature of the technology makes it a proliferation risk is crystal clear. National Nuclear Security Administration findings (which incorporates input from ALL the subordinate national labs) are also crystal clear - the technology has a high proliferation risk.
When you begin discuss limiting the use only to nations heavily invested in nuclear you open the door to a large number of issues including the inability to predict the future commitment of those nations to cooperate in limiting the technology. Comparisons of cost are not favorable to IFR technology either, especially if the potential market is so dramatically limited.
Your view that we should invest massive funding in developing this technology simply isn't persuasive when the need for climate action is placing such high demands on our energy investment dollars. We can do far, far more for carbon reduction by directing funding at deploying renewables than we can propping up the pet projects of a few nuclear zealots.
Edit history
Please sign in to view edit histories.
71 replies
= new reply since forum marked as read
Highlight:
NoneDon't highlight anything
5 newestHighlight 5 most recent replies
RecommendedHighlight replies with 5 or more recommendations
Yes, the EIA publish data on expected energy future use AND all sources of energy.
happyslug
Nov 2013
#1
It was EXACTLY the level of journalistic quality that I would have expected from "The Nation".
caraher
Nov 2013
#3
There are four primary problem area with nuclear technology (not counting social and systems issues)
kristopher
Nov 2013
#9
DOE: "Virtually any combination of plutonium isotopes...can be used to make a nuclear weapon."
bananas
Nov 2013
#6
No, PamW; Richard Garwin, John Holdren, and President Obama all know you're wrong.
bananas
Dec 2013
#37
"If you have any type of plutonium in sufficient quantities you can make a bomb." Selden 2009
kristopher
Dec 2013
#59