I guess I must be confused by this quote then:
That last is a flat-out lie. And they don’t say it would be dangerous, they say it’s a ‘pipe dream’ and ‘completely unfeasible’.
Having read the article, they’re also making misleading claims about proliferation. They don’t mention the many nuclear fuel cycles that don’t produce anything near weapons-grade materials. They don’t back up their assertions in any way. They say there is only 25 years worth of high-grade uranium - The IAEA doesn’t agree. Here are their estimates:
Proven reserves: 65 years at current consumption
Estimated reserves easily attainable: More than 100 additional years.
Uranium available through unconventional means, such as extraction from phosphates and seawater: 3,000 years.
With that much uranium available, the Oxford’s group entire premise - that the only way we can have nuclear power is with breeder reactors - is in shambles. And they don’t make the case at all that a breeder reactor necessarily increases the risk of proliferation at all.
They also ignore thorium, which can be burned as nuclear fuel, and there’s more thorium easily obtainable than there is uranium.
I also had a look at the 'Oxford Group’s list of analysts and researchers, and I’m not impressed. There’s one old scientist who last worked in the nuclear field in 1957 and who now makes a living writing books and being a peace activist. There’s a ‘Professor of Peace Studies’, a woman who’s only qualifications seem to be that she hosts peace roundtables and ‘Liddite conversations’, whatever those are. I’m not sure I want to know.
Their lone economist seems to be a ‘Palestinian Political Counselor’ with a B.A in economics and who wrote a Ph.D thesis on ‘international peacebuilding’, but who doesn’t appear to actually have a Ph.D. Maybe his thesis was supported about as well as their ‘report’. Mr. Zomlot also chairs the ‘Boycott Israel’ campaign
This has to be one of the lamest ‘think tanks’ I’ve ever seen.