Post AdF2ABkDAlgokxlZAG by cstross@wandering.shop
 (DIR) More posts by cstross@wandering.shop
 (DIR) Post #AdF2ABkDAlgokxlZAG by cstross@wandering.shop
       2023-12-26T21:28:31Z
       
       0 likes, 0 repeats
       
       I mean, with climate change we're going to NEED big-ass container ships that can go really fast, just to move food around between regions hit by drought/crop failure. And nuclear is *obviously* a smart bet (because it's carbon-neutral), and for a half-million-ton ship it's even reasonable. But why pick a fuel cycle that lends itself to weapons proliferation?
       
 (DIR) Post #AdF2ACZy4L5dLTytpw by zakalwe@plasmatrap.com
       2023-12-26T21:31:53.646Z
       
       0 likes, 0 repeats
       
       @cstross@wandering.shop Really, are there any fuel cycles that CANNOT yield nuclear weapons material?We used to think you couldn't make bombs using a thorium-cycle reactor.  Now we understand that it's just more difficult ... but the techniques have gotten better.  The nuclear genie cannot be put back in the bottle any more than firearms or explosives can.
       
 (DIR) Post #AdF2ADBXod9DE1YuPI by publius@mastodon.sdf.org
       2023-12-27T17:19:34Z
       
       0 likes, 0 repeats
       
       @zakalwe @cstross It ought to be obvious that weapons proliferation is primarily a political, not a technical problem. Those countries which have built bombs haven't used civil power reactors or fuel-cycle facilities to do it.The conclusion of the INFCE was that there was no fuel cycle which was significantly "better" or "worse" in proliferation terms than any other. I'd modify that by saying that LEU fuelling led to centrifuge enrichment, which has proven a real weak point.