China plans world’s first fusion-fission power plant

  • Thread starter Thread starter kodama
  • Start date Start date
Click For Summary

Discussion Overview

The discussion revolves around China's plans to develop the world's first fusion-fission power plant, exploring its implications, potential benefits, and comparisons to existing nuclear technologies. Participants examine the feasibility, costs, and public acceptance of such a hybrid reactor, as well as historical context and future prospects in nuclear energy.

Discussion Character

  • Debate/contested
  • Technical explanation
  • Exploratory

Main Points Raised

  • Some participants question the rationale behind choosing a fusion-fission power plant over traditional fast reactors, citing historical US evaluations that deemed it less worthwhile.
  • Others suggest that China's motivations may include addressing spent fuel disposal issues and enhancing public acceptance of nuclear energy.
  • Concerns are raised about the high costs associated with the fusion-fission plant, with comparisons made to the costs of gas and solar energy.
  • Participants discuss the potential for fusion-fission reactors to utilize thorium and spent nuclear waste, suggesting this could be a viable path forward.
  • There are differing views on the safety of fission reactors, with some arguing that modern designs mitigate meltdown risks and others expressing ongoing public fears.
  • Questions arise regarding the long-term management of radioactive waste, with some advocating for reprocessing rather than disposal, while others highlight the challenges of waste that remains hazardous for extended periods.
  • The discussion touches on the implications of US nuclear policy and the historical context of spent fuel management, with some participants suggesting that economic factors have influenced current practices.

Areas of Agreement / Disagreement

Participants express a range of views on the viability and desirability of fusion-fission reactors, with no clear consensus reached. Disagreements persist regarding the safety, cost, and public perception of nuclear energy technologies.

Contextual Notes

Limitations include varying assumptions about the feasibility of fusion-fission technology, the economic implications of nuclear energy, and the effectiveness of current waste management practices. The discussion reflects a complex interplay of technical, economic, and social factors that influence nuclear energy development.

kodama
Messages
1,083
Reaction score
144
TL;DR
first fusion-fission power plant
what do you think of China plans world’s first fusion-fission power plant
and first fusion-fission power plant with q 30

why'd fusion-fission power plant over fast reactor

https://www.neimagazine.com/news/china-plans-worlds-first-fusion-fission-power-plant/

if it succeeds should USA and Europe explores fusion-fission power

fusion for neutrons to fission uranium enrichment program and thorium

q 30

100 megawatts for $2 billion

could nuclear engineers comment on China plans world’s first fusion-fission power plant

no meltdown like in fast reactor and less waste

maybe politics its more acceptance confidence

should USA build fusion-fission power
 
Last edited:
Engineering news on Phys.org
The US explored this idea back in the 50's and 60's and determined it wasn't worth it over just a fission reactor. Nothings changed there. The only use case where something like this might be worth it would be for spent fuel disposal.

The US should build more fission reactors, they're very safe already.
 
  • Like
Likes   Reactions: russ_watters
so why is China building one
 
Probably for the same reasons we have the national ignition facility in the US.
 
fusion-fission reactors may be more important role for acceptance by the public sector only fission reactors are not being made Germany ban
 
100 megawatts for $2 billion is ~20x the cost of combined cycle gas or solar
 
is
BWV said:
100 megawatts for $2 billion is ~20x the cost of combined cycle gas or solar

gas is co2 emissions

its world’s first costs may go down if thousands more are built
 
kodama said:
fusion-fission reactors may be more important role for acceptance by the public sector only fission reactors are not being made Germany ban
Why's that? They still result in long lived (on human timescales) waste.

Meltdown fears are completely overblown with modern reactor design. The number of deaths from fission including indirect deaths isn't even in the same realm as compared to other major sources like coal and gas.

https://earth.org/nuclear-which-is-the-safest-energy-source/#:~:text=The direct death toll of,to the strain of evacuations.

This doesn't need a less effcient reactor design to make people accept it. There's a large gap in education on nuclear power in general.
 
  • Like
Likes   Reactions: russ_watters
so why it's China creating a fusion-fission reactors by '30?
 
  • #10
kodama said:
so why it's China creating a fusion-fission reactors by '30?
QuarkyMeson said:
Probably for the same reasons we have the national ignition facility in the US.
Aka nuclear weapon development and testing.
 
  • #11
kodama said:
is


gas is co2 emissions
So spend an extra $100M to plant some trees, still will be $1.8B ahead
 
  • #12
BWV said:
So spend an extra $100M to plant some trees, still will be $1.8B ahead
fusion-fission reactors may be a new course before fusion reactors
 
  • #13
kodama said:
so why is China building one
China has a really ambitious nuclear power program rolling. What means, soon they'll have a really big (problematic) stock of DU and nuclear waste. In theory, both can be burned in a fusion-fission reactor.
100MW is not really a big one. Sounds more like an oversized (optimistic) demonstrator.
 
