The proliferation risk is that countries build enrichment facilities claiming it's for nuclear electricity production, but instead used for weapons production. This can be addressed by prohibiting the construction of enrichment facilities and having countries that already possess nuclear weapons enrich fuel for other countries pro-bono.
That arrangement sounds great for the countries with enrichment facilities and a raw deal for everyone else. What country would want to have that dependancy for
basic energy needs?
They get fuel processing without having to develop and deploy very expensive technology, and possibly get free processing. Also, they get less nuclear proliferation, which could be existential for humanity.
I believe it is in the Nuclear Non-Proliferation Treaty or was proposed as another agreement.
I think it is also worth mentioning that enrichment plants don't scale linearly. So it starts to become fairly obvious when a country is producing more enriched material than what is necessary for their energy production.
I'm not sure who you're talking about. If we're talking about nuclear scientists who are pro nonproliferation, well they're the ones who invented it. If we're talking about green peace, well, they are neither green nor peaceful.
I'm learned about it from random Internet commenters who make posts that know it all, dismiss everyone else, and support it by being aggressive and obnoxious.
We're on HN. There are people with expertise in the field. You can also vet everything I've stated. I've linked sources and pulled from my own experience. You would not be arguing with me if this was on database processing or something computer related. But we're talking a hot topic and one that is known to be extremely complicated. Sorry that you think my education and experience in the field is dismissive of the views of someone who claims to have neither.
