How does the IFR square with U.S. policy of discouraging plutonium production, reprocessing and use?
It is entirely consistent with the intent of that policy – to render plutonium as inaccessible for weapons use as possible. The wording of the policy, however, is now obsolete. How so? It was formulated before the IFR’s pyroprocessing and electrorefining technology was known – when “reprocessing” was synonymous with PUREX, which creates plutonium of the chemical purity needed for weapons. Since now there is a fuel cycle that promises to provide far-superior management of plutonium, the policy has been overtaken by events. Why is the IFR better than PUREX? Doesn’t “recycling” mean separation of plutonium, regardless of the method? No, not in the IFR – and that misunderstanding accounts for some of the opposition. The IFR’s pyroprocessing and electrorefining method is not capable of making plutonium that is pure enough for weapons. If a proliferator were to start with IFR material, he or she would have to employ an extra chemical separation step. But there is plutonium in IFRs, along wit
Related Questions
- When so much evidence demonstrates that a production stimulating policy is beneficial to both wealth growth and job creation, why are governments not applying these policies everywhere?
- PSP states in its brochure that production averages 8,000 to 10,000 square feet per day. What gives your system superior production rates?
- Very impressive performance indeed. How does such a turnaround to a production policy happen in practice?
