Skip to main content

Used Nuclear Fuel and the Fission-Fusion Cycle

fusion-reactor-5 President-elect Obama often mentions the "safety" of used nuclear fuel as a block to a whole-hearted embrace of nuclear energy, so we wondered what thinking was going on that seeks to mitigate or even eliminate permanent or even (long-term) interim storage.

We might be all aboard the Yucca Mountain Limited, but recognizing the skittishness that some feel about it, what else might we do?

The NYT's Green Inc. blog reports on a notion to use fusion energy to further split and essentially put to immediate use plutonium and the transuranic elements to generate more energy - instant recycling, if you will:

But what if these “transuranics” could themselves be split? Yet more energy would be derived — but perhaps more importantly, the resulting waste, while still radioactive, would be far less long-lived. [note: which might forestall all the science fiction work Washington has done on how to warn people of the far future - or their ape successors -  that radiant elements are present.]

...

At the heart of the concept — which exists only on paper — is what the scientists call a “compact fusion neutron device.”

The compact nature of the reactor is key, as the immensity of previously designed fusion reactors - and the immense amount of energy they need to operate effectively - has kept them off the boards. But considering this is coming from academics still at the preparing-a-paper-for-a-journal phase, this is, at best, a long way from any sort of practical application - which, come to think of it, is true of fusion projects in general. But it is the percolation of ideas that has value.

Read the whole thing - it actually proved tough to excerpt - and see what you think.

Cutaway of an ITER Tokamak fusion reactor. See here for more on it. What the gentlemen in Austin have in mind hasn't seen publication yet.

Comments

Anonymous said…
Guys, See the IAEA's paper on fusion / fission breeder reactor:

http://www.iaea.org/programmes/ripc/physics/pdf/ftp_16.pdf

and

http://www.iaea.org/inisnkm/nkm/aws/fnss/cs/meeting_reports/summaryreport6.pdf

I read an article about this back in 1977 when I was an RO on a submarine. This never took off because fusion could never be made self-sustaining and economical. Kirk Sorensen's molten salt thorium reactors or Carlo Rubbia's energy amplifiers are much better ideas:

http://www.nea.fr/html/trw/docs/saturne8/sat15.pdf
http://einstein.unh.edu/FWHersman/energy_amplifier.html
Luke said…
Interestingly, the fission-fusion hybrid reactor concept dates at least as far back as an essay published in Physics Today in 1979 by the illustrious Hans Bethe.

http://www.physicstoday.org/vol-32/vol32no5p44_51.pdf
donb said…
Looks to me like someone is fishing for more research money for a fusion reactor (which has been only 10 years off for the last 50 years).

At least one way of destroying actinides has already been demonstrated - the IRF, though the fuel fabrication cycle was not fully demonstrated (thank you Bill Clinton). This reactor could also burn up the many tons of depleted uranium we have around, both in used fuel from light water reactors and from the U235 enrichment process.

The molten salt thorium reactor mentioned above is also very interesting, and has already been demonstrated.

I say we first spend our money on things we already know work in order to make it commercially viable. Then we can go after more "speculative" solutions like Carlo Rubbia's energy amplifier.

I say we wait until we have working fusion reactors (I'm not holding my breath) before using their excess neutrons from fusion to destroy unwanted products from fission reactors.
M. Simon said…
There are other ways to fusion that might prove quicker and less expensive:

Easy Low Cost No Radiation Fusion

IEC Fusion Technology blog

Popular posts from this blog

Sneak Peek

There's an invisible force powering and propelling our way of life.
It's all around us. You can't feel it. Smell it. Or taste it.
But it's there all the same. And if you look close enough, you can see all the amazing and wondrous things it does.
It not only powers our cities and towns.
And all the high-tech things we love.
It gives us the power to invent.
To explore.
To discover.
To create advanced technologies.
This invisible force creates jobs out of thin air.
It adds billions to our economy.
It's on even when we're not.
And stays on no matter what Mother Nature throws at it.
This invisible force takes us to the outer reaches of outer space.
And to the very depths of our oceans.
It brings us together. And it makes us better.
And most importantly, it has the power to do all this in our lifetime while barely leaving a trace.
Some people might say it's kind of unbelievable.
They wonder, what is this new power that does all these extraordinary things?

A Design Team Pictures the Future of Nuclear Energy

For more than 100 years, the shape and location of human settlements has been defined in large part by energy and water. Cities grew up near natural resources like hydropower, and near water for agricultural, industrial and household use.

So what would the world look like with a new generation of small nuclear reactors that could provide abundant, clean energy for electricity, water pumping and desalination and industrial processes?

Hard to say with precision, but Third Way, the non-partisan think tank, asked the design team at the Washington, D.C. office of Gensler & Associates, an architecture and interior design firm that specializes in sustainable projects like a complex that houses the NFL’s Dallas Cowboys. The talented designers saw a blooming desert and a cozy arctic village, an old urban mill re-purposed as an energy producer, a data center that integrates solar panels on its sprawling flat roofs, a naval base and a humming transit hub.

In the converted mill, high temperat…

Seeing the Light on Nuclear Energy

If you think that there is plenty of electricity, that the air is clean enough and that nuclear power is a just one among many options for meeting human needs, then you are probably over-focused on the United States or Western Europe. Even then, you’d be wrong.

That’s the idea at the heart of a new book, “Seeing the Light: The Case for Nuclear Power in the 21st Century,” by Scott L. Montgomery, a geoscientist and energy expert, and Thomas Graham Jr., a retired ambassador and arms control expert.


Billions of people live in energy poverty, they write, and even those who don’t, those who live in places where there is always an electric outlet or a light switch handy, we need to unmake the last 200 years of energy history, and move to non-carbon sources. Energy is integral to our lives but the authors cite a World Health Organization estimate that more than 6.5 million people die each year from air pollution.  In addition, they say, the global climate is heading for ruinous instability. E…