A problem with today's nuclear power plants is not that they produce heat, but that they don't produce enough heat. Much hotter reactors (now being developed) would have primary and secondary heat that is more usable for a broad range of applications, and for electricity could have higher efficiency with smaller and cheaper turbo-generators, and in smaller sizes could be air-cooled, potentially providing the airflow and heat energy needed for direct-air CO2 capture.
Also, civilian power reactors did not supply the plutonium for today's arsenal of nuclear bombs. That plutonium came from production reactors, built expressly for that purpose.
Also, civilian power reactors were used to utterly destroy the warhead fuel from 20,000 nuclear bombs--more than exist in the world today. And many of those warheads came from satellite states after the breakup of the Soviet Union--states where much of their military hardware wound up being carted off and sold on the black market. No other option could have destroyed that fuel so irrevocably, which makes civilian nuclear power reactors the most potent anti-proliferation tool we've ever had--more effective than all the disarmament activists put together. Does anyone wish we had not had nuclear power plants with which to destroy that fuel? Would we have been better off if many nuclear bombs had made it to the black market?
It's remarkable that the nuclear holocaust has not already happened in these 80 years or so since the first atomic weapons were used on Japan. This threat has been around us for so long, it seems to have faded to background noise. Those 700 military bases around the world, particularly those close to Russia, are likely a factor in provoking Putin's (classic male brain) invasion of Ukraine, further "justifying" more military investment. Sooner or later Murphy's law is going to apply here, and climate change as access to water and agricultural failure become profound, could be the tipping point.
A problem with today's nuclear power plants is not that they produce heat, but that they don't produce enough heat. Much hotter reactors (now being developed) would have primary and secondary heat that is more usable for a broad range of applications, and for electricity could have higher efficiency with smaller and cheaper turbo-generators, and in smaller sizes could be air-cooled, potentially providing the airflow and heat energy needed for direct-air CO2 capture.
Also, civilian power reactors did not supply the plutonium for today's arsenal of nuclear bombs. That plutonium came from production reactors, built expressly for that purpose.
Also, civilian power reactors were used to utterly destroy the warhead fuel from 20,000 nuclear bombs--more than exist in the world today. And many of those warheads came from satellite states after the breakup of the Soviet Union--states where much of their military hardware wound up being carted off and sold on the black market. No other option could have destroyed that fuel so irrevocably, which makes civilian nuclear power reactors the most potent anti-proliferation tool we've ever had--more effective than all the disarmament activists put together. Does anyone wish we had not had nuclear power plants with which to destroy that fuel? Would we have been better off if many nuclear bombs had made it to the black market?
Many good points, thank you!
It's remarkable that the nuclear holocaust has not already happened in these 80 years or so since the first atomic weapons were used on Japan. This threat has been around us for so long, it seems to have faded to background noise. Those 700 military bases around the world, particularly those close to Russia, are likely a factor in provoking Putin's (classic male brain) invasion of Ukraine, further "justifying" more military investment. Sooner or later Murphy's law is going to apply here, and climate change as access to water and agricultural failure become profound, could be the tipping point.