Follow this blog:
RSS

Controversial nuclear technology alarms watchdogs

By | July 30, 2012, 6:43 PM PDT

SILEX uses a novel approach to uranium enrichment.

SILEX uses a novel approach to uranium enrichment. The laser beams pictured here aren't attached to sharks.

A controversial nuclear technology is raising alarms bells among critics who claim it may be better suited for making nuclear weapons than lowering the cost of nuclear power and could lead to a nonproliferation “Fukushima” for the United States.

SILEX (separation of isotopes by laser excitation) is a method for enriching uranium with lasers. It was developed by Australian scientists during the mid 1990’s as a way to reduce the cost of nuclear fuel, because uranium must be processed before it can be used to generate power.

The scientists formed Silex Systems to license the technology for commercialization, and that process is still ongoing. In 2000, the governments of Australia and the United States signed a treaty, giving the U.S. authority to review whether SILEX should be deployed.

That’s because there could be a major proliferation problem. SILEX reduces the steps necessary to transform fuel grade uranium into to weapons-grade uranium, and the process doesn’t create telltale chemical or thermal emissions, according to an article published by the Bulletin of the Atomic Scientists. R. Scott Kemp, an assistant professor of nuclear science and engineering at MIT, has the byline.

Its commercial appeal is that uranium enrichment in traditional gas centrifuges is expensive, and carries a high facilities cost. A SILEX facility can be up to 75 percent smaller and uses less energy, according to a SILEX licensee GE subsidiary Global Laser Enrichment.

Despite this perceived benefit, the Bulletin of the Atomic Scientists argues that the technology could make “Iran style proliferation easier,” and it is not alone in its view. Kemp corralled together a host of supportive opinions including the American Association for the Advancement of Sciences, American Physical Society, Federation of American Scientists, a former US nuclear-weapons lab director, and several members of Congress are calling on the Nuclear Regulatory Commission (NRC) to review SILEX.

“The NRC is in the final stages of reviewing a license application from GE-Hitachi/Global Laser Enrichment (filed in July 2007) to construct and operate a laser enrichment facility near Wilmington, N.C. Information on this application and the NRC’s review is available online,” said NRC public affairs officer David McIntyre. The 2000 agreement gives Silex Systems access to U.S. investors.

McIntyre cited a 1999 U.S. Department of State assessment of SILEX when questioned about proliferation concerns. “This review concluded that it was in the US national interest to bring the technology here and maintain control of it,” he said. “The NRC’s requirements for the control and protection of classified information and security of nuclear material address nonproliferation concerns.”

The same report suggested that a SILEX facility could make it much easier for a rogue state to clandestinely enrich weapons grade uranium to create nuclear bombs, the Bulletin reports.

The Bulletin is not assuaged by the NRC’s statements; rather, it wrote that the NRC was essentially “turning the other cheek” to a grave matter of national security by claiming that it is not its mission to perform nonproliferation assessment in a 2010 letter to environmental activists.

Kemp provides a detailed chronology on SILEX in his article, and doesn’t hold back on his opinion of the NRC’s job performance. ”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,” he wrote.

The Bulletin report also suggested that successful commercialization would drive interest in laser enrichment. It noted that at least 27 countries have “dabbled” in laser enrichment, and that India purchased a SILEX like laser in April. It suggested that the NRC conduct a study to determine whether the benefits outweigh the risks.

“When a nation’s regulator fails to regulate, it leads to unforeseen and potentially catastrophic consequences. Unless Congress or the NRC commissioners intervene now, SILEX could become America’s proliferation Fukushima,” Kemp concluded.

(Image credit: Silex Systems)

Start your week smarter with our weekly e-mail newsletter. It's your cheat sheet for good ideas. Get it.

David Worthington

About David Worthington

David Worthington is a contributing editor for SmartPlanet.

David Worthington

David Worthington

Contributing Editor

David Worthington has written for BetaNews, eWeek, PC World, Technologizer and ZDNet. Formerly, he was a senior editor at SD Times. He holds a degree from Temple University. He is based in New York.

Follow him on Twitter.

David Worthington

David Worthington

David does not have financial holdings that would influence how or what he covers. Occasionally he consults for other companies; should David cover a topic in which a client is involved, he will disclose this fact in his writing. His views do not represent those of ScaleOut Software.

He writes for SmartPlanet and is not an employee of CBS.

If you liked this, don't miss...
9
Comments

Join the conversation!

