Focus Fusion and Nuclear Proliferation

[KitemanSA]

Per Wikipedia: "The majority of the uranium for Little Boy was enriched in Oak Ridge, Tennessee, primarily by means of electromagnetic separation in calutrons and through gaseous diffusion plants, with a small amount contributed by the cyclotrons at Ernest O. Lawrence's Radiation Laboratory." Seems you're both right.

[Soylent]

I was under the impression that the calutron was way too slow, and they made the stuff by gaseous diffusion at Oak Ridge.

It was a piece of crap, but they managed to throw enough resources and electricity on it to make most of the U-235 for the little boy bomb.

My intent was not to show that mass spectrometers are credible proliferation hazzards, just extending the greenie-weenie standard for proliferation hazzard to all things.

[passenger66]

Greenies are the dukes of hazard.

[Art Carlson]

My intent was not to show that mass spectrometers are credible proliferation hazzards, just extending the greenie-weenie standard for proliferation hazzard to all things.

Yeah. Ridiculing those who disagree with you is easier than seriously engaging their arguments.

[pfrit]

My intent was not to show that mass spectrometers are credible proliferation hazzards, just extending the greenie-weenie standard for proliferation hazzard to all things.

Yeah. Ridiculing those who disagree with you is easier than seriously engaging their arguments.

I agree, ridiculing your opponent is counter-productive and tacky, but the nuclear proliferation arguments are kind of riduculous. History has demonstrated that we cannot prevent countries from developing nuclear weapons. So we shouldn't build new nuclear power plants with new technologies (breeders, fusion, etc) in the US (and other developed nations who already have nuclear weapons) because the tech could lead to nations developing nuclear weapons, which they can do without the new power plants. How is a nuclear power plant in California going to help Nigeria build a nuclear bomb? The argument is based on illogical fear.

[Art Carlson]

I agree, ridiculing your opponent is counter-productive and tacky, but the nuclear proliferation arguments are kind of riduculous. History has demonstrated that we cannot prevent countries from developing nuclear weapons. So we shouldn't build new nuclear power plants with new technologies (breeders, fusion, etc) in the US (and other developed nations who already have nuclear weapons) because the tech could lead to nations developing nuclear weapons, which they can do without the new power plants. How is a nuclear power plant in California going to help Nigeria build a nuclear bomb? The argument is based on illogical fear.

Well, if you just want to throw up your hands and wait till the bombs fall, you don't have to worry about the details. But if you want to make an effort to try to control the spread of nuclear weapons, then you need a reasonable chance of detecting clandestine weapons programs, and that will be a lot easier if a country doesn't have a civilian nuclear program to use as cover. The proliferation argument is only one of many aspects if society is making a decision whether and in what form to use nuclear power, and we may well disagree about how much weight to give each factor, but proliferation concerns are neither ridiculous nor illogical.

[pfrit]

I agree, ridiculing your opponent is counter-productive and tacky, but the nuclear proliferation arguments are kind of riduculous. History has demonstrated that we cannot prevent countries from developing nuclear weapons. So we shouldn't build new nuclear power plants with new technologies (breeders, fusion, etc) in the US (and other developed nations who already have nuclear weapons) because the tech could lead to nations developing nuclear weapons, which they can do without the new power plants. How is a nuclear power plant in California going to help Nigeria build a nuclear bomb? The argument is based on illogical fear.

Well, if you just want to throw up your hands and wait till the bombs fall, you don't have to worry about the details. But if you want to make an effort to try to control the spread of nuclear weapons, then you need a reasonable chance of detecting clandestine weapons programs, and that will be a lot easier if a country doesn't have a civilian nuclear program to use as cover. The proliferation argument is only one of many aspects if society is making a decision whether and in what form to use nuclear power, and we may well disagree about how much weight to give each factor, but proliferation concerns are neither ridiculous nor illogical.

Please don't assume that I am making any kind of personal attack or that my point is specious. The goal of ending nuclear proliferation does not enter into this discussion. It is a simple fact that it is an unattainable goal. We can't stop countries with the technical capabilities of 1940's US from developing nuclear weapons. Any attempt would have to be based on techniques that do not involve restricting access to technology. The horses have left the barn. That said, how does restricting reactor designs in the developed world make the proliferation risk less? The concerns are real, but the methodology for reaching those goals are illogical.

[Helius]

It would clearly behoove the United States, if really interested in nonproliferation, to develop fast and thermalized breeders that can generate prodigious electrical energy in a regime that is much more difficult to leverage the power technology to develop nuclear weapons.

If there were such powerful technologies to provide extremely high quality process heat and electrical power in a much safer regimen with respect to Nuclear weapons, then the primary excuse proliferating nations use for more proliferating nuclear technologies would disappear.

