Skip to main content

CNN Botches Uranium Enrichment Numbers

CNN logoEarlier today, the CNN network crawler put out incorrect information about Iran’s uranium enrichment.

The crawler stated that 3.67% is "roughly halfway to weapons grade." That is off by several magnitudes. The cited figure is actually well within the range of reactor grade, magnitudes away from weapons grade. Weapons grade uranium is enriched to at least 85%-90% U235, the fissile element.

Quoting the Smithsonian, "U-235, however, is fissile; it can start a nuclear reaction and sustain it. The 0.7% in naturally occurring uranium is not enough to make a bomb or even a nuclear reactor for a power plant. A power plant requires uranium with 3-4% U-235 (this is known as low-enriched or reactor-grade uranium).

Most importantly, a nuclear bomb needs uranium with a whopping 90% U-235 (highly enriched uranium)."

Here are our tweets reacting to this major error:








Indeed, facts matter.

UPDATE: NEI's Tom Kauffman just reached out with this additional comment:

It is physically impossible for a U.S. commercial reactor to explode like a nuclear weapon. The concentration of uranium-235 within the reactor fuel (3% to 5%) is far too low to be explosive and all U.S. commercial reactors are self-limiting. During power operations, when the temperature within the reactor reaches a predetermined level, the fission process is naturally suppressed so the power level cannot spike under any circumstances. And, by design, no one could intentionally or unintentionally alter a commercial nuclear reactor, its controls or its fuel to make it explode like a nuclear weapon.

A good reminder.

Comments

Bill said…
Doesn't seem off-the-wall to me.
According to the WNA, it takes 800 SWUs to enrich a ton of natural uranium to fuel grade, and 1300 SWUs to weapons-grade.

"The curve flattens out so much because the mass of material being enriched progressively diminishes to these amounts, from the original one tonne, so requires less effort relative to what has already been applied to progress a lot further in percentage enrichment. The relatively small increment of effort needed to achieve the increase from normal levels is the reason why enrichment plants are considered a sensitive technology in relation to preventing weapons proliferation, and are very tightly supervised under international agreements. Where this safeguards supervision is compromised or obstructed, as in Iran, concerns arise." http://www.world-nuclear.org/info/Nuclear-Fuel-Cycle/Conversion-Enrichment-and-Fabrication/Uranium-Enrichment/
SteveK9 said…
Sadly we've become a 'war' country. We push for war, no matter what the question might be.
Pavel Podvig said…
It's not an error at all - in terms of separative work, 3.67% could well be half-way, depending on a number of choices regarding feed, tails assay, etc.
Jim Van Zandt said…
And if I remember correctly, enriching from 0.7 to 5 is much easier than from 70.7 to 75.
Anonymous said…
Enrichment is an exponential process with each cascade providing a fractional improvement. going from 0.72% -> ~5% is "about" half the SWU/ centrifuge stage required to get to HEU.

the same number of stages required to get to 5% would take 5% to 35%...




jimwg said…
NEI. PLEASE do an in-depth examination of nuclear energy and the media. I can't plead plainer than that about a hot-potato issue to most all nuclear blogs or orgs.

Gutsy thanks!

James Greenidge
Queens NY
(who witnessed shameful media lynching of Shoreham)
Anonymous said…
How many SWU are needed to enrich one kilogram of uranium from natural (0.7% U-235) to 3.7% U-235? Then, how many additional SWU are needed to go from 3.7% to 90%?

That's the question, and the answer is not intuitive.

Hint: It's not linear -- less SWU are needed to increase enrichment as the enrichment level of the original feed increases.

CNN might still be wrong; it seems unlikely that 3.7% is fully "half way" to 90%. But it's not directly proportionate to the percentage of enrichment.

Also, it's important to bear in mind that one need not have weapons-GRADE uranium (>90%) to make a nuclear bomb. Any high-enriched uranium (>20%) can be used; it's a question of the size of the critical mass. That's why HEU exists as a category in safeguards nomenclature in the first place.
Edwin Lyman said…
I'm sorry, but I don't understand the point of your objection.

CNN is referring to the relative quantities of separative work required to enrich natural uranium and 3.67%-enriched uranium to weapons-grade. In fact, 3.67% is more than halfway in terms of SWU requirements. It takes approximately 36% as many SWU to produce a given quantity of 90%-enriched HEU from 3.67%-enriched LEU as it takes to produce the same quantity from enriching natural uranium.

Moreover, nuclear weapons can be built with much lower enrichments. The technical definition of HEU is any enrichment greater than 20%. There are tradeoffs between the enrichment and the core weight, however.

Popular posts from this blog

Making Clouds for a Living

Donell Banks works at Southern Nuclear’s Plant Vogtle units 3 and 4 as a shift supervisor in Operations, but is in the process of transitioning to his newly appointed role as the daily work controls manager. He has been in the nuclear energy industry for about 11 years.

I love what I do because I have the unique opportunity to help shape the direction and influence the culture for the future of nuclear power in the United States. Every single day presents a new challenge, but I wouldn't have it any other way. As a shift supervisor, I was primarily responsible for managing the development of procedures and programs to support operation of the first new nuclear units in the United States in more than 30 years. As the daily work controls manager, I will be responsible for oversight of the execution and scheduling of daily work to ensure organizational readiness to operate the new units.

I envision a nuclear energy industry that leverages the technology of today to improve efficiency…

Why America Needs the MOX Facility

If Isaiah had been a nuclear engineer, he’d have loved this project. And the Trump Administration should too, despite the proposal to eliminate it in the FY 2018 budget.

The project is a massive factory near Aiken, S.C., that will take plutonium from the government’s arsenal and turn it into fuel for civilian power reactors. The plutonium, made by the United States during the Cold War in a competition with the Soviet Union, is now surplus, and the United States and the Russian Federation jointly agreed to reduce their stocks, to reduce the chance of its use in weapons. Over two thousand construction workers, technicians and engineers are at work to enable the transformation.

Carrying Isaiah’s “swords into plowshares” vision into the nuclear field did not originate with plutonium. In 1993, the United States and Russia began a 20-year program to take weapons-grade uranium out of the Russian inventory, dilute it to levels appropriate for civilian power plants, and then use it to produce…

Nuclear: Energy for All Political Seasons

The electoral college will soon confirm a surprise election result, Donald Trump. However, in the electricity world, there are fewer surprises – physics and economics will continue to apply, and Republicans and Democrats are going to find a lot to like about nuclear energy over the next four years.

In a Trump administration, the carbon conversation is going to be less prominent. But the nuclear value proposition is still there. We bring steady jobs to rural areas, including in the Rust Belt, which put Donald Trump in office. Nuclear plants keep the surrounding communities vibrant.

We hold down electricity costs for the whole economy. We provide energy diversity, reducing the risk of disruption. We are a critical part of America’s industrial infrastructure, and the importance of infrastructure is something that President-Elect Trump has stressed.

One of our infrastructure challenges is natural gas pipelines, which have gotten more congested as extremely low gas prices have pulled m…