Editing Nuclear power (section)

== Proliferation ==
{{further|Nuclear proliferation}}
{{see also|Plutonium Management and Disposition Agreement}}
[[File:US and USSR nuclear stockpiles.svg|thumb|upright=1.2|United States and [[USSR]]/Russian [[nuclear weapons]] stockpiles, 1945–2006. The [[Megatons to Megawatts Program]] was the main driving force behind the sharp reduction in the quantity of nuclear weapons worldwide since the cold war ended.<ref name="thebulletin.org" /><ref name="usec.com">{{cite web|url=http://www.usec.com/ |title=home |publisher=usec.com |date=2013-05-24 |access-date=2013-06-14 |archive-url=https://web.archive.org/web/20130621223711/http://www.usec.com/ |archive-date=2013-06-21 }}</ref>]]
[[File:US Navy 060420-N-9621S-004 The guided-missile cruiser USS Monterey (CG 61) conducts a fueling at sea (FAS) with the Nimitz-class aircraft carrier USS George Washington (CVN 73).jpg|thumb|upright=1.2|The guided-missile cruiser USS Monterey (CG 61) receives fuel at sea (FAS) from the Nimitz-class aircraft carrier USS George Washington (CVN 73).]]
Nuclear proliferation is the spread of [[nuclear weapon]]s, fissionable material, and weapons-related nuclear technology to states that do not already possess nuclear weapons. Many technologies and materials associated with the creation of a nuclear power program have a dual-use capability, in that they can also be used to make nuclear weapons. For this reason, nuclear power presents proliferation risks.

Nuclear power program can become a route leading to a nuclear weapon. An example of this is the concern over [[Nuclear program of Iran|Iran's nuclear program]].<ref name="dfall2009">{{cite journal |last1=Miller |first1=Steven E. |last2=Sagan |first2=Scott D. |name-list-style=amp |date=Fall 2009 |title=Nuclear power without nuclear proliferation? |journal=Dædalus |volume=138 |issue=4 |page=7 |doi=10.1162/daed.2009.138.4.7 |s2cid=57568427 |doi-access=free}}</ref> The re-purposing of civilian nuclear industries for military purposes would be a breach of the [[Non-proliferation treaty|Non-Proliferation Treaty]], to which 190 countries adhere. As of April 2012, there are [[Nuclear power by country|thirty one countries]] that have civil nuclear power plants,<ref>{{cite web |url=http://www.world-nuclear.org/info/inf01.html |title=Nuclear Power in the World Today |publisher=World-nuclear.org |access-date=2013-06-22 |archive-date=2013-02-12 |archive-url=https://web.archive.org/web/20130212224344/http://www.world-nuclear.org/info/inf01.html |url-status=live }}</ref> of which nine have nuclear weapons. The vast majority of these [[nuclear weapons state]]s have produced weapons before commercial nuclear power stations.

A fundamental goal for global security is to minimize the nuclear proliferation risks associated with the expansion of nuclear power.<ref name=dfall2009 /> The [[Global Nuclear Energy Partnership]] was an international effort to create a distribution network in which developing countries in need of energy would receive [[nuclear fuel]] at a discounted rate, in exchange for that nation agreeing to forgo their own indigenous development of a uranium enrichment program. The France-based [[Eurodif]]/''European Gaseous Diffusion Uranium Enrichment Consortium'' is a program that successfully implemented this concept, with [[Nuclear power in Spain|Spain]] and other countries without enrichment facilities buying a share of the fuel produced at the French-controlled enrichment facility, but without a transfer of technology.<ref>{{cite web|url=http://www.world-nuclear.org/info/Nuclear-Fuel-Cycle/Conversion-Enrichment-and-Fabrication/Uranium-Enrichment/|title=Uranium Enrichment|publisher=World Nuclear Association|website=www.world-nuclear.org|access-date=2015-08-12|archive-date=2013-07-01|archive-url=https://web.archive.org/web/20130701071520/http://www.world-nuclear.org/info/Nuclear-Fuel-Cycle/Conversion-Enrichment-and-Fabrication/Uranium-Enrichment/|url-status=dead}}</ref> Iran was an early participant from 1974 and remains a shareholder of Eurodif via [[Sofidif]].

