Want to read Slashdot from your mobile device? Point it at m.slashdot.org and keep reading!

 



Forgot your password?
typodupeerror
×
Power Government Hardware Science Technology

NRC Accused of Ignoring Proliferation Risks With SILEX Enrichment 128

Harperdog writes "Scott Kemp has a disturbing look at SILEX, a new technology that 'happens to be well suited for making nuclear weapons.' There are many disturbing aspects the this article, not least that the NRC, which is required to consider the critical question of proliferation, has so far punted when it comes to examining that question. 'The Nuclear Regulatory Commission has refused to consider the proliferation risk in its decision to issue a license for the first commercial SILEX facility, despite a statutory obligation to do so. Only a few weeks remain for Congress to intervene.'" Not everyone agrees that SILEX poses a real proliferation threat. Kind of a shame that its environmental benefits (lower power consumption and a smaller waste stream than existing processes) are what increase the proliferation risk.
This discussion has been archived. No new comments can be posted.

NRC Accused of Ignoring Proliferation Risks With SILEX Enrichment

Comments Filter:
  • by fuzzyfuzzyfungus ( 1223518 ) on Tuesday July 31, 2012 @09:01AM (#40827433) Journal

    If the concern is 'proliferation' and the specific area of concern is a technology that makes it cheaper, easier, and less obvious to enrich fissionables, how exactly does 'staying ahead' help us and how do we monitor where the technology and (minimal resources) go?

    In terms of nuclear arms, we already are ahead. Largely by brute-force large scale application of relatively primitive enrichment processes; but ahead nevertheless. That has its virtues in a MAD-style scenario; but doesn't really help us much in countering proliferation.

    As for this specific technology, the entire concern is that it makes monitoring considerably more difficult, and the more it is used, the more likely it is that the necessary details of how it works will leak out or be worked out by undesirable parties.

    This doesn't change the fact that trying to put it back in the bottle won't really work; but your suggested courses of action don't seem terribly relevant.

  • Re:Alternative (Score:5, Interesting)

    by denis-The-menace ( 471988 ) on Tuesday July 31, 2012 @09:30AM (#40827793)

    The real solution is LFTR reactors.

    No more enrichment, ever.
    Cheap fuel (currently is a waste product of mining)
    No more 100+ Atmosphere pressure vessels to burst
    No more backup generators needed
    Accidental meltdowns are impossible
    Turn reactor on/off in hours/minutes not months
    Unable to weaponize any part of fuel or waste.
    Needs Uranium only to start the reactor
    Creates leukemia fighting medical isotopes
    Creates isotopes for space-grade batteries for NASA
    Creates very little waste

    Issue: Regulations set by existing Nuke industry.

"God is a comedian playing to an audience too afraid to laugh." - Voltaire

Working...