Al Gore: "every weapons-proliferation problem we dealt with was connected to a civilian reactor prog

[bananas]

From a May 24, 2006 interview:

"For eight years in the White House, every weapons-proliferation problem we dealt with was connected to a civilian reactor program."

http://www.msnbc.msn.com/id/12743273

Al Gore, movie star, talks of his latest role
Grist magazine interviews former vice president on his climate flick
By David Roberts
updated 12:49 p.m. ET May 24, 2006


<snip>

Grist: Let's turn briefly to some proposed solutions. Nuclear power is making a big resurgence now, rebranded as a solution to climate change. What do you think?

Gore: I doubt nuclear power will play a much larger role than it does now.

Grist: Won't, or shouldn't?

Gore: Won't. There are serious problems that have to be solved, and they are not limited to the long-term waste-storage issue and the vulnerability-to-terrorist-attack issue. Let's assume for the sake of argument that both of those problems can be solved.

We still have other issues. For eight years in the White House, every weapons-proliferation problem we dealt with was connected to a civilian reactor program. And if we ever got to the point where we wanted to use nuclear reactors to back out a lot of coal -- which is the real issue: coal -- then we'd have to put them in so many places we'd run that proliferation risk right off the reasonability scale. And we'd run short of uranium, unless they went to a breeder cycle or something like it, which would increase the risk of weapons-grade material being available.

When energy prices go up, the difficulty of projecting demand also goes up -- uncertainty goes up. So utility executives naturally want to place their bets for future generating capacity on smaller increments that are available more quickly, to give themselves flexibility. Nuclear reactors are the biggest increments, that cost the most money, and take the most time to build.

In any case, if they can design a new generation that's manifestly safer, more flexible, etc., it may play some role, but I don't think it will play a big role.

<snip>

[snot]

1. He seems to assume the decisions will be based on reason.

[bemildred]

24. Good point, that is contrary to observed reality up to now. nt

[bananas]

2. Hillary Clinton: India, Pakistan have upset nuclear deterrent balance

Front page article in India: http://www.democraticunderground.com/discuss/duboard.php?az=view_all&address=115x241214

[joshcryer]

3. This article was from 2006.

From the article:

Gore: <...> In any case, if they can design a new generation that's manifestly safer, more flexible, etc., it may play some role, but I don't think it will play a big role.

If you have a more recent article with Al Gore's position I'd be interested.

[bananas]

4. March, 2009 - "Gore on Lovelock, nuclear power and climate change sceptics"

http://www.guardian.co.uk/environment/blog/2009/mar/16/climate-change-al-gore

Gore on Lovelock, nuclear power and climate change sceptics

When I interviewed Al Gore last week for the Guardian, I put in a request to his press handlers that we be allowed to make either a video or audio recording of the interview for guardian.co.uk. The request was turned down. So here's the next best thing: a transcript of some of his key points

Posted by Leo Hickman Monday 16 March 2009 12.35 GMT guardian.co.uk

<snip>

Gore on nuclear power


I'm not a reflexive opponent of nuclear. I used to be enthusiastic about it, but I'm now sceptical about it. There's a few reasons. Let's assume for the moment that we will solve the problem of long-term storage of radioactive waste. Let's assume also that we'll figure out how to standardise their design as (each plant) is currently unique and that enhances the risk of operator accidents. Let's assume we can solve the terrorism threat to nuclear reactors. That still leaves a couple of very difficult problems.

First and foremost, economics. The nuclear industry cannot give any reliable cost estimate for how much it will take to build a nuclear plant. When a utility is confronted with the absence of any advances for how much the construction cost is going to be, then that's a problem. Because the economics of nuclear only work at scale. You've got to have a 1,000 megawatt plant for it to be efficient and competitive. In the current environment, if you run a large utility that sells electricity you've got a certain amount of money to allocate in your budget. If you're looking at the trends towards more conservation and the rapid introduction of renewables, it's hard for you to project what your demand is going to be with as much precision as when the world was more predictable. As a result, you are less inclined to take all of your money and place one big bet on something that matures 12-15 years from now at an uncertain cost. That what's called a "lumpy investment" and they want smaller increments that give them smaller flexibility. In the US, there hasn't been a new order for a new reactor in 36 years.

