5 ms·

Asking because I don't know. How is enrichment governed? Say for instance if a country is only using it for energy vs defense/offense. And are there elements th

Asking because I don't know. How is enrichment governed? Say for instance if a country is only using it for energy vs defense/offense. And are there elements that can be specifically used for energy vs otherwise? Last I remember, having access to enriched uranium was grounds for a country to bomb another one.

m101 1y ago
You don't actually need enriched uranium for nuclear power. The design is easier if you enrich it, but there are reactors that would work on unenriched uranium. The solution to these issues is just to manage the enrichment supply chain. If a country wants nuclear power but can't be trusted, supply then with at cost uranium.
msk-lywenn 1y ago
Energy needs like 5% enrichment while weaponizing needs much higher and much more difficult to obtain 85% enrichment
nradov 1y ago
You should read the Treaty on the Non-Proliferation of Nuclear Weapons (NPT) as it addresses several of those issues. Possession of highly enriched uranium isn't necessarily an act of war by itself. https://disarmament.unoda.org/en/our-work/weapons-mass-destruction/nuclear-weapons/treaty-non-proliferation-nuclear-weapons-npt https://disarmament.unoda.org/en/our-work/weapons-mass-destr...
philipkglass 1y ago
The only way to ensure that a civil uranium enrichment program remains strictly civil is via transparency and monitoring. A country that has mastered uranium enrichment technology for fueling civil power reactors could use the same technology to produce bomb-grade uranium. It actually takes more work to enrich natural uranium into fuel for power reactors than it takes to further enrich power reactor fuel into bomb material: https://scipython.com/blog/uranium-enrichment-and-the-separative-work-unit-swu/ https://scipython.com/blog/uranium-enrichment-and-the-separa...
- pkoiralap 1y ago
  This is scary. so the extra effort to move from, say, 20% to 85% is relatively small compared with the effort to get up to 20% in the first place. Might as well build a feature into the reactor so that it only works with <=20%
  - ivanjermakov 1y ago
    > Might as well build a feature into the reactor so that it only works with <=20% How would this help? Nuclear power plant and enrichment facility are separate entities.
    - pkoiralap 1y ago
      I think two reasons. If reactors can't function above 20%, a country having access to >20% enriched payload is a certain violation. Vs "60% enrichment is still for clean energy, my reactor works with it". 2. If you are only buying the payload and not enriching it yourself, you can't do anything with >20% . More like mixing methyl alcohol in lab available ethyl alcohol, to deter lab techs from mixing water and having a rager.
KyleBerezin 1y ago
IAEA inspections verify your claimed inventory and enrichment facilities. They are trying to detect if any nuclear materials are being skimmed/diverted. As for weapons, nuclear fuel is very low enrichment (usually under 5%). Iran surpassed 60%, which has no peaceful use, so that is why it was said they were perusing weapons.
Polizeiposaune 1y ago
Natural uranium on earth is currently about 0.7% U-235; civilian power reactors typically need low-enriched uranium which is 3% to 5% U-235. The critical mass required for a weapon shrinks as enrichment increases; implosion designs would require an infinite mass at or below 5.4% enrichment (see https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Enriched_uranium https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Enriched_uranium). Weapons-grade uranium is more like 85%+ U-235. Enrichment above around 20% is what really raises red flags.
- magicalhippo 1y ago
  > Enrichment above around 20% is what really raises red flags. Which, as I understand it, is because at 20% enrichment you've already done about 70% of the work needed to get to 85%.
hugo1789 1y ago
Imo that's a pretty complicated topic. On one side if you just build LWRs you just don't need very highly enriched uranium or plutonium so posession of those is a red flag. On the other side fast breeder reactors are the ones which are able to produce the least harmful waste. But fast breeders and closed fuel cycles produce and handle plutonium which in turn can be used for bad things.
throwawayffffas 1y ago
Modern weapons use plutonium not uranium, uranium weapons can be constructed. All it takes is the enrichment to produce the fissile material for a weapon. As far as I know countries have agreed to not build weapons, with the exception of those that already have them, there is an international body that monitors enrichment sites, but checks are voluntary a country can choose to not accept inspections and/or build additional secret enrichment sites. The fissile material is not sufficient for a weapon though, as I understand there is quite a bit of science that goes into making a bomb. Additionally, first generation weapons are large and unwieldy, i.e it takes a bomber to deploy a single weapon with a very small yield. Miniaturization, building a weapon small and light enough to put on a missile is a significant problem that took the current powers years to get over. But that's about it, if you can figure out how to make a small bomb of variable yield, you can make bombs small enough to fit a large backpack, and thermonuclear weapons that fit in a ballistic missile as well.
- pfdietz 1y ago
  > Modern weapons use plutonium not uranium, uranium weapons can be constructed. Thermonuclear bombs use uranium in the tamper of the secondary. Some use enriched uranium there.

