It appears that the submarine deal between the US, UK, and Australia is an unambiguous violation of the Nuclear Non-Proliferation Treaty, because the reactors being supplied to Australia are fueled with highly enriched (93.5%) uranium, and as such would constitute an illegal export of bomb making materials. (By comparison, the French use low enriched uranium [7.5%)], the Soviets/Russians use a less enriched HEU [20%-45], and the Chinese use LEU at [3%-5%])
Technically, such a reactor would be legal for Australia to operate, but only if Australia, which has no domestic nuclear industry, were to enrich the fuel itself.
Also, it appears that the US loan/lease of older nuclear submarines would not constitute a breach, but for the boats to be manufactured in Australia, the proliferation issues are highly problematic.
While the use of HEU can increase reactor performance, its primary justification is the reduction in refueling that must occur. US reactors do not need to be refueled for the life of the boat, while the French boats need to be refueled every 7-10 years.
The French make this work by having specialized hatches (brèches) on their submarines to accommodate the refueling, as opposed to the US and UK method, where the hull is cut open and then welded back into place during refueling.
It means that reactors can be refueled in the matter of a weeks, as opposed to more than a year for US and UK boats.
It is possible that for the Australian built submarines
0 comments :
Post a Comment