Yes, there is (more appetite for nuclear power now). And because of the carbon crisis there will be more nuclear plants built and some of those being retired will be replaced by others. I think it will play a somewhat larger role, but it will not be the main option chosen.

Whatever countries such as the US and the UK do, it will have a demonstration effect for the rest of the world. As the world comes to grips with how to solve the climate crisis, we in the US and the UK have a leadership role. If we told the rest of the world that nuclear is the answer . For the eight years that I spent in the White House every nuclear weapons proliferation problem we dealt with was connected to a reactor programme. People have said for years that there are now completely different technologies. OK, but if you have a team of scientists that can build a reactor, and you're a dictator, you can make them work at night to build a nuclear weapon. That's what's happened in North Korea and Iran. And in Libya before they gave it up. So the idea of, say, Chad, Burma, and Sudan having lots of nuclear reactors is insane and it's not going to happen.

And to be clear - when he says "Let's assume for the moment that we will solve the problem of ..." he is not saying that he believes those problems will be solved, he's saying "assume for the sake of argument", because he's making the point that there are other show-stoppers. He made this clear in a 2006 interview where he phrased it: "Even if you wish away the long-term storage of the waste or the possibility of a reactor operator error. You still have ..."

http://www.democraticunderground.com/discuss/duboard.php?az=show_mesg&forum=115&topic_id=72346&mesg_id=72492

bananas Fri Nov-17-06 02:16 PM
Response to Original message

1. He's said this three times now

He said this in a Grist Magazine interview and in his NYU major policy address.
From your second link:

<snip>

Mr Gore played down the role on nuclear power in fighting climate change.

"I have never been a reflexive opponent of it," he said. "But I am sceptical that it will play more than a minor role in most countries around the world because, let's face it, there are a lot of problems.

"Even if you wish away the long-term storage of the waste or the possibility of a reactor operator error. You still have economics and the costs of these things are very high.They only come in one size: extra large. It takes a long time. It costs a lot of money."

<snip>

http://www.news.com.au/story/0,10117,20770595-421,00.html?from=public_rss

[Statistical]

5. "I think it will play a somewhat larger role ..."

"I think it will play a somewhat larger role, but it will not be the main option chosen."

This is coming from an anti-nuclear advocate. He is accepting reality that nuclear will continue to be used and the role will be expanded.

If you asked him a decade ago he likely wouldn't even say that. I am glad to see VP Gore come around. He is now simply wrong in how large of an expansion there will be.

[Kolesar]

8. Can thank the pathetic PR efforts of the nuclear industry to making the financiers fear nuclear

When they *do* have an "incident", they deal with it poorly. They sent a technical person out to brief the press after Three Mile Island and the reporters went into a frenzy when they started hearing the nuclear terminology.

Then there is First Energy, who handled their busted reactor head at Davis Besse by lying to the reporters, government, and their insurance company.

"Don't Think of an Elephant"

[joshcryer]

19. Thanks, confirms my suspicions that you were trying to misrepresent Gore's position.

[kristopher]

20. Really? Gore and I share the same position so what is my position?

"First and foremost, economics. The nuclear industry cannot give any reliable cost estimate for how much it will take to build a nuclear plant. When a utility is confronted with the absence of any advances for how much the construction cost is going to be, then that's a problem. Because the economics of nuclear only work at scale. You've got to have a 1,000 megawatt plant for it to be efficient and competitive. In the current environment, if you run a large utility that sells electricity you've got a certain amount of money to allocate in your budget. If you're looking at the trends towards more conservation and the rapid introduction of renewables, it's hard for you to project what your demand is going to be with as much precision as when the world was more predictable. As a result, you are less inclined to take all of your money and place one big bet on something that matures 12-15 years from now at an uncertain cost. That what's called a "lumpy investment" and they want smaller increments that give them smaller flexibility. In the US, there hasn't been a new order for a new reactor in 36 years."

That is the logic behind my claim that 55-70% of new nuclear faces either bankruptcy or very high subsidy for the life of the plant.


