Timeline for Is Iran's claim of civilian uses for 60%-enriched Uranium valid?
Current License: CC BY-SA 4.0
11 events
| when toggle format | what | by | license | comment | |
|---|---|---|---|---|---|
| Nov 5, 2021 at 14:21 | comment | added | Joe | @Rekesoft That wouldn't explain why there have been LEU reactors to produce molybdenum-99 since the 80's. | |
| Nov 5, 2021 at 14:14 | comment | added | Rekesoft | @Fizz The fact that they don't export it anymore doesn't mean they have an alternative source for themselves. They don't export F-22 or nuclear warheads either, but that doesn't mean they don't produce them for themselves. | |
| Nov 5, 2021 at 14:04 | comment | added | 264 champagne bottles on ice | @Rekesoft: well, there's a 2012 article that said the US was looking to end their HEU export licenses by 2020: "AMIPA does not foresee ending export licenses for HEU until at least 2020.. It would be interesting to know if they've actually managed that. | |
| Nov 5, 2021 at 14:01 | comment | added | Rekesoft | The link Fizz has provided points that alternative sources to HEU for Mb99 are only being investigated due to Obama's administration will of depriving Iran of an alibi for its enrichment program. It also points that only tiny amounts of Mb99 are being obtained in these experimental reactors, and it is yet to be seen if they will become a practical source of Mb99 or not - and if they will, we'll see if it's economically viable, specially for poorer countries. So far, this option is just like nuclear fussion: desirable but non-existant. | |
| Nov 5, 2021 at 13:52 | comment | added | einpoklum | @Fizz: I don't know what it costs, I know (almost) nothing about nuclear engineering. Also, Joe, do we know Iran has LEU production capabilities of their own, as opposed to using the reactor the US gave them in 1967? And - are we certain there are no benefits to using HEU as the fuel? | |
| Nov 5, 2021 at 13:44 | comment | added | Joe | @einpoklum I believe in those cases, it is because the non-HEU process did not exist in the 1960s when those reactors first achieved criticality. | |
| Nov 5, 2021 at 13:44 | comment | added | 264 champagne bottles on ice | It's probably less economical to do it without HEU or it would have been done that way a long time ago and without 2010 US legislation that put pressure in that direction. proquest.com/openview/4e166196ba8718dc0c83172395c86b29/… Which source precisely says the costs are the same? I can't find the claim in the Wikipedia page you linked. | |
| Nov 5, 2021 at 13:36 | comment | added | einpoklum | Well, you could make the same argument abot the Osiris and BR2 reactoers, which use HEU. That is, perhaps it's not necessary, but apparently it's convenient under some circumstances. | |
| Nov 5, 2021 at 13:34 | comment | added | Joe | My point was not that they could purchase molybdenum-99. My point was that, if their purpose was to create a domestic molybdenum-99 industry with a reactor, it does not require any HEU. | |
| Nov 5, 2021 at 12:27 | comment | added | einpoklum | 1. MRI uses magnetic fields, I don't think it would need radioactive isotopes. Perhaps you mean PET, SPECT or CT? 2. "There are at least 3 reactors" - none of them in Iran, and Iran is under a heavy sanctions regime which IIRC prevents them for importing even medicinal supplies. I doubt they would be able to purchase radio-isotopes. And if they could, that would have both a high monetary price and a diplomatic one. | |
| Nov 5, 2021 at 12:25 | history | answered | Joe | CC BY-SA 4.0 |