  • Like
Likes   Reactions: russ_watters, Astronuc and kodama
  • #14
so could a nuclear engineers with phd comment on the fusion China plans world’s first fusion-fission power plant

is it lasers or magnetic field and is q=30 realize
 
  • #15
BWV said:
So spend an extra $100M to plant some trees, still will be $1.8B ahead
the worlds very first hybrid reactor will be extremely expensive to build



if succeeds building new hybrid reactor by the tens of thousands all over the world should go down in costs - I don't know if China will involve USA and European countries building new hybrid reactor blue prints

pure viable fusion reactor that produce more energy than consumes seems to be 100 years away and may be impossible to build

many nations banned building new fission nuclear reactor like Germany may allow hybrid reactor

hybrid reactor could also use thorium and spent nuclear waste
 
  • #16
kodama said:
hybrid reactor could also use thorium
Just for the log: practically every (!) light water reactor in use would be able to run on mixed-thorium fuel.
 
  • #17
Rive said:
Just for the log: practically every (!) light water reactor in use would be able to run on mixed-thorium fuel.
why don't they ?
 
  • #18
No need, currently. U-fuel is actually cheap, but keeping more infrastructure running for more type of fuel (and waste) is not.

And, it's a lot of paperwork.

Ps.: even classic (Pu) MOX is struggling.
 
  • #19
what about costs of disposal of highly hazardous long lived radioactive waste?
 
  • #20
kodama said:
what about costs of disposal of highly hazardous long lived radioactive waste?
You don't dispose of it, you reprocess it. That's what every nuclear-using country except the US has done. How to do that is well understood, and I would be very surprised if the Chinese don't handle the issue that way.
 
  • Like
Likes   Reactions: kodama
  • #21
PeterDonis said:
You don't dispose of it, you reprocess it. That's what every nuclear-using country except the US has done. How to do that is well understood, and I would be very surprised if the Chinese don't handle the issue that way.
Even with recycling you'd still need underground storage at some point though right? This is the same with a fusion|fission hybrid reactor too. Eventually you're going to have long lived nuclear products that just aren't useful for anything anymore.

The US policy of not reusing spent fuel enacted by Carter was on its face worried about the proliferation of nuclear weapons. That fear was/is overblown. The main/real? reason was that nuclear fuel was cheap and it was cheaper to bury spent fuel then try to reclaim it. That's still generally the case right? Especially in a larger country like the US were we have natural formations suited towards long term storage.
 
  • Like
Likes   Reactions: russ_watters
  • #22
PeterDonis said:
You don't dispose of it, you reprocess it. That's what every nuclear-using country except the US has done. How to do that is well understood, and I would be very surprised if the Chinese don't handle the issue that way.
Fast-neutron reactor are generation 4 and still under way
 
  • #23
QuarkyMeson said:
Even with recycling you'd still need underground storage at some point though right?
Not necessarily, no. There is still some waste you need to store, but you only need to store it for a much shorter period of time, on the order of a century instead of on the order of 100 centuries. Underground storage was proposed on the assumption that the latter, longer time scale would be required. With reprocessing, it's not.

QuarkyMeson said:
The US policy of not reusing spent fuel enacted by Carter was on its face worried about the proliferation of nuclear weapons. That fear was/is overblown.
Yes, agreed. And we now have many decades of data from other countries that demonstrates this.

QuarkyMeson said:
The main/real? reason was that nuclear fuel was cheap and it was cheaper to bury spent fuel then try to reclaim it. That's still generally the case right?
It might still be the case now, but it's not likely to be the case for very much longer. Certainly it won't be the case on a time scale of 100 centuries, the kind of time scale that was driving the requirement for underground storage. You'll be wanting to reprocess that spent fuel long before that even if you don't do it right away.
 
  • Like
Likes   Reactions: kodama, QuarkyMeson and russ_watters
  • #24
PeterDonis said:
Not necessarily, no. There is still some waste you need to store, but you only need to store it for a much shorter period of time, on the order of a century instead of on the order of 100 centuries. Underground storage was proposed on the assumption that the latter, longer time scale would be required. With reprocessing, it's not.


Yes, agreed. And we now have many decades of data from other countries that demonstrates this.


It might still be the case now, but it's not likely to be the case for very much longer. Certainly it won't be the case on a time scale of 100 centuries, the kind of time scale that was driving the requirement for underground storage. You'll be wanting to reprocess that spent fuel long before that even if you don't do it right away.
fusion-fission reactor could reprocess that spent fuel as it creates Fast-neutron
 

Similar threads

Replies
25
Views
6K
Replies
14
Views
3K
  • · Replies 14 ·
Replies
14
Views
5K
Replies
10
Views
13K
  • · Replies 2 ·
Replies
2
Views
3K
Replies
5
Views
13K
  • · Replies 19 ·
Replies
19
Views
5K
Replies
4
Views
4K
  • · Replies 11 ·
Replies
11
Views
4K
Replies
1
Views
5K