Two-in-one: The fusion-fission hybrid can use fusion reactions to burn nuclear waste as fuel (people are shown for scale). It could produce energy and would be used to help destroy the most toxic, long-lived waste from nuclear power.
Credit: Angela Wong
It's not yet clear if the process would produce a net level of energy, or if the fusion reaction would use up all the power produced in the fission process. However, even if it doesn't produce power, it could be an effective solution for dealing with the most stubborn nuclear waste.
Swadesh Mahajan a University of Texas fusion scientist and another co-author of the study said the hybrid design is a way of utilising fusion technology to reduce fission waste until fusion technology becomes more widespread.
"The hybrid we designed should be viewed as a bridge technology," he said. "Through the hybrid, we can bring fusion via neutrons to the service of the energy sector today."
"Environmental Achilles heel"
Matthew Hole, a physicist from Australian National University in Canberra said the hybrid scheme was a "different spin on an old idea" and while it is interesting in theory he questioned if it would work in practice.
When spent uranium is involved "reaction dynamics can be complicated and messy," said Hole, who argued that combining fission and fusion, in the one vessel could damage the structure.
Valanju said an absolute cost for the scheme has not yet been calculated, but that ultimately the system would be cheaper than the combined methods of breaking waste down and storing the remainder.
"By providing a technical solution to the environmental Achilles heel of nuclear power, this research can greatly boost our ability to combat global warming," he said.
Science Politics and Money
Your article is an attempt to make people believe that Nuclear Energy production can be safe and environmental friendly.
The nuclear power industry wants to make more nuclear facilities and Cosmos mag is only to happy to facilitate this political agenda by propagating this falseness.
You should not be publishing unquantified theoretical hyperbola; pseudo-science.
It has not been developed and there is no likelihood of it ever being developed and adopted by a financially driven business. Power industries are profitable, not clean and friendly.
None of the proposed reactors, in the world, have plans to use this theory!
Science Politics and Money
Its attitudes like this that would put us back into an agrarian lifestyle. Not bad for some but not wanted by all.
There is no other way at this time or in the near future to provide the power requirements for the world's populations except nuclear. I'm not against solar or wind power but they come nowhere close to being able to provide the needed power requirements.
Here is the reality of today
Here is the reality of today and our society. The ONLY way to save the environment is to USE NUCLEAR POWER. Wind and solar, at present, are not viable technologies to provide our society with power. We just don't have the expendable land area. Wind can only be used in certain geographic locations and solar is at best only 22% efficient, meaning only 22% of light is converted into electricity. If solar becomes 95% efficient then it would be really feasible, you could power your home by moon/starlight.
Nuclear is the only way to go and in 2016, ITER is set to attempt first plasma. If this happens then the world will be witness to the FIRST break-even fusion reaction, then we can finally see the dawning of fusion power.
I Love the environment, but I am also a realist. I would like more environmentally sound solutions, but there are none compared to nuclear.
Lastly, nuclear is also the CHEAPEST option, the price of decommissioning the plant and storing of the waste is INCLUDED in what you pay for electricity and it still costs you less than any other power supply system.
Solar power
Just because solar power in only 22% efficient, it does not mean that it is unable to provide us with energy, it just means that it is currently expensive because we have not invested in researching how to make it better. People who can afford it (from around $10,000) have installed solar panels on their roof and are able to power their homes, feeding excess electricity back into the grid.
If the government were to more heavily rebate solar panels or fund the development of solar technology, instead of throwing money at the coal industry, it could be a viable alternative. Power stations using coal are only around 35% efficient anyway.
You mention only two environmentally friendly options to supply our power, but there are many others including hydropower, tidal power and geothermal energy. More importantly, all these options are renewable, unlike nuclear power.
The two main problems I see with nuclear power are that it is not renewable (it will run out, like coal or other fossil fuels) and that the toxic waste it produces will remain harmful for millions of years, most likely after the human race has become extinct.
We will be better off in the long run if we invest in renewable, non-polluting energy sources now instead of waiting for fossil fuels and uranium to run out.
non-science
You mean similar to the unquantified theoretical hyperbola and pseudo-science produced by the agenda driven IPCC ?.
no nukes head in the sand
After many years in the middle east I see a chronic worldwide negative awareness akin to Galeleo's period. The results of Peak Oil, to some only theory, is actually fact. We must, at this point in our history on this planet, use our minds to stradle this paradigm shift in theory or become fosils for the future detailed story of our demise and the inocent that perish with us. Energy is neither created of destroyed and within theory we must venture forward in our ingorance until maybe we get it right!
nuke waste destruction - too good to be true?
I'm not one for doubting. That was Thomas in the Bible. He had to see Jesus' wounds to believe he had really risen. To read your article about even the toughest nuclear sludge being eaten up through the fusion process is, well, it seems too good to be true. So it is all the more exciting to read about the prospect of such a thing becoming reality.
I'd like to ask more questions to probe a little deeper into the topic, but basically, a new system design is not equivalent with a tested and proven process. It is fascinating that money is being channeled into this kind of research and development, and more than that, it is vitally important, because we have so much nuclear waste already, not counting what will come in the future if more nuke plants go on line. I say - go for more creative scientific endeavors to rid the planet of nuclear waste, and meanwhile also go for developing other sources of energy, renewable ones.