North Korea and Nukes

Whenever I talk to new people about nuclear engineering, whether scientists or lay people, one of the first questions is either "does it make you glow in the dark?" or "do you know how to make bombs?" The first is clearly prompted by The Simpsons, but the latter is much more interesting. Nuclear bombs are in the news right now, by way of North Korea's testing and movement on the NPT.

A few weeks ago, I was interested to see that they started reprocessing their spent fuel. Back in June of 2008, they tore down the cooling tower for their nuclear reactor; though it was definitely a good gesture, it was little more than that. Yes, reactors need cooling, but the cooling tower is not strictly necessary, as cooling can be accomplished by other means. Around when the North Korea started reprocessing fuel, they launched a satellite; this was widely regarded as a missile launch test, but at least there was some attempt to keep the nuclear program clandestine.

In the past couple weeks, North Korea has tested two nuclear weapons underground. They have launched multiple missiles. They are warning people to stay away from their coast because they are going to do more testing. Surprisingly, there doesn't seem to be much world response. Maybe it is because we knew that they had nukes.

When we talk about who has nukes, we talk about the Nuclear Non-Proliferation Treaty (NPT). The NPT doesn't need to be extended, as it was decided in 1995 to extend the treaty indefinitely. However, the treaty is periodically reviewed. For the past few years, the agenda has not been set. One of the provisions of the NPT calls for complete nuclear disarmament of the participating nations. None of the countries is actually interested in complete disarmament, least of all the US and Russia. When the agenda for treaty review is set, numerous non-nuclear states want disarmament on the agenda, resulting in deadlock before the meeting starts.

However, this year the primary topic of discussion is the side issue of production of "highly enriched uranium and plutonium". It looks probable that the treaty review meeting will take place this year. What troubles me is that statement in quotes. Does "highly enriched" apply to both uranium and plutonium? Does it really count as highly enriched if it contains poisons such as americium? Americium would make the plutonium useless for bombs, but would not impair its usefulness in breeder reactors. Would we be allowed to make breeder reactors? Breeder reactors require higher enriched fuel than light water reactors--15-30%. Fuel is classified as "highly enriched" above 20%. Are we going to limit ourselves to non-breeding reactors because countries that aren't current signatories (North Korea initially ratified the NPT, but withdrew in 2003.) make bombs out of material that could be used to make energy?

Ignorant fear of nuclear power has already hurt the industry so much. Political justifications have already driven us to exclusively use one of the most wasteful reactor designs. I do not see calling for limits on people who aren't under any obligation to follow them as useful. I do not see limiting future reactors to LWR's or, at best, burner reactors as any legacy we should leave.