So why are all the designs still on paper?

Haven't read the article but I would imagine one reason is draconian state laws regulating the nuclear energy and nuclear plant construction.

Really should read the article before commenting.

Physicists at The University of Texas at Austin have designed a new system that, when fully developed, would use fusion to eliminate most of the transuranic waste produced by nuclear power plants.

Its' still experimental and the main component wasn't invented until last January.

I do think it's a crying shame that we've largely babysat 40-year-old naval reactor technology for the last 30 years, rather than moving forward with safer designs and cleaning up the fuel cycle. That said, it doesn't sound like this particular proposal is quite 'bake-ready' yet.

As for disposal, the French have the basic right idea. It's not going anywhere. As much as there is (not a huge amount compared to any of a thousand coal fly-ash ponds) can be sat on for a while longer as the technology improves.

The biggest problem with nuclear energy is the waste, thanks to Carter (D-Prissy). There's a huge market for nuclear byproducts, but Carter made it a law that only the federal government could buy and dispose of the waste.

So, when your mom gets treated for cancer, just remember that part of the cost is because the radiation had to be imported, while tons of it sit around the US, just rotting away

So, I gotta pay to read the article?

I have worked in that industry when is had its dying sudders.

1. The permit process took forever.
2. The quality program called NQA1 killed it.
3. Hanoi jane and jack lemon killed it with their movie china syndrom.
4. We need to complete the facility at Yuca Mountain and get on with the program.

It is a cheep form of power and is clean. It probably won't do much for the auto industry. We need fossil fuel for that which we have if we could just drill for it instead of letting it leak onto the southern cal beaches like it is doing now.

President Carter banned commercial spent nuclear fuel reprocessing, thus halting the original intent to recycle fuel for maximum efficiency and minimal by-product. President Reagan lifted the reprocessing ban in 1981; however, while recycling is being done in other countries, it has not yet been fully developed in the United States.

"but Carter made it a law that only the federal government could buy and dispose of the waste."

Presidents make laws?

I don't think so!

"Not one utility or energy-generation company in the United States has been willing to order and construct a new
nuclear plant in more than 30 years. Energy companies and Wall Street have been decidedly uninterested in
bankrolling new construction, despite decades of large federal subsidies to the nuclear power industry. This is not
because of public opposition over safety or national security concerns. Rather, it is because new commercial nuclear
power plants are uneconomical in the United States: They simply cannot compete with other sources of electricity.""

"So, I gotta pay to read the article?"

You don't have a subscription to Nature?

Loser.

President Reagan lifted the reprocessing ban in 1981; however, while recycling is being done in other countries, it has not yet been fully developed in the United States.

#6 | Posted by danni

You don't know jack shit. The feds have been re-processing spent rods for a long time. I worked on a new facility to do it even better than the old one down the street but the project was killed in the early 90s because we didn't need the material that it would produce.

"You don't know jack shit."

Apparently you didn't know that Reagan had lifted the ban. It didn't seem to make a difference so your attempt to blame Carter was sort of silly.

#10 | Posted by Sniper

Breeder reactor? Weapons grade plutonium?

"Really should read the article before commenting.

#2 | Posted by northguy3"

Where's the article, I could not open it, just a short blurb?

What the Frink is a subscription-only pay-per-view article doing up there? Thirty-two bucks? Isn't that like ten times more than the actual magazine itself on the newsstand?

***

Is this the same technology I remember hearing about coming out of MIT (I think), where the waste products are sort of stored in/near the reactor and the bombardment of radiation transmutes the first incarnation of waste until it has become something with a short (i.e. an amount of time we can comprehend) half-life?

Yeah, we should be doing that. It seems pretty damn obvious, at least from a theoretical point of view.

As for storage of nuclear waste... well, we've already got "sacrifice zones" at Hanford and a few other places. Had we never gone down the nuclear path, "what do we do about the waste?" might be a valid question. But we've already got plenty, and it's already geographically isolated... except for all the crap we put in the ocean and the atmosphere during cold war bomb tests.

Nuclear power is obviously economically viable compared to other technologies. Just ask France and Japan. And someday soon, Iran.

Zatouchy, you bastard. You know that i love a story like this and then i come to this;

To read this story in full you will need to login or make a payment For that I am revoking your application to the Jr. Astronaut program.

But seriously. I am all in favor of boldly moving forward with technology. My understanding is that most of the benefits from fusion reactors are highly speculative, not having been fully proven yet. For the record, I absolutely do believe we will have it someday soon.

I also believe they are going to have to encapsulate the fusion reaction in a magnetic bottle and that's gonna require another power plant to provide power to get it jump-started.

What's the by-product of a fusion reaction?

As for storage of nuclear waste...

#14 | Posted by snoofy

What about Detroit? No ones using it.

"What's the by-product of a fusion reaction?"

Helium and neutrons.

Well, helium, neutrons, and heavily neutron-activated reactor internals, shielding, etc. Still, manageable, and generally relatively short (order of decade to century) half-life stuff.

Apparently you didn't know that Reagan had lifted the ban. It didn't seem to make a difference so your attempt to blame Carter was sort of silly.

#11 | Posted by danni

Did I say that? When did I say it was DS Jimmie's fault?

Breeder reactor? Weapons grade plutonium?

#12 | Posted by STIRSUMUP

Fuel rods form the navy.

It is a cheep form of power

Too cheap to meter, if I remember the promises....

So, I gotta pay to read the article?

Use the google.