Follow via:
RSS
-3 Votes
+ -
SILEX=99.10%+
Bert Saboy Piedmont (facebook.com/QASIMARA) reminds SmartPlanet that SILEX has to work 99.10% of the time in tests, even if it is not actually implementId. People feel good about teh traditional gas centrifuges because its employees are mentally alert and morally straight (and try to be physically strong). Saying that SILEX "uses less energy" does not explain why so. The reason is that the SILEX system goes through people like they were fast-food workers and it burns them out. SILEX employees caught sleeping on the job is a common occurrence. They are worked so hard and treated like trash, then dismissed, they end up at one of those churches that runs a combination bread line and soup kitchen that also gives out rotten fruit and veggies to take home. Gas was burned to transport the volunteers and the bad food to the church for distribution to discarded SILEX employees, but I doubt the author did not include the cost to the churches for taking care of discarded SILEX people. Ad this cradel to grave cost into the equation and now SILEX is not looking so energy efficient. Come examine gas centrifuge social systems and intergenerational support methods and you will be amazed at the humane peoplehood and personness gas centrifuge enrichment allows for and provides. Going on would be revealing more than I care to reveal at this time, but thanks for rolling the dice David Worthington...I am in teh Unted States and I hope my noobish knowledge is enough to inform the rest of the world that U.S. is capable of regulating and limiting SILEX tech. worldwide and preventing its creul consequences from taking hold.
Posted by QASIMARA II
Updated - 31st Jul
+1 Vote
+ -
ignorance of science history is not bliss
Mr. Worthington, do you think the Soviet Union obtained the "secret" of the atomic bomb due to spies inside the Manhattan Project, or do you ascribe to the modern opinion that they had their own fission research program from 1940 anyway, and would have become a nuclear weapons power on their own? If the US had not built Little Boy and Fat Man, would this have prevented the rest of the world from developing nuclear weapons? Of course not. Similarly, if the US abstains from building a cheaper method of enriching uranium, e.g. SILEX, this will not prevent other countries from doing so. Those raising hysteria about a scientific advance that can facilitate the usage of low-enriched uranium in nuclear power reactors are quite conceivably acting as part of the fossil-fuel financed chorus. You quote from them, but not from those with a differing opinion, apparently revealing your bias.
Posted by Paul Wick
31st Jul
0 Votes
+ -
Thanks for the input
Your comment about espionage are a nice contribution. Beyond that - I quoted the NRC and spelled out the pros of the technology. I've also written an article called "America's nuclear future" and have opined about the "fossil-fuel financed chorus" on more than one occasion. People who are looking for bias find what they want to see. I merely saw an interesting viewpoint that was worth sharing. The purpose of this comment section is for people to discuss it.
Posted by David Worthington
31st Jul
+2 Votes
+ -
understandable error
...to regard the NRC as a pro-nuclear organization. Progressive people are familiar with the concept of "regulatory capture" by targeted industries and often assume that to be the case with the NRC. However, with anti-nuclear zealot Rep. Markey's trained agent, Jaczko, as NRC chief in recent years, it became apparent that "some other" industry had captured the NRC, and the fact that Markey is beholden to natural gas entities might provide a clue as to who they are. As well, it is explicitly not part of the NRC charter to promote nuclear power. That might explain why it takes decades to get a reactor design OK'd by them. There isn't a pro-nuclear campaigner that I'm aware of who regards the NRC as a pro-nuclear organization. Nor does use of the term "watchdog" as applied to anti-nuclear zealots connote objectivity. If scientific advances cannot be sequestered, it then follows that these "watchdogs'" concern about "proliferation" is bogus; in fact their concern is to throw up obstacles to nuclear power at every opportunity. Far from watchdogs, they appear to be, what the Red Chinese used to call, running dogs, i.e. of their fossil fuel masters.
Posted by Paul Wick
31st Jul
0 Votes
+ -
Tangent
The way that the NRC in general & Jaczko in particular performs it's function & the motivations for doing so are, at best, a tangent to the issue. Will a GE-Hitachi/Global Laser Enrichment SILEX facility near Wilmington make it more likely that this technology will proliferate to nations that wish to build nuclear weapons but can not due to an inability to enrich uranium?
Posted by theotherwill
31st Jul
0 Votes
+ -
not a tangent
The author cited the NRC as a pro-nuclear entity. This is manifestly untrue. I provided reasons. For an example of a pro-nuclear entity, that eviscerates the preposterous nonsense of anti-nuclear zealots such as those the author thought worthwhile to cite, dwell on, and treat with much respect, read this: http://canadianenergyissues.com/2012/08/02/game-changing-enrichment-technology-offends-fossil-supporters-at-bas/ Now THAT is an example of a pro-nuclear point-of-view.
Posted by Paul Wick
3rd Aug
+1 Vote
+ -
Once the genie is out of the bottle
you can't stuff it back in. Knowledge doesn't "want to be free", but once it is known, it can be recreated by dedicated or driven researchers. Whether we use it or not, it's out there now.
Posted by zclayton3
31st Jul
0 Votes
+ -
Nuclear proliferation
The fact that SILEX is practical is public knowledge but the specifics of constructing 1 are not. There's any number of technologies that are restricted. Those that contribute to nuclear proliferation are among the most restricted & for good reason.
Posted by theotherwill
31st Jul
0 Votes
+ -
The cat is out of the bag.
As others have said, knowing something is possible means anyone with enough intelligence and resources can do it.
Posted by riverat1
31st Jul
Join the conversation
Formatting +
BB Codes - Note: HTML is not supported in forums
  • [b] Bold [/b]
  • [i] Italic [/i]
  • [u] Underline [/u]
  • [s] Strikethrough [/s]
  • [q] "Quote" [/q]
  • [ol][*] 1. Ordered List [/ol]
  • [ul][*] · Unordered List [/ul]
  • [pre] Preformat [/pre]
  • [quote] "Blockquote" [/quote]

Join the SmartPlanet community and join the conversation! Signing up is fast and free. Don't wait -- we want to hear your opinion!