I have to throw a little water on the "clean" part of the claim, unfortunately. JET does deuterium/tritium fusion, which produces neutron radiation that causes the lining of the reactor to become radioactive. The lining needs to be replaced every once in a while, producing nuclear waste.
this post was submitted on 09 Feb 2024
75 points (96.3% liked)
Science
13206 readers
7 users here now
Subscribe to see new publications and popular science coverage of current research on your homepage
founded 5 years ago
MODERATORS
While true, that is misleading. The nuclear waste produced will be radioactive for some decades, in contrast to the waste products from nuclear fission, which stay radioactive virtually forever. Most people think of fission waste if you don't specify and thus make fusion waste far scarier than it actually is.
Most nuclear fission products don't remain radioactive for long periods either, let alone "virtually forever." Bear in mind that the longer-lived a radioisotope is, the less radioactive it is.
For JET, I dug up the actual numbers (LLW is low-level waste and ILW is intermediate-level waste):
Radioactive wastes arising from operation and decommissioning of the JET experimental nuclear fusion reactor, located at Culham, are already factored into the UK radioactive waste inventory. Forecast LLW and ILW packaged volumes are 4,120 m^3 and 480 m^3, respectively; activated steels and alloy plant and equipment, including the JET vacuum vessel, are a major contributor to the ILW arising.
According to this page a typical 1-gigawatt fission reactor produces 3 m^3 of high-level waste per year, 7 m^3 of intermediate-level waste, and 90 m^3 of low-level waste per year while operating.
I'm having trouble finding easily comparable numbers for the wastes produced during decommissioning, this page had a lot of detail but was focused more on the area of land that needed to be sealed off rather than the cubic meters of material contained there. It does talk about the mass of some of the turbines being considered as low-level waste being in the range of a few hundred tons, which isn't much.
It's true that spent fission fuel rods are high level waste, but the total volume of that is quite small and it's in a very manageable form. So overall, I'm not really sure there's going to be a big improvement on nuclear waste production with fusion power. It's certainly not going to be a panacea, we're still going to need nuclear waste repositories and still be dealing with processing and sequestering large amounts of materials there.
This is the best summary I could come up with:
Prof Stuart Mangles, Head of the Space, Plasma and Climate Research Community, Imperial College London, said: "The new results from JET's final run are very exciting.
The Joint European Torus (JET) facility, was constructed in Culham in Oxford in the late 1970s and until the end of last year was the world's most advanced experimental fusion reactor.
Prof Ambrogio Fasoli, programme manager at EUROfusion, said: "Our successful demonstration... instils greater confidence in the development of fusion energy.
UK Minister for Nuclear and Networks, Andrew Bowie, said: "JET's final fusion experiment is a fitting swansong after all the ground-breaking work that has gone into the project since 1983.
At the time a spokesperson for the Department of Energy Security and Net Zero said: "Given delays to association and the direction of travel of these EU programmes, an alternative approach gives the UK the best opportunity to deliver our fusion strategy."
At the announcement of the record on Thursday, Ian Chapman, from UKAEA, did say that discussions were still ongoing with European partners to see how the UK could be involved with ITER in the future.
The original article contains 769 words, the summary contains 184 words. Saved 76%. I'm a bot and I'm open source!
10 more years, babyeeeeee-!