National Academies Press: OpenBook

Controlled Nuclear Fusion: Current Research and Potential Progress (1978)

Chapter: APPENDIX: FUSION-FISSION HYBRID AND ACCELERATOR BREEDING CONCEPTS

« Previous: ANNOTATED BIBLIOGRAPHY
Suggested Citation:"APPENDIX: FUSION-FISSION HYBRID AND ACCELERATOR BREEDING CONCEPTS." National Research Council. 1978. Controlled Nuclear Fusion: Current Research and Potential Progress. Washington, DC: The National Academies Press. doi: 10.17226/18491.
×
Page 45
Suggested Citation:"APPENDIX: FUSION-FISSION HYBRID AND ACCELERATOR BREEDING CONCEPTS." National Research Council. 1978. Controlled Nuclear Fusion: Current Research and Potential Progress. Washington, DC: The National Academies Press. doi: 10.17226/18491.
×
Page 46
Suggested Citation:"APPENDIX: FUSION-FISSION HYBRID AND ACCELERATOR BREEDING CONCEPTS." National Research Council. 1978. Controlled Nuclear Fusion: Current Research and Potential Progress. Washington, DC: The National Academies Press. doi: 10.17226/18491.
×
Page 47
Suggested Citation:"APPENDIX: FUSION-FISSION HYBRID AND ACCELERATOR BREEDING CONCEPTS." National Research Council. 1978. Controlled Nuclear Fusion: Current Research and Potential Progress. Washington, DC: The National Academies Press. doi: 10.17226/18491.
×
Page 48
Suggested Citation:"APPENDIX: FUSION-FISSION HYBRID AND ACCELERATOR BREEDING CONCEPTS." National Research Council. 1978. Controlled Nuclear Fusion: Current Research and Potential Progress. Washington, DC: The National Academies Press. doi: 10.17226/18491.
×
Page 49
Suggested Citation:"APPENDIX: FUSION-FISSION HYBRID AND ACCELERATOR BREEDING CONCEPTS." National Research Council. 1978. Controlled Nuclear Fusion: Current Research and Potential Progress. Washington, DC: The National Academies Press. doi: 10.17226/18491.
×
Page 50
Suggested Citation:"APPENDIX: FUSION-FISSION HYBRID AND ACCELERATOR BREEDING CONCEPTS." National Research Council. 1978. Controlled Nuclear Fusion: Current Research and Potential Progress. Washington, DC: The National Academies Press. doi: 10.17226/18491.
×
Page 51
Suggested Citation:"APPENDIX: FUSION-FISSION HYBRID AND ACCELERATOR BREEDING CONCEPTS." National Research Council. 1978. Controlled Nuclear Fusion: Current Research and Potential Progress. Washington, DC: The National Academies Press. doi: 10.17226/18491.
×
Page 52
Suggested Citation:"APPENDIX: FUSION-FISSION HYBRID AND ACCELERATOR BREEDING CONCEPTS." National Research Council. 1978. Controlled Nuclear Fusion: Current Research and Potential Progress. Washington, DC: The National Academies Press. doi: 10.17226/18491.
×
Page 53
Suggested Citation:"APPENDIX: FUSION-FISSION HYBRID AND ACCELERATOR BREEDING CONCEPTS." National Research Council. 1978. Controlled Nuclear Fusion: Current Research and Potential Progress. Washington, DC: The National Academies Press. doi: 10.17226/18491.
×
Page 54
Suggested Citation:"APPENDIX: FUSION-FISSION HYBRID AND ACCELERATOR BREEDING CONCEPTS." National Research Council. 1978. Controlled Nuclear Fusion: Current Research and Potential Progress. Washington, DC: The National Academies Press. doi: 10.17226/18491.
×
Page 55

Below is the uncorrected machine-read text of this chapter, intended to provide our own search engines and external engines with highly rich, chapter-representative searchable text of each book. Because it is UNCORRECTED material, please consider the following text as a useful but insufficient proxy for the authoritative book pages.