Since, however it is not the case that the United States is developing such power sources, safer from proliferation, then there is a big fat lying pink elephant in the room.

The real dynamic of Fast and Thermalized breeders, is that it blows the doors off everything else, and we simply can't have that. Nonproliferation is an excuse, not a dynamic for action (or inaction).

[chrismb]

It would be more logical to run through the technologies ourselves (which we've done, so far, of course) and then we know what procedures or processes are essential to civilian-isation of nuclear energy and what are exclusively to military use, then we can spot which is which. For those processes which are common to both and which are know, as has been said, what can be done about that now? For those which are common but as yet unknown to all except for peace-loving Western powers (note the slight irony implied!) then it is pertinent to security to control that in some way. This is just stating the obvious, of course, but the outcome means that it is not clear-cut. That's unfortunate because the politicos ['both sides' - good AND evil ] manipulate that boundary so as to serve their own purposes, and in no way live up to the values and instincts common to all engineers who seek technological improvement, if only for its own sake. Maybe the're right to tread carefully, but geek-engineers do not believe the fable of the Garden of Eden and will feed instinctively, if not preferably, off the tree of knowledge. That is the state of humanity and I hope that this remains; to work with knowledge and live with all the consequences, not to deprive it or deny it.

[Brian H]

Well, if PolyWell &/or Focus Fusion get going, economics would/should shut down virtually every fission power plant (not to mention coal and other thermal generating plant) on the planet on a much faster schedule than even the most aggressive political initiatives and decisions would. Anyone willing to pay 5-20x extra, respectively, for power? Only the most determined arms-making countries.

[Art Carlson]

Please don't assume that I am making any kind of personal attack or that my point is specious. The goal of ending nuclear proliferation does not enter into this discussion. It is a simple fact that it is an unattainable goal.

Facts may be simple in mathematics or physics, but seldom in politics.

We can't stop countries with the technical capabilities of 1940's US from developing nuclear weapons. Any attempt would have to be based on techniques that do not involve restricting access to technology.

I agree a purely technical approach will not work. The primary thrust would have to be diplomatic, but technical verification and restrictions would be essential.

The horses have left the barn. That said, how does restricting reactor designs in the developed world make the proliferation risk less? The concerns are real, but the methodology for reaching those goals are illogical.

The point of restricting nuclear energy in weapons states would be to make it palatable to non-weapons states to also restrict their nuclear technology. Whether you agree with the argument or not, the logic of it is not so terribly hard to grasp, is it?

[pfrit]

The horses have left the barn. That said, how does restricting reactor designs in the developed world make the proliferation risk less? The concerns are real, but the methodology for reaching those goals are illogical.

The point of restricting nuclear energy in weapons states would be to make it palatable to non-weapons states to also restrict their nuclear technology. Whether you agree with the argument or not, the logic of it is not so terribly hard to grasp, is it?

If the reactor designs open to non-weapons states are already more than sufficient to allow the country to create nuclear weapons, what difference does it make if we make a new design. Look at the countries that have made nuclear weapons. There is no rule about their technology level or wealth. There is no impediment to rogue states going nuclear now. It is equivalent to the pope outlawing crossbows. It worked until countries started violating the ban. No point to the ban after that. The logic is fundementally flawed because it has not kept up with events.

BTW, let me make one thing clear. I have developed a great deal of respect for you over the last year or two. I just disagree with you on this point.

[passenger66]

Does anyone have any opinion on the worthwhileness (not very good england perhaps) of the Fissile Materials Cutoff Treaty?

[MSimon]

Well, if PolyWell &/or Focus Fusion get going, economics would/should shut down virtually every fission power plant (not to mention coal and other thermal generating plant) on the planet on a much faster schedule than even the most aggressive political initiatives and decisions would. Anyone willing to pay 5-20x extra, respectively, for power? Only the most determined arms-making countries.

But that cuts both ways. A source of cheap neutrons would be an excellent way of making bomb material.

[TallDave]

The goal of ending nuclear proliferation does not enter into this discussion. It is a simple fact that it is an unattainable goal.

It's really not. The Ukraine and S. Africa voluntarily disarmed. Libya denuclearized, even if they still resemble something out of Orwell (I highly recommend the link btw, fascinating and tragic look inside a dying cult of personality state from the ground level).

Eventually all nations will be liberal democracies; it's the natural end state of human political organization. And there is no incentive for liberal democracies to point nuclear weapons at one another, while there are lots of incentives not to do so.

The point of restricting nuclear energy in weapons states would be to make it palatable to non-weapons states to also restrict their nuclear technology.

It's sensible. Hopefully the issue will be moot by the time we really need breeders, if fusion doesn't pan out.