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.


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."
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

Sneak Peek

There's an invisible force powering and propelling our way of life.
It's all around us. You can't feel it. Smell it. Or taste it.
But it's there all the same. And if you look close enough, you can see all the amazing and wondrous things it does.
It not only powers our cities and towns.
And all the high-tech things we love.
It gives us the power to invent.
To explore.
To discover.
To create advanced technologies.
This invisible force creates jobs out of thin air.
It adds billions to our economy.
It's on even when we're not.
And stays on no matter what Mother Nature throws at it.
This invisible force takes us to the outer reaches of outer space.
And to the very depths of our oceans.
It brings us together. And it makes us better.
And most importantly, it has the power to do all this in our lifetime while barely leaving a trace.
Some people might say it's kind of unbelievable.
They wonder, what is this new power that does all these extraordinary things?

A Design Team Pictures the Future of Nuclear Energy

For more than 100 years, the shape and location of human settlements has been defined in large part by energy and water. Cities grew up near natural resources like hydropower, and near water for agricultural, industrial and household use.

So what would the world look like with a new generation of small nuclear reactors that could provide abundant, clean energy for electricity, water pumping and desalination and industrial processes?

Hard to say with precision, but Third Way, the non-partisan think tank, asked the design team at the Washington, D.C. office of Gensler & Associates, an architecture and interior design firm that specializes in sustainable projects like a complex that houses the NFL’s Dallas Cowboys. The talented designers saw a blooming desert and a cozy arctic village, an old urban mill re-purposed as an energy producer, a data center that integrates solar panels on its sprawling flat roofs, a naval base and a humming transit hub.

In the converted mill, high temperat…

Seeing the Light on Nuclear Energy

If you think that there is plenty of electricity, that the air is clean enough and that nuclear power is a just one among many options for meeting human needs, then you are probably over-focused on the United States or Western Europe. Even then, you’d be wrong.

That’s the idea at the heart of a new book, “Seeing the Light: The Case for Nuclear Power in the 21st Century,” by Scott L. Montgomery, a geoscientist and energy expert, and Thomas Graham Jr., a retired ambassador and arms control expert.

Billions of people live in energy poverty, they write, and even those who don’t, those who live in places where there is always an electric outlet or a light switch handy, we need to unmake the last 200 years of energy history, and move to non-carbon sources. Energy is integral to our lives but the authors cite a World Health Organization estimate that more than 6.5 million people die each year from air pollution.  In addition, they say, the global climate is heading for ruinous instability. E…