Appendix FUSION-FISSION HYBRID AND ACCELERATOR BREEDING CONCEPTS Introduction The neutrons emitted in the more plausible fusion reactions (D-T and D-D) can be used to cause fissions and to create fertile isotopes (U233 or P239) in a blanket surrounding the fusion device. The fissile material can in turn be fissioned in situ or utilized to fuel nonbreeder fission reactors. The result is in effect to multiply the energy release per fusion reaction by as much as two orders of magnitude. It has been argued that, since it may always be relatively expensive to produce fusion reactions, there will be a permanent and strong econo- mic incentive to add fission blankets to fusion power plants for the purpose of increasing the energy output. In recent years the rationale for fusion-fission systems has been expanded by the idea that since fusion systems with low energy gain appear closer at hand from the scientific viewpoint than high-gain systems, the fusion-fission concept can provide the added system energy gain that might justify the early commercial introduction of fusion devices. A counterclaim is that the pacing problems of fusion are of an engineering rather than a scientific nature so that the added engi- neering complexity of the fusion-fission devices would delay rather than hasten the commercial advent of fusion. Specifically, a fundamen- tal obstacle to the commercialization of fusion reactors is the well- known difficulty of achieving acceptable capacity factors in complex plants which are also radioactive. The addition of a highly radioactive fission breeding blanket of necessarily inconvenient geometry thus appears to be diametrically opposed to the requirements for early commercialization. While the coupling of the breeding blanket with the high-technology fusion device is intrinsically less strong in the case of laser fusion than in the case of magnetic fusion, it is not entirely clear that the necessary isolation of the blanket is plausible even in the former case. The accelerator breeding concept is similar to fusion-fission concepts in that fissile isotopes produced in the target by the accelerator beam can in principle make possible a system energy gain significantly above unity. More specifically, a beam of energetic protons, deuterons, or 45

46 tritons (H3) in the 500- to l000-MeV range, when made to impinge on a target of suitable composition and structure, can release a substantial number of neutrons by spallation and fast-fission processes. Thus it is believed that one or more fissile atoms can be produced for every 20 MeV of beam energy. The fissile atoms can then be burned in situ or used to fuel a nonbreeding fission reactor, thereby resulting in an ultimate release in the range of l00 to l000 MeV per 20 MeV of beam energy. It hence appears plausible that enough energy gain can be achieved to more than make up for the 30 to 40 percent efficiency of converting heat to electricity and the 50 percent efficiency of con- verting bus-bar electricity to accelerator beam power. In both fusion-fission hybrids and accelerator breeders, the ratio of in situ burning of fissile material to burning in separate fission reactors is an adjustable system design parameter. By increasing the neutron multiplication of the blanket or target, and by increasing the residence time of the blanket or target fertile elements, it is possible to increase both the total generation of fissile material and the frac- tion that is burned in situ. Thus in one limit the fusion-fission hybrid could be considered solely as a source of fissile material with zero, or even negative, production of electrical power. In the opposite limit, power production could be the primary objective with no transfer of fissile material to fission reactors. Another important class of system design parameters for fusion- fission hybrids and accelerator breeders relates to the neutron economy of the part of the system in which the fissile material is burned. As is familiar from the analysis of near-breeder fission reactor concepts, the ratio of total power generated to fissile material input can be varied over a large range. (This ratio becomes infinite when the breeding ratio reaches unity.) In general, increasing the efficiency of fissile material utilization entails penalties such as greater engi- neering complexity, reduced power density, or more frequent reprocessing. If the fissile material can be obtained at low cost (e.g., from inexpen- sive natural uranium) the economic justification for accepting such penalties is marginal. On the other hand, since fusion-fission hybrids and accelerator breeders are unlikely to produce fissile material at low cost, it would appear consistent to assume that if and when such devices are commercially deployed, the economic incentive for improved neutron economy will be considerably greater than it is at present. Design Concepts Extensive parameter studies based on preliminary conceptual designs have been made for both fusion-fission and accelerator breeders. The former studies suffer from the lack of many crucial design parameters, to be determined from plasma physics and materials research programs. In addition, none of the conceptual designs have been exposed to critical evaluation by industrial organization experienced in the actual con- struction of fission reactors. The fission blanket concepts for fusion- fission hybrids are often based on concepts that have not yet been successfully commercialized in fission reactors (e.g., liquid metal

