Journal Article - Bulletin of the Atomic Scientists
Plutonium Reprocessing, Breeder Reactors, and Decades of Debate: A Chinese Response
Some observers believe that plutonium reprocessing is on the verge of an expansion, while others argue that the end of the practice is in sight. The risk of nuclear proliferation has always been the chief objection to reprocessing but proponents argue that today, with uranium enrichment technology more easily available, reprocessing no longer represents an efficient route toward nuclear weapons. Supporters also tout the energy security that reprocessing could provide to nations without indigenous uranium sources and the reductions in high-level nuclear waste that reprocessing might achieve. Opponents counter that reprocessing offers only marginal benefits in waste reduction and in any event makes little economic sense. Here, Klaus Janberg of Germany (2015), Baldev Raj and P. R. Vasudeva Rao of India (2015), and Hui Zhang of China debate how nations—taking into account issues ranging from proliferation to waste to cost—should approach plutonium reprocessing...
Want to Read More?
The full text of this publication is available via the original publication source.
For more information on this publication:
Please contact
Managing the Atom
For Academic Citation:
Zhang, Hui. “Plutonium Reprocessing, Breeder Reactors, and Decades of Debate: A Chinese Response.” Bulletin of the Atomic Scientists, vol. 71. no. 4. (July 1, 2015) .
- Recommended
- In the Spotlight
- Most Viewed
Recommended
Analysis & Opinions
- Belfer Center for Science and International Affairs, Harvard Kennedy School
Center Experts Reflect on 75th Anniversary of Hiroshima Bombing
Analysis & Opinions
- The Washington Post
75 Years after Hiroshima, Here are 4 Things to Know about Nuclear Disarmament Efforts
Journal Article
- Bulletin of the Atomic Scientists
'What About China?' and the Threat to US–Russian Nuclear Arms Control
In the Spotlight
Most Viewed
Policy Brief
- Quarterly Journal: International Security
The Future of U.S. Nuclear Policy: The Case for No First Use
Discussion Paper
- Belfer Center for Science and International Affairs, Harvard Kennedy School
Why the United States Should Spread Democracy
Some observers believe that plutonium reprocessing is on the verge of an expansion, while others argue that the end of the practice is in sight. The risk of nuclear proliferation has always been the chief objection to reprocessing but proponents argue that today, with uranium enrichment technology more easily available, reprocessing no longer represents an efficient route toward nuclear weapons. Supporters also tout the energy security that reprocessing could provide to nations without indigenous uranium sources and the reductions in high-level nuclear waste that reprocessing might achieve. Opponents counter that reprocessing offers only marginal benefits in waste reduction and in any event makes little economic sense. Here, Klaus Janberg of Germany (2015), Baldev Raj and P. R. Vasudeva Rao of India (2015), and Hui Zhang of China debate how nations—taking into account issues ranging from proliferation to waste to cost—should approach plutonium reprocessing...
Want to Read More?
The full text of this publication is available via the original publication source.- Recommended
- In the Spotlight
- Most Viewed
Recommended
Analysis & Opinions - Belfer Center for Science and International Affairs, Harvard Kennedy School
Center Experts Reflect on 75th Anniversary of Hiroshima Bombing
Analysis & Opinions - The Washington Post
75 Years after Hiroshima, Here are 4 Things to Know about Nuclear Disarmament Efforts
Journal Article - Bulletin of the Atomic Scientists
'What About China?' and the Threat to US–Russian Nuclear Arms Control
In the Spotlight
Most Viewed
Policy Brief - Quarterly Journal: International Security
The Future of U.S. Nuclear Policy: The Case for No First Use
Discussion Paper - Belfer Center for Science and International Affairs, Harvard Kennedy School
Why the United States Should Spread Democracy


