> It's about nuclear arsenal maintenance at this point, with decarbonization as an excuse.
It's not. Please compare which countries have nuclear weapons and which have nuclear power. North Korea has nuclear weapons, they don't have nuclear power. South Korea is the opposite.
Anyone who claims that nuclear power is a step towards nuclear weapons has no clue about the history of nuclear technology and has no clue how Uranium and Plutonium for nuclear bombs is made.
Hint: It's not made with BWRs or PWRs, that would be way too inefficient and expensive.
When nuclear plants were built in Germany you couldn't get green electricity for $33 / MWh.
>It's not. Please compare which countries have nuclear weapons and which have nuclear power.
This is equally true of everywhere else. It's not about who built them 30 years ago. It's about who still wants to build them.
>Anyone who claims that nuclear power is a step towards nuclear weapons has no clue about the history of nuclear technology and has no clue how Uranium and Plutonium for nuclear bombs is made. Hint: It's not made with BWRs or PWRs, that would be way too inefficient and expensive.
I didn't say that nuclear plants are being built to create plutonium. I said that they were being kept around because of the skills and tech - it's a more or less cost-neutral way of keeping a ready supply of nuclear engineers and a supporting industry.
In the UK it's partly about nuclear submarines, too (which are PWRs).
> I didn't say that nuclear plants are being built to create plutonium. I said that they were being kept around because of the skills and tech - it's a more or less cost-neutral way of keeping a ready supply of nuclear engineers and a supporting industry.
This. Nuclear power doesn't give you nuclear bombs, but it does give you the ability to start building them within months.
> Anyone who claims that nuclear power is a step towards nuclear weapons has no clue about the history of nuclear technology and has no clue how Uranium and Plutonium for nuclear bombs is made.
"Japan was reported in 2012 to have 9 tonnes of plutonium in Japan, enough for more than 1,000 nuclear warheads, and an additional 35 tonnes stored in Europe.[37][38] It has constructed the Rokkasho Reprocessing Plant, which could produce further plutonium.[37] Japan has a considerable quantity of highly enriched uranium (HEU), supplied by the U.S. and UK, for use in its research reactors and fast neutron reactor research programs; approximately 1,200 to 1,400 kg of HEU as of 2014.[39] Japan also possesses an indigenous uranium enrichment plant[32][40] which could hypothetically be used to make highly enriched uranium suitable for weapons use."
Germany's nuclear phase out costs the country $12 billion per year plus 1100 additional deaths due to air pollution:
> https://haas.berkeley.edu/wp-content/uploads/WP304.pdf
> And, EVEN INCLUDING that, nuclear is about 3x more expensive than solar and wind.
Except you are comparing levelized costs of electrity with the total system costs. Wind and solar need backup and/or storage, nuclear doesn't.
> Nuclear is only competitive with lavish subsidies beyond those it already has.
Nuclear was *never* subsidized in Germany:
> http://dip21.bundestag.de/dip21/btd/14/080/1408084.pdf (p. 16, answer 27)
> It's about nuclear arsenal maintenance at this point, with decarbonization as an excuse.
It's not. Please compare which countries have nuclear weapons and which have nuclear power. North Korea has nuclear weapons, they don't have nuclear power. South Korea is the opposite.
Anyone who claims that nuclear power is a step towards nuclear weapons has no clue about the history of nuclear technology and has no clue how Uranium and Plutonium for nuclear bombs is made.
Hint: It's not made with BWRs or PWRs, that would be way too inefficient and expensive.