47 cooling, fused salts, high-temperature gas cooling, etc.). While such concepts may ultimately prove successful in the nuclear industry, their advanced nature would appear to preclude the early deployment of fusion- fission hybrids. Furthermore the philosophical advantages of fusion- fission hybrids over fission breeders or near breeders do not appear crucial in a practical sense so that the advances in nuclear technology required for the commercialization of fusion-fission hybrids would be likely to benefit competing pure fission concepts to a comparable extent. (For example, the problems in commercialization of the light water breeder reactor relate to the need for inconveniently large pressure vessels, internal structural complexity, and poor power distributions. Such problems would tend to be exacerbated rather than relieved in fusion-fission hybrids.) In the case of accelerator breeders, the accelerator concepts are relatively firm because existing linear accelerators have already been operated in the pulsed mode at the necessary peak beam power (several hundred megawatts). Though the extension to steady-state operation is believed not to introduce fundamentally new physics problems, the necessity of raising the average power level by orders of magnitude introduces severe problems associated with heat removal, avoidance or control of beam spill, and maintenance. A better perspective on the difficulty of overcoming these problems will presumably be obtained from construction and operation of the proposed Fusion Materials Irradia- tion Test Facility (FMIT). (This device will consist of a high-power linear accelerator that provides a beam of energetic deuterons and a target of flowing liquid lithium in which the deuterons are converted to neutrons and protons by nuclear stripping reactions. The neutrons will then be utilized to irradiate test specimens.) The target problem for accelerator breeding is generally recognized as being of far greater engineering difficulty than the accelerator itself. A composite structure consisting of a liquid metal primary target (presumably located within the vacuum chamber) and one or more secondary targets may be necessary. The total heat release in the accelerator breeder target would be comparable to that in a medium- sized fission reactor. Although control rod systems would not be required, other characteristics (e.g., peak heat flux, nonuniformity of heat deposition, radiation damage of materials, etc., etc.) could be far more severe than for typical fission reactors. Thus the time required for developing and commercially deploying accelerator breeders is likely to be comparable to that required for developing and deploying a new type of fission reactor. Furthermore, as in the case with new reactor types, ultimate commercial success is strongly dependent on the capacity factor actually achieved in the field. This aspect of performance is difficult to predict in advance. There is, however, considerable evidence from both fossil and fission power plant exper- ience that large size and technical complexity tend to markedly lower capacity factor. The number of different conceptual designs of fusion-fission hybrid and accelerator breeder concepts that have been proposed and studied at least superficially is large indeed. In the fusion-fission hybrid case each fusion concept (e.g., laser fusion, electron and ion beam

48 fusion, Tokamaks, magnetic mirrors, theta pinches, laser heated sole- noids, etc., etc.) is a conceivable candidate. In addition, different investigators have selected their own preferred fission reactor concept as the basis for blanket design. Accelerator breeder concepts are generally based on the use of linear accelerators, but differnt ions (e.g., protons, deuterons, or tritons) can be utilized. The choice of the nucleus to be accelerated makes some difference in accelerator design and also in the structure and composition of the target. In the case of deuterons or tritons, a primary target consisting of liquid lithium can be used to strip off the neutrons; these neutrons then impinge on a secondary target (e.g. uranium) that maximizes neutron multiplication by spallation, evaporation, and fast-fission nuclear reactions. The lower energy neutrons resulting from this cascade then enter a tertiary target that incorporates a lattice structure for maximizing the production of fissile material or fission energy release. TOO p o p Thorium or U can be utilized as the fertile material, and some designs incorporate both materials. (The U238 is advantageous for increasing neutron multiplication by fast neutron fission processes in parts of the target where the neutron energy is high. Thus it might be incorporated in the design even if U233 rather than Pu239 is the desired fissile product.) It is generally felt that the required accelerator design would be somewhat simplified if protons, rather than heavier ions, were used. This would entail a significant reduction in fissile yield per unit of beam energy unless a uranium primary target could be used.* A liquid lead primary target within the accelerator vacuum system is a more conservative alternative to the uranium target concepts that have been considered. The linear accelerators proposed in accelerator breeder concepts are typically designed for a beam power of several hundred megawatts and beam energy of 500 to l000 MeV. The total length is several thousand feet. It is hoped that much of the accelerator structure will have low enough radioactivity to allow hands-on maintenance. Automatic beam control would rapidly turn off the beam to avoid physical damage or activation of the structure if beam spill occurs. A plant based on an accelerator with 300 megawatts of average beam power might have a fissile material production rate of about 3000 grams per day. This would be sufficient to fuel three or four light water reactors of current design, assuming that fuel reprocessing is even- tually allowed. Perhaps as many as a dozen advanced near-breeder reactors could be fueled by the same plant. On the other hand, if such reactors turn out to be commercially feasible, the exsiting sources of natural uranium would presumably serve the nuclear industry well into the 2lst century without the need for accelerator breeders. (Fuel reprocessing would, however, be required to justify the use of advanced reactors.) *A solid primary target necessitates a metal window to separate the target coolant from the accelerator vacuum. It is not assured that a window with adequate strength and radiation resistance is feasible.

