It seems that commercial reactors use 3% to 5% enriched Uranium. [1] Is there any practical reason to enrich Uranium to 60%? For example, is it cheaper to enrich the Uranium to 60%, and then use that as fuel for ~12 commercial reactors by diluting it down to ~5%?
This appears to be spending a lot of effort to concentrate uranium into a tidy, enriched package in order to provoke Israel into transforming that package into a significantly less concentrated and much less usable form.
Well, using more highly enriched uranium means you can make reactors lighter and more compact which is very important if you want to send them to outer space. I don't think Iran has any immediate interest in that but it's very much on NASA's radar.
> Is there any practical reason to enrich Uranium to 60%?
Yes.
Going from 2% -> 90% first requires you to go from 2% -> 60% both in the mathematical sense (2->60->90) and in the process sense (it's a lot less work to from 60% -> 90% than it is from 2% -> 90%) and also in the sense that you to first develop the technology to enrich uranium to various levels, then develop the technology to enrich it to that level at scale, enriching to 2% isn't that hard, enriching to 60% is hard, enriching to 90% is harder but the leap from 2->60 is a lot harder than the leap from 60->90.
In short, no, I don't think there is any practical reason to enrich to 60% unless your intention is to either enrich to weapons grade or as a threat to do so.
Which describes radioisotope thermoelectric generators in spacecraft, prototype small sealed reactors, and nuclear submarines. The last is obviously military use.