Environment & Energy

It is relatively straight forward to minimize diversion risk by controlling the plutonium isotopic vector. You cannot, should not, and will not make weapons grade plutonium with a light water reactor without completely and totally destroying its economics.

Poland has no enrichment capacity and to my knowledge, no plans to build any. I oppose any plan to build more nuclear weapons by any country anywhere at any time, particularly as the stocks of these weapons are falling into hands of fascists, in the United States, to intellectually and morally challenged fascists.

This said, it's not actually amusing that every time someone talks about nuclear plant everyone starts wondering about nuclear weapons, but conversely, every time people build and operate a refinery or drill an oil field (or a palm oil plantation) they don't talk about napalm, which is manufactured using petroleum and a biofuel (palmitic acid).

Since nuclear energy saves lives, this unjust focus kills people, and is doing so as we speak.

Which has killed more people, nuclear war (one) or napalm? You can limit the answer to 1945 alone and the answer is illuminating, if considers the fire bombing of Tokyo and other Japanese cities, which are listed at this link: 67 Japanese Cities Firebombed in World War II

There has been one, and only one, nuclear war, and to the extent it involved the United States and Japan, it started as an oil war, since the attack on Pearl Harbor was designed to protect the flank of the Japanese Army and Navy for its drive on the oil fields of what is now Indonesia, but was then "The Dutch East Indies." This move was made because the United States, then the world's major oil exporter, cut off oil supplies to Japan over its war on China. To the extent it involved the German attack on the Soviet Union, access to oil was also a consideration. We are still fighting oil wars using oil diverted to weapons of mass destruction, some as a result of oil terrorism (9/11 in the US) that took place because of oil policy. I note that the oil wars in Kuwait and Iraq actually ended up killing more people than were killed by nuclear war. We don't really pay attention to these deaths, because most of the dead were Arabs. Estimated deaths in the Iraq wars.

People always engage in selective attention about nuclear issues without contemplating the observable reality. There's a reality evoked in the honest answer to the following question: Which has killed more people, oil wars using oil diverted to weapons of mass destruction, or nuclear war?

I covered, many years ago, the path toward the minimization of the risk of nuclear war - although nuclear war can never be made impossible, since uranium exists and we can never consume all of it - in a post as a guest author on another website:

On Plutonium, Nuclear War, and Nuclear Peace

If Poland builds nuclear weapons they will not be able to do so with AP1000 reactors. The only type of commercial thermal spectrum nuclear reactor suitable for production of nuclear weapons, is the heavy water (CANDU type) PHWR although its interesting that with the exception of India and Pakistan, (and possibly China) no nation has used them to develop nuclear weapons grade plutonium, not Canada, not South Korea, not Romania, not Argentina, not Sweden (although they considered making nuclear weapons, but ultimately rejected the idea.) Even in this case, the economics of using a heavy water reactor to make weapons grade plutonium is economically problematic. It takes far more than access to weapons grade plutonium (greater than 95% ²³⁹Pu) to make a nuclear weapon, and indeed to maintain these weapons, since they tend to degrade over time, a good thing.) I also note, as I did in the post I linked above, heavy water reactors are entirely suitable for denaturing plutonium (and indeed, uranium) to make it essentially useless for use in nuclear weapons. This, I think, would be a very good idea.

All objections to nuclear energy to my mind - objections that kill people and are in fact killing the entire planetary ecosystem via destruction of the atmosphere - are arbitrary, hypocritical, and frankly absurd.