49 Some thought has been given to fuel cycles that do not require reprocessing. For example fertile material elements might be first loaded into the target of an accelerator breeder and then, after the concentration of fissile material has risen to a few percent, trans- ferred to a fission reactor for use in the throwaway cycle. Whether or not such concepts could be licensed by NRC is problematical. Also, the elmination of reprocessing tends to reduce the amount of energy that can be obtained from the fissile material. Extensive details of the numerous fusion-fission hybrid and acceler- ator breeder concepts are available from the documents listed in the References. Economic Considerations For reasons indicated previously, the economics of fusion-fission hybrids and accelerator breeders cannot be reliably projected at the present time. Over and above the major remaining technological and design un- certainties, the capacity factor of the ultimate plants has crucial leverage on the economics; this factor will unfortunately not be known until one or more generations of commercial plants have been deployed. In the interest of obtaining a feel for the order of magnitude of different components in the cost of fusion-fission hybrids and acceler- ator breeders, Table l has been prepared under the set of arbitrary assumptions listed in the accompanying notes. The estimates of MeV of energy associated with the net production of one atom of fissile mate- rial are also subject to substantial uncertainty. While the cost esti- mates are of little quantitative significance, they are at least consistent with the general belief that accelerator breeders might produce fissile material in the cost range of $l00 to $300 per gram; fusion-fission hybrids, if they were technologically feasible, could conceivably produce fissile material at about half this cost. The "low exposure" cases in Table l refer to situations in which no fissile material is deliberately added to the blanket or target. In the "high exposure" cases, enough fissile material is allowed to accumu- late in the fertile elements before unloading to double the net produc- tion of fissile material. This has the effect of reducing the contribution of the accelerator or fusion device to the fissile product cost, but increasing the contribution of the target or blanket cost. In the absence of an optimized lattice structure the fertile material exposure would be in the range of 40,000 MW-days per ton, corresponding to a peak fissile content of about 8 percent, or an average of 4 percent. One can of course go much further in the direction of increasing blanket or target multiplication, in which case one begins to approach the breeder reactor regime (i.e., the total heat generation per atom of fissile product rises from the 50 to l00 MeV range toward the l000 to 2000 MeV range characteristic of the LMFBR). Plant revenue from sale of electricity then greatly exceeds the revenue from sale of fissile material. The credit for generation of electricity exceeds the fixed and opearating cost associated with the blanket or target, this fact re- flects the assumed equivalence of the blanket or target to a fission reactor with no yellowcake or separative work costs.