"Whatever countries such as the US and the UK do, it will have a demonstration effect for the rest of the world. As the world comes to grips with how to solve the climate crisis, we in the US and the UK have a leadership role. If we told the rest of the world that nuclear is the answer . For the eight years that I spent in the White House every nuclear weapons proliferation problem we dealt with was connected to a reactor programme. People have said for years that there are now completely different technologies. OK, but if you have a team of scientists that can build a reactor, and you're a dictator, you can make them work at night to build a nuclear weapon. That's what's happened in North Korea and Iran. And in Libya before they gave it up. So the idea of, say, Chad, Burma, and Sudan having lots of nuclear reactors is insane and it's not going to happen."

That is the logic I pose when I point to nuclear proliferation.


"Yes, there is (more appetite for nuclear power now). And because of the carbon crisis there will be more nuclear plants built and some of those being retired will be replaced by others. I think it will play a somewhat larger role, but it will not be the main option chosen.

That is another way of saying that the power of the nuclear lobby is going to allow it to capitalize on the threat of global warming in order rape the taxpayers a bit more before it finally lays down to die.

[bananas]

21. I'm not misrepresenting Gore's position.

Next you'll tell us that Gore is "ideologically aligned" with the Cato Institute because they both know nuclear energy is expensive.
:rofl:

[joshcryer]

25. Both of you know your cost projections are made up nonsense.

And it's clear that Al Gore is at least aware of the potential for costs reductions and therefore doesn't write nuclear off completely.

You guys already have, with delusional cost projections that are only "backed up" by dishonest information.

[bananas]

26. No, your cost projections are made up nonsense.

You've fallen for industry propaganda.
Some of us have been following this longer than you have.

The fact that the "official" capital cost estimates for new reactors has been going up, oh, about 50% per year for several years now is annoying enough ($1000/kW ~7 years ago, then $1500/kW, then $2000, then $2500, and now I'm even hearing about $3000-$4000). Am I being lied to now or was I being lied to then? Inflation and materials cost escalation is nowhere near enough to explain this. Weren't reactors supposed to be cheaper this time around ("50% fewer valves....", etc..).

June 20, 2007 1:27 AM

http://neinuclearnotes.blogspot.com/2007/06/keystone-report-on-nuclear-energy.html

[joshcryer]

28. No, the projections I were given were lies.

[Nederland]

6. The first nuclear weapon was detonated 65 years ago

It was built by scientists who did their calculations using slide rules.

The idea that civilian nuclear power increases the risk of a country obtaining a nuclear bomb may be true, but it is laughably irrelevant. It's like saying that removing 2 oz. from a bar loaded up with 200 lbs. of weights will make it easier for a person to bench press it. It's true, but it completely misses the point. Any reasonably wealthy country that wants nuclear weapons can get them. The world needs to find a way of dealing with this reality rather than placing false hope in the idea that restricting civilian nuclear power makes the world safer. It doesn't.

[Statistical]

7. Another way to look at it.

There are 8 nations with nuclear weapons.
There are 56 nations with nuclear reactors (either research, medical, or power).

If Sweden wanted a nuclear bomb they would have had one decades ago. They likely looked at the $8 trillion we wasted on nuclear weapons (yup that is the cost of nuclear weapons program to date) and decided they had better ways to spend their resources.


Just think about that $8 trillion is the cost of nuclear weapons program (including delivery systems) and that number is somewhat old I read in around 2000. National debt in 2000 was less than $8 trillion. If we could go back in time and "undo" the nuclear arsenal we would be debt free today.

The only things required for any country to acquire nuclear weapons:
a) desire
b) willingness to accept consequences
c) enough money (and willingness to flush it down the drain for weapons that will never be used)

Two Koreas. South kores derives 40% of their power from nuclear energy and has more than a dozen reactors. They have no nuclear weapons. North Korea has no power reactors and has detonated a nuclear device.

[kristopher]

9. And you accuse others of "logical fallacies"

That is pure hogwash and you know it.