A 2009 United Nations report said that:
<blockquote>the revival of interest in nuclear power could result in the worldwide dissemination of uranium enrichment and spent fuel reprocessing technologies, which present obvious risks of proliferation as these technologies can produce fissile materials that are directly usable in nuclear weapons.<ref name="bks2011">{{cite book |last=Sovacool |first=Benjamin K. |author-link=Benjamin K. Sovacool |title=Contesting the Future of Nuclear Power: A Critical Global Assessment of Atomic Energy |title-link=Contesting the Future of Nuclear Power |date=2011 |publisher=[[World Scientific]] |isbn=978-981-4322-75-1 |location=Hackensack, New Jersey |page=190 |language=en-us}}</ref></blockquote>

On the other hand, power reactors can also reduce nuclear weapon arsenals when military-grade nuclear materials are reprocessed to be used as fuel in nuclear power plants. The [[Megatons to Megawatts Program]] is considered the single most successful [[non-proliferation]] program to date.<ref name="thebulletin.org">{{cite web |url=http://www.thebulletin.org/web-edition/op-eds/support-of-the-megatons-to-megawatts-program |title=The Bulletin of atomic scientists support the megatons to megawatts program |archive-url=https://web.archive.org/web/20110708162741/http://www.thebulletin.org/web-edition/op-eds/support-of-the-megatons-to-megawatts-program |archive-date=2011-07-08 |access-date=2012-09-15 |date=2008-10-23 |url-status=dead }}</ref> Up to 2005, the program had processed $8 billion of high enriched, weapons-grade uranium into [[low enriched uranium]] suitable as nuclear fuel for commercial fission reactors by diluting it with [[natural uranium]]. This corresponds to the elimination of 10,000 nuclear weapons.<ref>{{cite web |url=http://www.usec.com/news/megatons-megawatts-eliminates-equivalent-10000-nuclear-warheads |title=Megatons to Megawatts Eliminates Equivalent of 10,000 Nuclear Warheads |publisher=Usec.com |date=2005-09-21 |access-date=2013-06-22 |archive-url=https://web.archive.org/web/20130426130245/http://www.usec.com/news/megatons-megawatts-eliminates-equivalent-10000-nuclear-warheads |archive-date=2013-04-26 |url-status=dead }}</ref> For approximately two decades, this material generated nearly 10 percent of all the electricity consumed in the United States, or about half of all U.S. nuclear electricity, with a total of around 7,000{{nbsp}}[[TWh]] of electricity produced.<ref name="ReferenceB">{{cite journal |author=Stover |first=Dawn |date=2014-02-21 |title=More megatons to megawatts |url=http://thebulletin.org/more-megatons-megawatts |url-status=dead |journal=The Bulletin |archive-url=https://web.archive.org/web/20170504175156/http://thebulletin.org/more-megatons-megawatts |archive-date=2017-05-04 |access-date=2015-08-11}}</ref> In total it is estimated to have cost $17 billion, a "bargain for US ratepayers", with Russia profiting $12 billion from the deal.<ref name="ReferenceB" /> Much needed profit for the Russian nuclear oversight industry, which after the collapse of the [[Soviet economy]], had difficulties paying for the maintenance and security of the Russian Federation's highly enriched uranium and warheads.<ref name="A Farewell to Arms, 2014">{{cite web|url=http://www.technologyreview.com/article/529861/a-farewell-to-arms/|title=Against Long Odds, MIT's Thomas Neff Hatched a Plan to Turn Russian Warheads into American Electricity|first=Anne-Marie|last=Corley|access-date=2015-08-11|archive-date=2015-09-04|archive-url=https://web.archive.org/web/20150904010100/http://www.technologyreview.com/article/529861/a-farewell-to-arms/|url-status=live}}</ref> The Megatons to Megawatts Program was hailed as a major success by anti-nuclear weapon advocates as it has largely been the driving force behind the sharp reduction in the number of nuclear weapons worldwide since the cold war ended.<ref name="thebulletin.org" /> However, without an increase in nuclear reactors and greater demand for fissile fuel, the cost of dismantling and down blending has dissuaded Russia from continuing their disarmament. As of 2013, Russia appears to not be interested in extending the program.<ref>{{cite news |date=2009-12-05 |title=Future Unclear For 'Megatons To Megawatts' Program |url=https://www.npr.org/templates/story/story.php?storyId=121125743 |url-status=live |archive-url=https://web.archive.org/web/20150112002945/http://www.npr.org/templates/story/story.php?storyId=121125743 |archive-date=2015-01-12 |access-date=2013-06-22 |work=All Things Considered |publisher=National Public Radio |language=en-us |publication-place=United States}}</ref>