A bit said in the press about supporting "American centrifuge" and restarting the US uranium enrichment industry.
A good point made was that if the US wants to sell nuclear technology and have a say over who enriches uranium then they should have a US made supply of enriched uranium made available for export to non enriching countries.
My question back would be . That is very true, but if you want to argue who should supply your uranium , shouldn't you utilise the lowest cost enrichment technology possible? (silex half the capital cost and by accounts cheaper operating costs).
the US has twenty odd years supply of military grade nuclear material .Shouldn't you take care of proliferation first , instead of worrying that you may not be able to legally blow stuff up in twenty five years.
March 20, 2018
After DOE Agreement to Clean Up Existing Piketon Site, Portman Secures Commitment From Energy Secretary Perry to Re-Examine Domestic Uranium Enrichment Program
http://www.dispatch.com/news/201803...ry-says-hes-open-to-reopening-piketon-project
Add to My Watchlist
What is My Watchlist?
