It looks like you're using an Ad Blocker.
Please white-list or disable AboveTopSecret.com in your ad-blocking tool.
Thank you.
Some features of ATS will be disabled while you continue to use an ad-blocker.
Does anyone know what would happen to this kind of reactor if a Chernobyl, or 3 Mile Island would happen to it? Is there a possibility of a "China Syndrome"?
The fusion fuel cycle does not involve any input of radioactive material and does not generate radioactive waste directly. Radioactivity is present in the form of the intermediate fuel, tritium, and as radioactivity generated in structural materials by the absorption of neutrons. There is the freedom, by suitable choices of design and materials, to reduce the radioactivity to achieve low hazard potential. Studies in this area have been promising and the independent review prepared for the European Commission by the Fusion Programme Evaluation Board was able to propose the following stringent targets as reasonable aims for the fusion programme:
"The worst possible fusion accident will constitute no major hazard to populations outside the plant perimeter that might result in evacuation".
"Radioactive wastes from the operation of a fusion plant should not require isolation from the environment for a geological timespan and therefore should not constitute a burden for future generations."
For a fusion power reactor, low activation materials will be extensively used. These will experience a higher dose due to the higher neutron fluxes and their longer time than in the ITER machine, but they will have vastly reduced content of materials with a long radioactive half life. The amount of waste arising in a power reactor at shutdown would be similar to that in ITER, but after 100 years the amount left uncleared would be about 1000 t. (This could even be reduced further by judicious component cutting and dismantling, if economically advantageous.) This is comparable to the waste mass arising from the direct disposal of fission fuel at the end of plant life, i.e without considering the activity of ore tailings during fuel manufacture and without fuel reprocessing.
For a future fusion power reactor, radiotoxicity will also be further reduced compared to that in ITER. Using low activation materials results in a lower quantity of packaged waste for fusion compared to fission. Furthermore, the more diffuse radiaoactive dose of the fusion waste package contents makes the potential danger from any future malicious disinterrment a negligible concern.
Originally posted by sardion2000
I disagree. Japan doesn't have the necessary knowledge base in Nuclear Technology IMO
Originally posted by Seekerof
Originally posted by sardion2000
I disagree. Japan doesn't have the necessary knowledge base in Nuclear Technology IMO
Of course Japan does not, sardion2000...
Japan's JT-60 Tokamak Sets New Plasma Record
seekerof
The six partners have been discussing where to build ITER since December 2003. However, the situation was deadlocked because China and Russia supported EU plans to build the reactor at Cadarache, while South Korea and the US backed a Japanese proposal to construct it at Rokkasho-Mura, which is 600 km north of Tokyo.
Source
Originally posted by sardion2000
Originally posted by Seekerof
Originally posted by sardion2000
I disagree. Japan doesn't have the necessary knowledge base in Nuclear Technology IMO
Of course Japan does not, sardion2000...
Japan's JT-60 Tokamak Sets New Plasma Record
seekerof
I was thinking in a larger context of eventual deployment as well. ITER is like Ten Tokamaks rolled into one afterall. Remember Frances Nuclear program is the most extensive one, in recent history(15 years) so they have a quite deep and experienced knowledge base.
I actually want Both countries to build an ITER Reactor. Something about not having all your eggs in one basket.
Why build one when you can build two for twice the price.
Originally posted by valkeryie
Good find
If this actually does work, maybe we can stop burning coal and other petroleum products which pollute the planet. Just glad the first one isn't in my back yard though. Does anyone know what would happen to this kind of reactor if a Chernobyl, or 3 Mile Island would happen to it? Is there a possibility of a "China Syndrome"?
[edit on 16-5-2006 by valkeryie]