Hanford was for nuclear weapons, not nuclear power. It's a subtle difference, but very important. The mess created there was unnecessary for and not driven by nuclear power, and is like saying solar photovoltaic is bad because coal power plants also generate electricity.
He worked at building the power station, it is still operational. Hanford has a complex history with experimental reactors, a reactor to produce plutonium (I think?) and a full power producing reactor that provides ~8% of WA’s power needs.
There are no running reactors at Hanford and haven't been since 1987.
While one reactor did generate power, they were all designed to create plutonium, which you would not otherwise do if power was the only goal. Thus, the blame is solely on weapons development, not power.
> The weapons production reactors were decommissioned at the end of the Cold War, and the Hanford Site became the focus of the nation's largest environmental cleanup. Besides the cleanup project, Hanford also hosts a commercial nuclear power plant, the Columbia Generating Station, and various centers for scientific research and development, such as the Pacific Northwest National Laboratory, the Fast Flux Test Facility and the LIGO Hanford Observatory. In 2015 it was designated as part of the Manhattan Project National Historical Park.
> The nuclear power plant was also known as Hanford Two, with Hanford One being the 800 MWe power generating plant connected to the N-Reactor (decommissioned in 1987), a dual purpose reactor operated by the Atomic Energy Commission: producing plutonium for the nuclear weapons stockpile, as well as generating electricity for the grid.[4]
...
> Columbia's original NRC license to operate was scheduled to expire in December 2023. In January 2010, Energy Northwest filed an application with the Nuclear Regulatory Commission for a 20-year license renewal – through 2043. In May 2012, the NRC approved the 20-year license renewal.
Connected in the sense that one can be used as a political cover for the other, sure. But nuclear fuel and nuclear weapons require very different enrichment regimens. Nuclear fuel usually requires 20-30% enriched uranium. By comparison nuclear weapons require plutonium, enriched to near 100%.
The cover is not only political. One needs the plutonium for enrichment in the first place. If you fuel a nuclear power plant with uranium-235, you get it is a by-product.
I consider nuclear proliferation as one of the largest dangers we are facing, because it increases the risk of conflicts escalating into nuclear wars. So everything that makes it harder to create nuclear weapons is important.
The civil nukes have all been massively subsidized by military usage. There is no way a purely civil program could have shouldered those costs. And even the civil program is, separately, massively subsidized. Again, no civil plant could afford to operate without.
Incorrect. Plenty of nuclear programs did not receive subsidies from military usage. South Korea, Japan, Sweden, and Belgium for instance all have significant nuclear power development but no nuclear weapon programs.
