Nuclear Waste Destruction System

................And the radioactivity goes where?

It's converted to heat?

If i get this right they patented the concept and now they have to proove it!?

A Fusion Fission reactor that fissions Uranium and the fusions the left over into something save?

Burning is not the real word for this I think. Burning is oxidising. It would leave all the radioacivity where it is. Its a chemical process.

Fusion and Fission is well above a chemical reaction.

As they said: "could someday be used to turn nuclear waste into fuel..."

Yes Uranium into Uranium with a net gain of energy!

You'll love it

"The patented hybrid reactor is currently in a conceptual phase.

The Super X Divertor, however, is being installed as the centerpiece of a $40 million upgrade of the MAST tokamak in the United Kingdom. This installation is a critical step forward in testing the Super X Divertor experimentally. It is not covered by the U.S. patent but is the technology invented by the University of Texas at Austin physicists.

For more information on the fusion-fission hybrid reactor, read "Nuclear Fusion-Fission Hybrid Could Destroy Nuclear Waste And Contribute to Carbon-Free Energy Future."

Ok have to look deeper to understand the reactions involved.

Uranium is turned into Krypton and Barium isotopes with a gain of Energy.

When producing energy in a powerplant there is also some secondary products that are radioactive like Plutonium and Cobalt besides the leftover Uranium fuel that is not burned. In a sense the Plutonium as well as Neptunium are "Fusion" reactions already.

But this is not a wanted one and the products are as bad as Uranium.

I can see that we need to be able to "burn" all the leftover elements if possible.

So the leftover Uranium (and other isotopes) are "burned" by initiating a Fusion reaction of Hydrogen which creates the necessary energy for it. The outcome is more WHAT? Barium and Krypton?

I wait and see if they find a material or concept that keeps up to the expected temperatures.

Great. Controlled fusion is still a pipe dream in terms of practicality...best to learn to crawl before you try to run.

A nice concept, but why bother? As I understand it, a fission reactor using fast neutrons can also "burn" up the used fuel from the current generation of fission reactors which use thermal neutrons.

Where does the radioactivity go? When you "destroy" the radioactive atoms, the radioactivity just goes away. I think it was Solar Eagle above that said it is ultimately turned into heat. This heat is what makes the steam that turns the electric generators.

are we building new nuke plants anymore?

Now, the lobby in favour of nuke plants, will rise.

sorry, i was referring to the usa.

"Today there are some 435 nuclear power reactors operating in 31 countries plus Taiwan, with a combined capacity of over 370 GWe. In 2011 these provided 2518 billion kWh, about 13.5% of the world's electricity.

Over 60 power reactors are currently being constructed in 13 countries plus Taiwan (see Table below), notably China, South Korea and Russia.

Each year, the OECD's International Energy Agency (IEA) sets out the present situation and also reference and other, particularly carbon reduction scenarios. Following the Fukushima accident, the World Energy Outlook 2011 New Policies scenario has a 60% increase in nuclear capacity to 2035, compared with about 90% the year before. "Although the prospects for nuclear power in the New Policies Scenario are weaker in some regions than in [WEO 2010] projections, nuclear power continues to play an important role, providing base-load electricity. Most non-OECD countries and many OECD countries are expected to press ahead with plans to install additional nuclear power plants, though there may be short-term delays as the safety standards of existing and new plants are reviewed. Globally, nuclear power capacity is projected to rise in the New Policies Scenario from 393 GW in 2009 to 630 GW in 2035." In this scenario the IEA expects the share of coal in total electricity to drop from 41% now to 33% in 2035. Electricity generation increases from 20 to 36 trillion kWh.

It is noteworthy that in the 1980s, 218 power reactors started up, an average of one every 17 days. These included 47 in USA, 42 in France and 18 in Japan. These were fairly large - average power was 923.5 MWe. So it is not hard to imagine a similar number being commissioned in a decade after about 2015. But with China and India getting up to speed in nuclear energy and a world energy demand double the 1980 level in 2015, a realistic estimate of what is possible (but not planned at this stage) might be the equivalent of one 1000 MWe unit worldwide every 5 days."......

"In the USA there are plans for 13 new reactors, and two combined construction and operating licences for these were issued early in 2012 while five more are under review. All are for late third-generation plants, and a further proposal is for two ABWR units. it is expected that some of the new reactors will be on line by 2020."

"In all, about 160 power reactors with a total net capacity of some 177,000 MWe are planned and over 320 more are proposed. Energy security concerns and greenhouse constraints on coal have combined with basic economics to put nuclear power back on the agenda for projected new capacity in many countries."

http://www.world-nuclear.org/info/inf17.html

Chernoby the sequel, it always looks nice on paper

I don't think the people in Fukushima agree, Those reactors are only as safe if the safety procedures are enforced and the reactor are well maintained.

after a while people will get lax again or they will pinch money on maintenance and we will have another reactor fault on our hands

It was an earthquake.....In such a natural disaster many can be killed and injured, sometimes many thousands....We don't live in a perfect world and thousands die every day, it's just part of life....To condemn the safest and cleanest method of power production is based on hysterical sensationalism produced by misquided 'do gooders' imo.....If you're so safety conscious then why do so many people live directly on fault lines knowing full well that earthquakes and tidal waves are going to be a regular occurrence throughout their lives? It's because as a people, we accept the risk....

Well said. Thank you.

or rely on the company and bureaucrats who tell the population that they are perfectly safe.

a french comany is recycling spent fission rods from reactors.

the two major problems are

1- no one will buy the deleted rods.

2- they've ran a pipe line off shore to dispose of the nuclear waste. the waste runs into the sea by a pipe line that's appox. a mile off shore. biologists have already found sea creatures affected by the radioactive waste. three eyed fish anyone?

1- no one will buy the deleted rods. Since only a small portion of the U-235 can be consumed, there is a fair amount of uranium in them; however, they would be quite radioactive from the fission products.

2- they've ran a pipe line off shore to dispose of the nuclear waste. the waste runs into the sea by a pipe line that's appox. a mile off shore. biologists have already found sea creatures affected by the radioactive waste. three eyed fish anyone? It would be interesting to know just what this "waste" is. I'm guessing it is not fuel and probably not blanket/reflector.

i don't remember where i seen this documentary. 20/20, dateline, but i did watch it on an investigated report.

it was about a french company that was depleting reactor rods with the untruthful excuse reselling them. like i said, no on will buy them. they where pumping radioactive waste off shore.

it was obvious that they were being paid by the nuke plants for depleting them. [ are french nuclear plants in france owned by the french government ]? i read, " just a way of getting rid of them". he reported that the plant was piping nucear waste off shore via a pipe line. radioactive waste was discovered off the french coast. the plant was heavily secured and the reporters were denied access to the plant. it was a former high positioned worker that disclosed what they were doing. the report revolved around him and his experience while he was working at the plant.