Skip to main content
SpringerLink
Log in

Fusion-fission hybrids: Environmental aspects and their role in hybrid rationale

  • Discussion
  • Published:
Journal of Fusion Energy Aims and scope Submit manuscript

Abstract

The rationale for developing hybrids depends on real or perceived liabilities of relying on pure fission to do the same job. Quite possibly the main constraint on expanded use of fission will be neither lack of fuel nor high costs, but perceived environmental liabilities—radioactive wastes, reactor safety, and links to nuclear weaponry. The environmental characteristics of hybrid systems and pure-fission systems are compared here in detail. The findings are that significant environmental advantages for hybrids cannot now be demonstrated and may not exist. Therefore, if environmental drawbacks constrain the application of pure fission, hybrids probably also will be thus constrained.

This is a preview of subscription content, log in via an institution to check access.

Access this article

Log in via an institution

Price excludes VAT (USA)
Tax calculation will be finalised during checkout.

Instant access to the full article PDF.

Institutional subscriptions

Similar content being viewed by others

References

  1. J. P. Holdren, Fusion energy in context: its fitness for the long term.Science 200:168–180 (1978).

    Google Scholar 

  2. Committee on Nuclear and Alternative Energy Systems, National Academy of Sciences,Energy in Transition 1985–2010 (W. H. Freeman, San Francisco, 1979).

    Google Scholar 

  3. D. E. Deonigi, Economic regimes.Proc. Second Fusion-Fission Energy Systems Review Meeting, 2–3 November 1977, Washington, D.C. U.S. Department of Energy CONF-771155 (National Technical Information Service, Springfield, Va., 1978), Vol. II, pp. 327–348.

    Google Scholar 

  4. D. J. Dreyfuss, B. W. Augenstern, W. E. Mooz, and P. J. Sher,An Examination of Alternative Nuclear Breeding Methods. RAND Report R-2267-DOE (National Technical Information Service, Springfield, Va., 1978).

    Google Scholar 

  5. P. E. McGrath,Radioactive Waste Management Potentials and Hazards from a Risk Point of View. Report KFK-1992 (Kernforschungszentrum Karlsruhe, Karlsruhe, F.R.G., 1974).

    Google Scholar 

  6. W. C. Wolkenhauer, B. R. Leonard, and B. F. Gore,Transmutation of High-Level Radioactive Waste with a Controlled Thermonuclear Reactor. Battelle Pacific Northwest Laboratories Report BNWL-1772 (National Technical Information Service, Springfield, Va., 1973).

    Google Scholar 

  7. L. M. Lidsky, Fission-fusion systems: hybrid, symbiotic, and augean.Nucl. Fusion 15:151–173 (1975).

    Google Scholar 

  8. U. P. Jenquin and B. R. Leonard,Evaluation of Fusion-Fission Concepts: Transmutation of High-Level Actinide Wastes in Hybrids. Report EPRI ER-469. (Electric Power Research Institute, Palo Alto, Calif., 1976).

    Google Scholar 

  9. R. P. Rose, Status of Westinghouse tokamak hybrid studies.Proc. Second Fusion-Fission Energy Systems Review Meeting. U.S. Department of Energy CONF-771155 (National Technical Information Service, Springfield, Va., 1978), Vol. I.

    Google Scholar 

  10. H. C. Burkholder, Nuclear waste partitioning incentives.Proc. Nuclear Regulatory Commission Workshop on the Management of Radioactive Waste: Waste Partitioning as an Alternative. NRC Report NR-CONF-001 (National Technical Information Service, Springfield, Va., 1976).

    Google Scholar 

  11. W. Haefele, J. P. Holdren, G. Kessler, and G. L. Kulcinski,Fusion and Fast Breeder Reactors. Report RR-77-8 (International Institute for Applied Systems Analysis, Laxenburg, Austria, 1977).

    Google Scholar 

  12. M. Z. Youssef and R. W. Conn,A Survey of Fusion-Fission System Designs and Nuclear Analysis. Report UWFDM-308 (University of Wisconsin, Nuclear Engineering Department, Madison, Wisc., 1979).

    Google Scholar 

  13. U.S. Nuclear Regulatory Commission.Reactor Safety Study: An Assessment of Accident Risks in U.S. Commercial Nuclear Power Plants. NRC Report WASH-1400, NUREG-74/014. (National Technical Information Service, Springfield, Va., 1975).

