I think you and Art are in agreement that nuclear proliferation is a political issue, but can be properly hindered or improperly facilitated by technological developments. The last thing the world needs is easier methods for developing nuclear weapons.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.
I think we can help non-proliferation by developing new systems that are worthless for nuclear weapons development but are clearly superior in heat and electrical generation. There can be both technological hindrances to proliferation in new designs, and political hindrances to proliferation in their political implementation too.
In a Thorium breeder for example, the separation of Fissile U233 from U232 would be much more difficult, time consuming and dirtier than the separation of U235 from U328. The mass difference of the first is only one gram /mole where the later is 3 grams/ mole. That is one technological hindrance. Impeded access to the breeding blanket could be another. There could be the political structure in place also from the get-go to allow for tight international inspections against any diversion, or irradiating of U238 to make Pu 239 for a Weapons program. New reactor? New inspection regime. We're in agreement that world oversight is necessary.
It is certain however, that the past development path is clearly "dual use", and the use of simpler graphite block reactors allows even the most technologically backward countries to develop nuclear weapons. The current development path from the Manhattan Project through the current Gen III+ reactors were a follow on of Military reactors. Dual use was part of the plan. The first Civilian light water reactor, Shippingport, was a Naval design.
It is important to break tradition and develop single use reactors, process heat only, and primarily for electrical generation.
Ok, now come my rant: It seems that not developing nuclear technologies is being passed as a non-proliferation strategy, when in fact the real dynamic is that it has the potential to be the cleanest and cheapest source of process heat. We can see why it hasn't been done in the previous administration: George W Bush was a Texas oil man, and Dick Cheney was from Wyoming. A coal train leaves Cheyenne every 10 minutes or so. Why invite competition?
The current administration owes a debt of gratitude to General Electric, and they have a method to repay, twofold.
First is windmills: Windmills do Zero load following and they're pretty much wildly variable on the supply side. Yet, GE will sell a bundle of those over the next decade: Google General Electric Wind turbines: http://www.gepower.com/businesses/ge_wi ... /index.htm Great. GE has it on the front side.
What about the load following? After all, even one of the windiest area of the world, the Great Plains can get a parked High pressure area and be dead in the water. Pretty much Watt for Watt, we're going to need reserve capacity and load following for wind. And wouldn't you know it? GE has it there too!
Google General Electric gas turbines: http://www.gepower.com/prod_serv/produc ... /index.htm They got it made.
The funny thing is, once that strategy fails to pan out, GE has "right" technology to help clean up the mess they helped create:
Google General Electric S-Prism: http://pepei.pennnet.com/display_articl ... ctor-work/
They won't finish work on the S-Prism, probably for a decade or so, by that time the huge number of Wind turbines backed by an equal capacity of new Natural gas turbines will be a Financial success, but a technological failure, and the time will be ripe for Nuclear power.