What is the optimal level of uranium enrichment for different purposes?

  • Context: Graduate 
  • Thread starter Thread starter cygnet1
  • Start date Start date
  • Tags Tags
    Uranium
Click For Summary

Discussion Overview

The discussion centers on the optimal levels of uranium enrichment for various purposes, including nuclear weapons and commercial reactors. Participants explore the technical aspects of uranium enrichment percentages, the challenges associated with different enrichment levels, and potential applications of highly-enriched uranium.

Discussion Character

  • Exploratory
  • Technical explanation
  • Debate/contested
  • Mathematical reasoning

Main Points Raised

  • Some participants state that about 90% enrichment is required for weapons, while around 4% is needed for commercial reactors, with the enrichment percentages referring specifically to U-235.
  • One participant mentions that the difficulty in enriching uranium varies, noting that going from 0.7% to 20% is challenging, while moving from 20% to 90% is relatively easier.
  • Another participant highlights that Canadian reactors use natural uranium without enrichment due to the use of heavy water.
  • There is a discussion about the time required to enrich uranium from natural levels to reactor-grade and then to highly-enriched uranium, with calculations suggesting significant quantities of natural uranium are needed for each step.
  • Some participants question the feasibility of converting highly-enriched uranium into a powdered form to prevent further enrichment, expressing skepticism about the effectiveness of such a method.
  • Potential non-military uses for highly-enriched uranium are mentioned, including its application in fission chamber neutron detectors and research reactors, although concerns about the practicality of building enrichment facilities under sanctions are raised.

Areas of Agreement / Disagreement

Participants express a range of views on the enrichment percentages required for different applications, the challenges of enrichment processes, and the feasibility of certain methods. No consensus is reached on the technical details or implications of these discussions.

Contextual Notes

Participants note the complexities involved in uranium enrichment, including the need to account for material losses and the inefficiencies of separation processes. The discussion also highlights the ambiguity in defining commercial reactor requirements and the implications of enrichment levels for different uses.

cygnet1
Messages
24
Reaction score
0
Forgive me if this question has been asked before or is a FAQ.

Can somebody tell me to what percentage uranium has to be enriched in order to build a bomb? Believe me, I'm not trying to build one! I'm just trying to inject some physics into the current Israel/Iran debate. (Let's confine the discussion to physics, not politics!)

Also, what percentage enrichment is necessary for commercial reactors, and is that a percentage of U-235 or U-238?

Thanks.
 
Physics news on Phys.org
For weapons, about 90%. For commercial reactors, about 4%. As far as I understand the tough bit is going up to ~20%, from 20% to 90% it is supposed to be easier. But I'm far from an expert. Look at http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Enriched_uranium
 
>what percentage enrichment is necessary for commercial reactors.

That expression is a bit ambiguous. The Canadian use natural uranium with no enrichment by dint of using heavy water (dueterium oxide). Most commercial reactors in the world including the Iranian's use natural water and uranium enriched to 3-4%.
 
cygnet1 said:
and is that a percentage of U-235 or U-238?
Those values are always the fraction of U-235.

kloptrok said:
As far as I understand the tough bit is going up to ~20%, from 20% to 90% it is supposed to be easier.
Easier in which way? 20% -> 90% needs less additional enrichment than 0.7% -> 20%; but if it is just that, the statement would be similar to "the tough part of the uniform 100km-track are the first 80km, the remaining 20km are easier".
 
The difficulty in enriching depends on the relative concentrations. It is difficult to enrich the first ~10% or the last ~10% but it's relatively easier to go from 20% to 80%.
 
Another common approach is use graphite moderator. No isotope separation involved at all.
 
Thank you for all your replies, and for the link to Wikipedia about uranium enrichment.

I'm wondering whether this is a well-posed problem. Suppose it takes a given amount of time, T, to enrich natural uranium (0.71% U-235) into a fixed amount of reactor-grade uranium (4.5%). Using the same enrichment facilities, how much time would it take to further enrich the reactor-grade uranium into highly-enriched uranium (20%), and then to enrich it even further to weapons-grade (90%)?

