Unraveling Nuclear Risks: The Dilemma of Small Modular Reactors
Recent developments in the world of nuclear power have triggered concerns among experts about the potential risks associated with the spread of nuclear weapons. The focus of these concerns is directed at Moltex, a nuclear startup based in Saint John, New Brunswick, which is working on small modular reactors (SMRs) powered by spent fuel from CANDU reactors. The critical element in this process is the separation of plutonium from uranium in CANDU waste, which is then used to fuel new SMRs.
In September, a group of twelve nuclear scientists penned a letter to Prime Minister Justin Trudeau, expressing their apprehensions about Moltex posing a nuclear weapon proliferation risk. They called for a formal risk assessment of emerging nuclear technologies.
Edwin Lyman, the nuclear power safety director of the Union of Concerned Scientists, emphasizes the seriousness of the proliferation and security threat in the process of extracting and concentrating plutonium. This critical step is seen as a major concern, as it could potentially facilitate the development of nuclear weapons.
While both recycling and burying spent nuclear fuel come with risks, burying the waste deep underground could theoretically provide an opportunity for future nuclear weapon production, while reprocessing it might open doors for clandestine repurposing.
The Moltex reactor technology is still under development. However, according to nuclear weapon proliferation experts, it resembles previously studied nuclear technologies known as "proliferation-prone" rather than "proliferation-resistant." They argue that such technology should be halted due to its associated risks.
Moltex CEO Rory O'Sullivan acknowledges the existence of risks in the nuclear energy sector. However, he believes that the concerns about the Moltex reactor are misplaced and can be addressed through international best practices and regulation. He asserts that the Moltex reactor could contribute to solving long-term radioactive waste issues.
O'Sullivan suggests that processing existing nuclear waste through the Moltex reactor would reduce radioactivity and eliminate weapons-usable material. While handling and transferring spent fuel may temporarily alter the risk profile, O'Sullivan contends that the process aligns with international best practices and regulations and maintains safety through armed guards.
The CEO believes that the proliferation risk is short-lived and that any hypothetical stockpile left vulnerable in a crisis situation would not be sufficient to produce a meaningful bomb.
However, experts like Alan Kuperman, an associate professor at the University of Texas and founding coordinator of the Nuclear Proliferation Prevention Project, assert that the proliferation risks persist for the lifespan of each reactor, estimated at 60 years. Safeguards become difficult to implement when plutonium could be diverted from the reactor to create weapons, as detecting misuse after the fact is often too late.
Kuperman emphasizes that history has shown the misuse of nuclear energy technologies for bomb production, such as in the case of India in the 1970s. The proliferation-resistant technologies gained precedence due to concerns about geopolitical risks and cost-effectiveness.
The revival of proliferation-prone technologies, as advocated by some entities, is raising alarms among experts, emphasizing the importance of addressing these risks in the pursuit of nuclear power.
#NuclearRisk, #SmallModularReactors, #Proliferation, #NuclearEnergy, #SecurityConcerns