m101 1y ago

You don't actually need enriched uranium for nuclear power. The design is easier if you enrich it, but there are reactors that would work on unenriched uranium. The solution to these issues is just to manage the enrichment supply chain. If a country wants nuclear power but can't be trusted, supply then with at cost uranium.

msk-lywenn 1y ago

Energy needs like 5% enrichment while weaponizing needs much higher and much more difficult to obtain 85% enrichment

nradov 1y ago

You should read the Treaty on the Non-Proliferation of Nuclear Weapons (NPT) as it addresses several of those issues. Possession of highly enriched uranium isn't necessarily an act of war by itself. https://disarmament.unoda.org/en/our-work/weapons-mass-destruction/nuclear-weapons/treaty-non-proliferation-nuclear-weapons-npt https://disarmament.unoda.org/en/our-work/weapons-mass-destr...

philipkglass 1y ago

The only way to ensure that a civil uranium enrichment program remains strictly civil is via transparency and monitoring. A country that has mastered uranium enrichment technology for fueling civil power reactors could use the same technology to produce bomb-grade uranium. It actually takes more work to enrich natural uranium into fuel for power reactors than it takes to further enrich power reactor fuel into bomb material: https://scipython.com/blog/uranium-enrichment-and-the-separative-work-unit-swu/ https://scipython.com/blog/uranium-enrichment-and-the-separa...

pkoiralap 1y ago
This is scary. so the extra effort to move from, say, 20% to 85% is relatively small compared with the effort to get up to 20% in the first place. Might as well build a feature into the reactor so that it only works with <=20%
- ivanjermakov 1y ago
  > Might as well build a feature into the reactor so that it only works with <=20% How would this help? Nuclear power plant and enrichment facility are separate entities.
  - pkoiralap 1y ago
    I think two reasons. If reactors can't function above 20%, a country having access to >20% enriched payload is a certain violation. Vs "60% enrichment is still for clean energy, my reactor works with it". 2. If you are only buying the payload and not enriching it yourself, you can't do anything with >20% . More like mixing methyl alcohol in lab available ethyl alcohol, to deter lab techs from mixing water and having a rager.

KyleBerezin 1y ago

IAEA inspections verify your claimed inventory and enrichment facilities. They are trying to detect if any nuclear materials are being skimmed/diverted. As for weapons, nuclear fuel is very low enrichment (usually under 5%). Iran surpassed 60%, which has no peaceful use, so that is why it was said they were perusing weapons.

Polizeiposaune 1y ago

Natural uranium on earth is currently about 0.7% U-235; civilian power reactors typically need low-enriched uranium which is 3% to 5% U-235. The critical mass required for a weapon shrinks as enrichment increases; implosion designs would require an infinite mass at or below 5.4% enrichment (see https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Enriched_uranium https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Enriched_uranium). Weapons-grade uranium is more like 85%+ U-235. Enrichment above around 20% is what really raises red flags.

magicalhippo 1y ago
> Enrichment above around 20% is what really raises red flags. Which, as I understand it, is because at 20% enrichment you've already done about 70% of the work needed to get to 85%.

hugo1789 1y ago

Imo that's a pretty complicated topic. On one side if you just build LWRs you just don't need very highly enriched uranium or plutonium so posession of those is a red flag. On the other side fast breeder reactors are the ones which are able to produce the least harmful waste. But fast breeders and closed fuel cycles produce and handle plutonium which in turn can be used for bad things.

throwawayffffas 1y ago

Modern weapons use plutonium not uranium, uranium weapons can be constructed. All it takes is the enrichment to produce the fissile material for a weapon. As far as I know countries have agreed to not build weapons, with the exception of those that already have them, there is an international body that monitors enrichment sites, but checks are voluntary a country can choose to not accept inspections and/or build additional secret enrichment sites. The fissile material is not sufficient for a weapon though, as I understand there is quite a bit of science that goes into making a bomb. Additionally, first generation weapons are large and unwieldy, i.e it takes a bomber to deploy a single weapon with a very small yield. Miniaturization, building a weapon small and light enough to put on a missile is a significant problem that took the current powers years to get over. But that's about it, if you can figure out how to make a small bomb of variable yield, you can make bombs small enough to fit a large backpack, and thermonuclear weapons that fit in a ballistic missile as well.

pfdietz 1y ago
> Modern weapons use plutonium not uranium, uranium weapons can be constructed. Thermonuclear bombs use uranium in the tamper of the secondary. Some use enriched uranium there.