    Google Scholar 

  14. J. P. Holdren, Summary of the discussion session on fusionfission reactor safety.Proc. US-USSR Symposium on Fusion-Fission Reactors, 13–16 July 1976, Livermore, Calif. U.S. Energy Research and Development Administration Report CONF-760733. (National Technical Information Service, Springfield, Va., 1976).

    Google Scholar 

  15. W. E. Kastenberg and D. Okrent, eds.Some Safety Considerations for Conceptual Fusion-Fission Hybrid Reactors. Report EPRI ER-548 (Electric Power Research Institute, Palo Alto, Calif., 1978).

    Google Scholar 

  16. V. C. Badham, W. E. Kastenberg, G. C. Pomraning, and D. Okrent, Accidental criticality of a fusion-fission hybrid blanket design.Nucl. Tech. 47:221–233 (1980).

    Google Scholar 

  17. Committee on Literature Survey of Risks Associated with Nuclear Power, National Academy of Sciences.Risks Associated With Nuclear Power: A Critical Review of the Literature, Summary and Synthesis Chapter. (National Academy of Sciences, Washington, D.C., 1979).

    Google Scholar 

  18. F. Huber, Behavior of sodium area conflagrations and suitable protecting systems.Proc. Fast Reactor Safety Meeting, 2–4 April 1974, Beverly Hills, Calif. Report CONF-740401-P1. (National Technical Information Service, Springfield, Va., 1974), pp. 417–430.

    Google Scholar 

  19. J. P. Holdren, Contribution of activation products to fusion accident risk: Part I. A preliminary investigation.Nucl. Tech. Fusion (in press).

  20. D. Jeppson, J. Ballif, W. Yuan, and B. Chan,Lithium Literature Review: Lithium's Properties and Interactions. Hanford Engineering Development Laboratory Report HEDL-TME 78-15. (National Technical Information Service, Springfield. Va., 1978).

    Google Scholar 

  21. Code of Federal Regulations, Title 10, Chapter 1, Part 20 (Standards for Protection Against Radiation) (Government Printing Office, Washington, D.C., 1975).

    Google Scholar 

  22. L. C. Hebel, E. L. Christensen, F. A. Donath, W. E. Falconer, L. J. Lidofsky, E. J. Moniz, T. H. Moss, R. L. Pigford, T. H. Pigford, G. I. Rochlin, R. H. Silsbee, and M. E. Wrenn, Report to the American Physical Society by the Study Group on Nuclear Fuel Cycles and Waste Management.Rev. Mod. Phys. 50(1, Pt. II):S1-S185 (1978).

    Google Scholar 

  23. H. Wild,Radioaktive Inventare und deren zeitlicher Verlauf nach Abschalten des Reaktors. Report KFK-1797 (Kernforschungszentrum Karlsruhe, Karlsruhe, F.R.G., 1974).

    Google Scholar 

  24. B. R. Leonard and U. P. Jenquin, The quality of fissile fuel bred in a fusion reactor blanket. In:Proceedings of 2nd Topical Meeting on the Technology of Controlled Nuclear Fusion, Sept. 21–23, 1976, Richland, Wash., ERDA CONF-760935 P2 (National Technical Information Service, Springfield, Va., 1976).

    Google Scholar 

  25. J. D. Lee and R. W. Moir,Fission-Suppressed Blankets for Fissile Fuel Breeding Fusion Reactors. Report UCRL-84104 (Lawrence Livermore Laboratory of the University of California, Livermore, Calif., 1980).

    Google Scholar 

  26. P. Fortescue, Comparative breeding characteristics of fusion and fast reactors.Science 196:1326–1329.

  27. W. M. Shikorr,Assessments of the Thorium and Uranium Fuel Cycle in Fast Breeder Reactors and High Temperature Reactors. Collaborative Paper CR-79-19. (International Institute of Applied Systems Analysis, Laxenburg, Austria, 1979).

    Google Scholar 

  28. M. Willrich and T. B. Taylor,Nuclear Theft: Risks and Safeguards. (Ballinger, Cambridge, Mass., 1974).

    Google Scholar 

  29. Nuclear Energy Policy Study Group,Nuclear Power Issues and Choices. (Ballinger, Cambridge, Mass., 1977).

    Google Scholar 

  30. A. B. Lovins, L. H. Lovins, and L. Ross, Nuclear power and nuclear bombs.Foreign Affairs (Fall 1980), pp. 1137–1177.

  31. J. P. Holdren, Fusion power and nuclear weapons: a significant link?Bull. Atomic Scientists (March 1978).

  32. U.S. Energy Research and Development Administration,Final Report of the Special Laser-Fusion Advisory Panel. Report ERDA-28. (National Technical Information Service, Springfield, Va., 1975).