When you have a nuclear power program you can own to uranium processing and reprocessing and justify the technology by claiming energy security. That puts any country 90% well down the path to nuclear weapons. All that is required then is an episode of political turmoil and a leader plying a nationalistic message (note Iran) and they will have domestic support.

Nuclear power is the clear path to nuclear weapons proliferation and there is no reputable expert on the subject that disagrees.

None.

Not one.

However, the Heritage Foundation definitely agrees with you.

[Statistical]

10. Except North Korea had no nuclear energy program to hide enrichment.

They have nuclear weapons despite that fact.
48 countries have nuclear power and have had it for decades yet haven't built nuclear weapons.

North Korea (and India, and Pakistan, and Israel, and France, and UK, and US, and Russia) prove over and over and over that nuclear energy program is not required to obtain nuclear weapons.

[kristopher]

11. Explain why every expert on nuclear proliferation disagrees with you.

[Statistical]

12. Every expert doesn't.

Some may but not all do.

Certainly no experts think think US building 50 more reactors (going from 104 installed reactors to 154 installed reactors) somehow increases risk at all.

Even if we concede that expanding nuclear power to non-nuclear countries is risky you can't use that as an argument to stop nuclear power in the United States (which you routinely do).

[Nederland]

14. Don't you understand?

"Reputable expert" is defined as a person that agrees with kristopher.

[kristopher]

15. If you can produce one that isn't from the Heritage Foundation please do so.

[Nederland]

16. Certainly

Just as soon as you provide a link to a peer reviewed study showing that every single expert employed by the Heritage Foundation has been wrong about everything they have ever written.

The world really is black and white to you, isn't it? You remind me of a fundamentalist Christian...

[kristopher]

17. The Heritage Foundation is a source dedicated to misinformation.

Sorry if that is your preferred "go to" but it is a fact. It isn't a case of a "black and white" mentality so much as it is a simple recognition of the function within our cultural matrix of entities like Heritage. They are not designed to inform or develop truth, they are designed to shape public opinion to a preselected outcome that conforms to an ideological world view.

Rearguard of Modernity
in the journal Global Environmental Politics

Environmental skepticism denies the reality and importance of mainstream global environmental problems. However, its most important challenges are in its civic claims which receive much less attention. These civic claims defend the basis of ethical authority of the dominant social paradigm. The article explains how political values determine what skeptics count as a problem. One such value described is “deep anthropocentrism,” or the attempt to split human society from non-human nature and reject ecology as a legitimate field of ethical concern. This bias frames what skeptics consider legitimate knowledge. The paper then argues that the contemporary conservative countermovement has marshaled environmental skepticism to function as a rearguard for a maladaptive set of core values that resist public efforts to address global environmental sustainability. As such, the paper normatively argues that environmental skepticism is a significant threat to efforts to achieve sustainability faced by human societies in a globalizing world.

Download here: http://ucf.academia.edu/PeterJacques/Papers/71775/Rearguard-of-Modernity

Study to test theory:

The Organization of Denial: Conservative Think Tanks and Environmental Scepticism

Co-authored with Riley E. Dunlap and Mark Freeman published in the journal Environmental Politics, June 2008

Environmental scepticism denies the seriousness of environmental problems, and self-professed 'sceptics' claim to be unbiased analysts combating 'junk science'. This study quantitatively analyses 141 English-language environmentally sceptical books published between 1972 and 2005. We find that over 92 per cent of these books, most published in the US since 1992, are linked to conservative think tanks (CTTs). Further, we analyse CTTs involved with environmental issues and find that 90 per cent of them espouse environmental scepticism. We conclude that scepticism is a tactic of an elite-driven counter-movement designed to combat environmentalism, and that the successful use of this tactic has contributed to the weakening of US commitment to environmental protection.
download here: http://ucf.academia.edu/PeterJacques/Papers

[Nederland]

18. Still haven't made the case kristopher

In order to categorically reject anything that comes out of the Heritage Foundation, you need to demonstrate that every single paper published by them is 100% wrong.

Keep trying. I'm sure your black and white world will find some way to justify that position...

[Nederland]

13. Self Delete

wrong place

[bananas]

22. How Zen.

[kristopher]

23. That

...was funny.

[kristopher]

27. Kick