BS: UT Austin Develops Hybrid Fusion Reactor

Subject: BS: UT Austin Develops Hybrid Fusion Reactor
From: Rapparee
Date: 29 Jan 09 - 06:35 PM

The story is here. Since this converts the waste from fission plants into inert materials it could solve several problems at once.

Subject: RE: BS: UT Austin Develops Hybrid Fusion Reactor
From: Charley Noble
Date: 29 Jan 09 - 07:38 PM

Rapaire-

Interesting, assuming that nothing serious can go wrong.

But so far this project appears to be still in the design stage.

Charley Noble

Subject: RE: BS: UT Austin Develops Hybrid Fusion Reactor
From: Q (Frank Staplin)
Date: 29 Jan 09 - 07:48 PM

Be good to see prototype-pilot plant results.
Nuclear is the best bet to replace fossil fuels, if the waste problem can be licked.

Subject: RE: BS: UT Austin Develops Hybrid Fusion Reactor
From: McGrath of Harlow
Date: 29 Jan 09 - 08:03 PM

Sounds exciting, But it all sounds as if it's a bit to soon to use a word like "develops".

An dthough I found this artcle posted in a few places, It couldn't find anything that would help firm it up scientifically. Remember "cold fusion"...

Subject: RE: BS: UT Austin Develops Hybrid Fusion Reactor
From: Rapparee
Date: 29 Jan 09 - 08:48 PM

Oh, yeah. But if this DOES get working (and I doubt that it will be done quickly) it would use the waste from current nuke plants to create energy and leave the waste as inert, nonradioactive substances.

Fusion has always had that capability; I do hope that it works.

Subject: RE: BS: UT Austin Develops Hybrid Fusion Reactor
From: John on the Sunset Coast
Date: 29 Jan 09 - 09:05 PM

The Luddites will still protest nuclear power.

If we just recycled current nuclear waste for power, the eventual byproduct could be easily and safely stored. But ain't happening.

I don't see significant expansion in the use of any nuclear power of any kind in the US in my lifetime, perhaps 15 to 20 years out.

Subject: RE: BS: UT Austin Develops Hybrid Fusion Reactor
From: Riginslinger
Date: 29 Jan 09 - 09:09 PM

Didn't we go through this a few years back at some other university--Brigham Young, or somewere?

Subject: RE: BS: UT Austin Develops Hybrid Fusion Reactor
From: Amos
Date: 29 Jan 09 - 09:11 PM

Hell it would be simple to dispose of if we dropped into the inter-tectonic-plate division where the hot sulfur vents come up at the bottom of the Marianas. But no-one has figured out how to do that.

As to the best option for energy, I am not sure I agree. Solaar and wind are no more costly to build for, require no fuel at all, and are driven by pretty long-term resources. They cause no fatal accidents (even occasional ones like Three Mile) and are within a generation of becoming cost competitive. So wherefore is nuclear a better option?


A

Subject: RE: BS: UT Austin Develops Hybrid Fusion Reactor
From: Charley Noble
Date: 29 Jan 09 - 09:17 PM

Sigh!

There are serious questions about the older generation of nuclear plants, and the next generations shares many of the same problems. This design has great promise but we need to know what risks are involved, and what the system costs to bring it on line.

My parents led the opposition to the siting of Maine's first nuclear plant, Maine Yankee. After Three Mile island and Chernobyl I spent 5 years working full time to shut Maine Yankee down. We didn't succeed with three referendum campaigns but the plant owners finally decided to shut it down ten years before its license expired because its maintenance problems were compounding and it was no longer competitive with alternative sources of power.

John on the Sunset Coast-

You should know that in addition to Luddites, there are well informed people who raise questions about the safety of nuclear power. And there are generations who will suffer from being exposed to nuclear power plant accidents.

Charley Noble

Subject: RE: BS: UT Austin Develops Hybrid Fusion Reactor
From: Riginslinger
Date: 29 Jan 09 - 09:23 PM

Amos - Isn't fusion supposed to be completely safe? I thought that was its strong selling point.

Subject: RE: BS: UT Austin Develops Hybrid Fusion Reactor
From: John on the Sunset Coast
Date: 29 Jan 09 - 09:50 PM

The Luddites and well informed people will still protest nuclear power.
The Luddites will be ostriches, the well informed people will probably just be wrong.

Subject: RE: BS: UT Austin Develops Hybrid Fusion Reactor
From: Rapparee
Date: 29 Jan 09 - 10:02 PM

I think we should develop whatever is appropriate.

If there is wind, develop wind. If there is geothermal, develop that. If you must, develop nuclear (and try for fusion, not fission, reactors).

Let's not put everything into the same basket the next time.

Subject: RE: BS: UT Austin Develops Hybrid Fusion Reactor
From: Charley Noble
Date: 30 Jan 09 - 08:55 AM

John-

So true!

And sometimes they are dead right, and sometimes they are also just dead.

Rapaire-

"Let's not put everything into the same basket the next time."

Or throw the baby out with the basket!