    Google Scholar 

  33. H. A. Feiveson, Proliferation-resistant fuel cycles.Ann. Rev. Energy 3:357–394.

  34. L. S. Abbott, D. E. Bartine, and T. J. Burns,Interim Assessment of the Denatured 233 U Fuel Cycle: Feasibility and Nonproliferation Characteristics. Oak Ridge National Laboratory Report ORNL-5388 (National Technical Information Service, Springfield, Va., 1978).

    Google Scholar 

  35. A. B. Lovins, Thorium cycles and proliferation.Bull. Atomic Scientists (February 1979), pp. 16–22.

  36. D. L. Chapin,Nuclear Analysis on the Enrichment of PWR Fuel in a Fusion Hybrid Reactor. Report WFPS-TME-101 (Westinghouse Electric Corp., Fusion Power Systems Department, Pittsburgh, Pa., 1978).

    Google Scholar 

  37. Royal Commission on Environmental Pollution,Nuclear Power and the Environment (Her Majesty's Stationery Office, London, 1976).

    Google Scholar 

  38. H. Inhaber,Risk of Energy Production. Report AECB-1119 (Atomic Energy Control Board of Canada, Ottawa, Ontario, 1978). Summarized as H. Inhaber, Risk with energy from conventional and unconventional sources,Science 203:718–723 (1979).

    Google Scholar 

  39. J. P. Holdren, K. R. Smith, and G. Morris, Energy: calculating the risks.Science (Letters)204:564–567.

  40. J. P. Holdren, K. Anderson, P. Gleick, I. Mintzer, G. Morris, and K. Smith,Risk of Renewable Energy Sources: A Critique of the Inhaber Report. Report ERG 79-3. (University of California, Energy and Resources Group, Berkeley, Calif., 1979).

    Google Scholar 

  41. D. W. O. Rogers and R. J. Templin,Errors in a Risk Assessment of Renewable Resources. (National Research Council of Canada, Ottawa, Ontario, 1979).

    Google Scholar 

  42. R. Caputo, and R. Lemberg, Energy: calculating the risks.Science (Letters)204:454.

  43. H. Landsberg, ed.,Energy: The Next Twenty Years (Ballinger, Cambridge, Mass., 1979).

    Google Scholar 

  44. R. Stobaugh and D. Yergin, eds.,Energy Future: Report of the Energy Project at the Harvard Business School (Random House, New York, 1979).

    Google Scholar 

  45. S. H. Schurr, J. Darmstadter, H. Perry, W. Ramsay, and M. Russell,Energy in America's Future: The Choices Before Us (Johns Hopkins University Press, Baltimore, 1979).

    Google Scholar 

  46. H. W. Kendall, S. J. Nadis, D. F. Ford, C. J. Hocevar, D. J. Jhirad, and R. D. Lipschutz,Energy Strategies: Toward a Solar Future (Ballinger, Cambridge, Mass., 1980).

    Google Scholar 

  47. J. P. Holdren, Uranium availability and the breeder decision.Energy Systems an Policy 1:205–232.

  48. H. A. Feiveson, F. von Hippel, and R. H. Williams, Fission power: an evolutionary strategy.Science 203:330–337.

Download references

Author information

Authors and Affiliations

  1. Energy and Resources Group, University of California, 94720, Berkeley, California

    John P. Holdren

  2. Magnetic Fusion Energy Division, Lawrence Livermore Laboratory, University of California, USA

    John P. Holdren

Authors
  1. John P. Holdren
    View author publications

    You can also search for this author in PubMed Google Scholar

Rights and permissions

Reprints and permissions

About this article

Cite this article

Holdren, J.P. Fusion-fission hybrids: Environmental aspects and their role in hybrid rationale. J Fusion Energ 1, 197–210 (1981). https://doi.org/10.1007/BF01050662

Download citation

  • Received:

  • Issue Date:

  • DOI: https://doi.org/10.1007/BF01050662

Key words

Search

Navigation