A second question would be what commercial (non-military) uses (if any) are there for highly-enriched uranium (20%)?

According to a news report, Iran has offered to convert any highly-enriched uranium it may produce in the future into a powdered form, which it says cannot be further enriched. Is this technically feasible?

Once again, let's just talk about the physics, leaving policy and politics out of it.

Thank you.
 
cygnet1 said:
Thank you for all your replies, and for the link to Wikipedia about uranium enrichment.

I'm wondering whether this is a well-posed problem. Suppose it takes a given amount of time, T, to enrich natural uranium (0.71% U-235) into a fixed amount of reactor-grade uranium (4.5%). Using the same enrichment facilities, how much time would it take to further enrich the reactor-grade uranium into highly-enriched uranium (20%), and then to enrich it even further to weapons-grade (90%)?

A second question would be what commercial (non-military) uses (if any) are there for highly-enriched uranium (20%)?

According to a news report, Iran has offered to convert any highly-enriched uranium it may produce in the future into a powdered form, which it says cannot be further enriched. Is this technically feasible?

Once again, let's just talk about the physics, leaving policy and politics out of it.

Thank you.

Fission chamber neutron detectors use high enriched uranium. But only a minute quantity, and they last a while. But there would be no reason to build an entire enrichment plant, under enormous international sanctions, just to manufacture neutron detectors which are available on the commercial market. The other potential use is in research reactors, the purpose of which would be for breeding weapons-grade plutonium. So even if Iran's enrichment operation were blown up, if they had produced enough medium-enriched Uranium to get started, they could continue to make weapons-grade plutonium in a small hidden facility or underground.
 
cygnet1 said:
I'm wondering whether this is a well-posed problem. Suppose it takes a given amount of time, T, to enrich natural uranium (0.71% U-235) into a fixed amount of reactor-grade uranium (4.5%). Using the same enrichment facilities, how much time would it take to further enrich the reactor-grade uranium into highly-enriched uranium (20%), and then to enrich it even further to weapons-grade (90%)?
Well, you have to keep track of the quantity.

Assuming perfect separation (which is not possible), you need 6 tons of natural uranium to get 1 ton of 4.5%-enriched uranium, but 28 tons to get 1 ton of 20%-enriched uranium (with ~4.4 tons of 4.5% as intermediate step). In other words, most of your material processing happens at low enrichment levels.

With realistic setups, separation is not perfect. Depleted uranium is removed with ~0.3% U-235 (number from Wikipedia), so about half of the U-235 is wasted. Therefore, more natural uranium is required (compared to the amount of enriched uranium), this gives even more steps with low enrichment levels.

I would expect that 5 tons 1% -> 1 ton 4% (or whatever) and 5 tons 4% => 1 ton 16% require a similar time. But you have to do the first step 5 times.

A second question would be what commercial (non-military) uses (if any) are there for highly-enriched uranium (20%)?
Apart from some scientific experiments... mix it with natural uranium and use it in power plants?

According to a news report, Iran has offered to convert any highly-enriched uranium it may produce in the future into a powdered form, which it says cannot be further enriched. Is this technically feasible?
I doubt that there is any chemical way to prevent further enrichment . You need UF6 for enrichment, but that has to be created independent of the uranium source.
 

Similar threads

  • · Replies 9 ·
Replies
9
Views
3K
  • · Replies 10 ·
Replies
10
Views
2K
Replies
15
Views
6K
  • · Replies 10 ·
Replies
10
Views
16K
  • · Replies 5 ·
Replies
5
Views
7K
  • · Replies 9 ·
Replies
9
Views
4K
  • · Replies 2 ·
Replies
2
Views
3K
  • · Replies 6 ·
Replies
6
Views
2K
  • · Replies 9 ·
Replies
9
Views
1K
  • · Replies 4 ·
Replies
4
Views
4K