Charley Noble

Subject: RE: BS: UT Austin Develops Hybrid Fusion Reactor
From: GUEST,lox
Date: 30 Jan 09 - 09:17 AM

The big question here is - what is the profit potential and what would the costs of running it be.

Noones going to commit to clean nuclear power if there's no money in it.

Subject: RE: BS: UT Austin Develops Hybrid Fusion Reactor
From: Rapparee
Date: 30 Jan 09 - 09:19 AM

Yep, that there's a dilemma all right....

Subject: RE: BS: UT Austin Develops Hybrid Fusion Reactor
From: Amos
Date: 30 Jan 09 - 09:27 AM

Rig:

Fission, yes. But they have not developed a genuine fission reactor for generating energy.

What they've fiiguredf out how to do is burn spent fuel rods using a tokamak-like process.


A

Subject: RE: BS: UT Austin Develops Hybrid Fusion Reactor
From: Keith A of Hertford
Date: 30 Jan 09 - 09:31 AM

Amos you have written fis when you meant fus.
I know you know!

Subject: RE: BS: UT Austin Develops Hybrid Fusion Reactor
From: Donuel
Date: 30 Jan 09 - 10:35 AM

ibid on the fus


I would like to see an assembly of all the great off the shelf ideas that would all enhance a greener, healthier and more efficient life for all on this planet. It should include; new agriculture, sea culture, new sustainable energy, health innovations that are here and now, global education opportunities, transportation and toxic land and sea recovery.

We could find all the pre existing threads that deal with energy new cars etc.

the Random Amos thread is great for innovations on the verge but there are so many contributions that can be pulled right off the shelf today.

Subject: RE: BS: UT Austin Develops Hybrid Fusion Reactor
From: JohnInKansas
Date: 30 Jan 09 - 03:17 PM

What they've fiiguredf out how to do is burn spent fuel rods using a tokamak-like process.

Actually, the article doesn't say much about whether they've figured out anything at all.

One might assume that the researchers have attempted to relate in "popular press" baby talk something that they believe is of significance, and one might allow for a "physics-impaired" news reporter adding some additional "pandering to illiteracy" to further dilute the science so as not to offend anyone; but what is described simply doesn't work as described.

From the article alone, it's equally likely that a class assignment (sophomores at MIT or Georgia Tech, but maybe at Masters level at Harvard) resulted in a well written paper that the prof thought worth passing on to get rid of the pesky reporter.

There is nothing new in this report relative to the production of high neutron fluxes in a number of devices associated with attempts to produce power from fusion, including containment fields that are tokamak or otherwise derived. The article makes no mention of using "fusion" for the net production of power, and it is not clear that the device "sort of" described requires any fusion reaction. Plasma temperature alone can produce the neutrons needed.

There is nothing new in this report relative to using neutron bombardment to produce continued fission in otherwise "spent" fission reactor fuel to further deplete its radioactivity. This has been an "accepted concept" for decades, but has not progressed due - among other things - to the difficulties associated with producing high enough neutron fluxes economically.

It is NOT TRUE, as implied in the article, that forcing the fission reaction to continue in spent fission reactor fuel by bombardment with neutrons from a separate source renders the fuel "incinerated" to something inert. Most of the "end products" of such a forced reaction retain significant "contaminant effect" so "highly depleted uranium" is not much less toxic than "commercial depleted uranium" in common (and often careless) "industrial use."

It IS TRUE, but not mentioned in the article, that high-flux neutron bombardment can render many other materials "radioactive" and a very large part of the fission reactor contamination is from structural parts made "reactive" (and structurally demolished) by the neutrons produced in the fission process. Additional neutron bombardment is unlikely to "decontaminate" these kinds of waste.

The entire point of the article apparently was:

The crucial invention that would pave the way for a CFNS is called the Super X Divertor.

Apparently the prof has a new patent (or a license he needs to make a profit on), but the device that is named as being the key subject of the article is NOT DESCRIBED, and only one "opinion" is given stating (without explanation, arguments, or proof) that it's "important."

It's a nice enough article, and its release is commended since "the public needs to be informed(?);" but as far as describing any cause for joy or claims of enlightenment, I'm afraid I must see it as more "fluff and nonsense" from the University's advertising (they probably call it "Innovation Applications Stimulation") department.

One must keep reading this things, since there is a cumulative effect; but suspending critical judgement because the writer uses "the right buzz-words" is not conducive to getting a positive cumulative effect.

John

Subject: RE: BS: UT Austin Develops Hybrid Fusion Reactor
From: Charley Noble
Date: 30 Jan 09 - 04:34 PM

Thanks, John, for your analysis.

Charley Noble

Subject: RE: BS: UT Austin Develops Hybrid Fusion Reactor
From: Paul Burke
Date: 31 Jan 09 - 07:00 AM

How does this effect the efficiency of the fission process? Remember that everything above iron absorbs energy on fusion, so the fusion part of the process won't produce more power, but absorb part of the fission energy produced. Still, since it's so cheap it won't be worth metering, it doesn't matter if we lose a bit.