50 Since about 2 grams of fissile material (uranium235) can be ob- tained by isotopic separation froma pound of yellowcake, a non-power- producing fusion-fission hybrid or accelerator breeder will be economically justified only if yellowcake cost rises to several hundred dollars per pound. Power-producing fusion-fission hybrids would have to compete with breeder reactors. This seems unlikely because of the great engineering complexity of the former concepts. Proliferation Considerations Present concerns over nuclear arms proliferation has highlighted the question of whether or not fusion-fission hybrids or accelerator breeders offer any advantages with respect to minimizing the risk of such proliferation. The picture is clouded because of strenuous differences of opinion about the scenarios deemed to constitute the greatest risk one or two decades from now. In addition key information (particularly with respect to the proliferation of fusion weapons) will probably remain classified for the foreseeable future, so that the basis for official policy will not be subject to independent review. In the first instance, fusion-fission hybrids and accelerator breeders are copious neutron producers and thus in themselves provide avenues for proliferation. For example, if the technologies of fusion- fission devices or high-power linear accelerators turn out to be sufficiently tractable for commercial use, then coupling such a device to a slightly subcritical lattic of natural uranium and light water would presumably provide a tempting avenue for generating fissile iso- topes and thermonuclear materials. (The latter would already be avail- able in conjunction with the fusion device fuel cycles). On the favorable side, it is argued that fusion-fission hybrids or accelerator breeders would provide flexibility in selecting fuel cycles alleged to minimize the proliferation temptation because of the composi- tion of the fuel or because of reduced need for fuel reprocessing. But even granting the controversial claim that commercial nuclear reactors or reprocessing facilities would necessarily constitute uniquely tempting avenues to proliferation, it is by no means clear that fission reactor systems do not possess the flexibility needed to deploy whatever fuel cycle is ultimately judged to constitute a minimum proliferation threat. The Electronuclear Fuel and Power Producer (EFPP), a particular accelerator-driven system, is now being evaluated by ERDA as a means of eliminating the need for reprocessing. In one mode of operation the accelerator would drive a subcritical fission lattice having a neutron multiplication of about ten. The aim is to achieve a system power recirculation factor well under 50 percent and a fertile atom burnup of l0 to l5 percent. A fuel element exposure in excess of l00,000 megawatt days thermal per metric ton (MWD(th)/MT) would be required (l0 to l2 year residence time) as compared to the 30,000 MWD(th)/MT objective in commercial light water reactors. Assuming that this fuel element per- formance can be reliably achieved, a throwaway fuel cycle for fast breeders might also be possible. It would, however, be necessary to provide fissile material from another source to make up the initial fuel

5l loading. Fusion-fission hybrids or accelerator breeders would thus obviate the need to acquire the initial fissile material by enriching natural uranium or by purchasing plutonium from an off-shore supplier. TABLE l Conjectural Cost of Fissile Material Production by Fusion Hybrid and Spallation Schemes Break-Even Fusion Low Exposure Blanket High Exposure Blanket Spallation Breeding Low Exposure Target High Exposure Target Electrical Input: MeV/net fissile atom $/net gram of fissile product Plant Cost Allocated to Blanket or Target (Based on heat re- moval requirement): MeV of heat/net fissile atom $net gram of fissile product Plant Cost Allocated to Fusion Device or Accelerator and RF Power Supply: Capital cost of equipment (3000 g/day plant) Fixed and operating costs of above per net gram of fissile product Gross Cost/Net Gram of Fissile Product Credit for Electrical Power Generation Net Cost/gram of Fissile Product 7 3.5 $3l.20 $ l5.60 50 l00 $ 43.30 $ 86.70 $300 $l50 Million Million $ 91.30 $ 45.60 $l65.80 $l47.90 ($ 53.30) ($l06.50) $ll2.50 $ 4l.40 40 20 $l78.00 $ 89.00 ll3 l60 $ 98.00 $l38.80 $300 $l50 Million Million $ 9l.30 $ 45.60 $367.30 $273.40 ($l20.30) ($l70.40) $247.00 $l03.00

52 Note: The following arbitrary assumptions were made in the calculations for Table l. Plant Capacity Factor: 60 percent Fixed Charge Rate: l5 percent per annum Operating Cost (including fabrication reprocessing, etc.): 5 percent of plant costs per annum Total Plant Cost Allocated to the blanket or target (including heat removal): $200/kW thermal Net Thermal Efficiency of Electrical Generation: 33 percent Total Plant Cost Allocated to Electrical Power Generation: $300/kW electric Capital Cost of 300 Megawatt RF Power Supply and Accelerator (3000 gms/ day production with low exposure blanket): $300 x l06 Capital Cost of Fusion Neutron Source (3000 gins/day production with low exposure blanket): $300 x io6 Cost of Electricity to Operate Accelerator or fusion device (consistent with previous assumptions): 39 mills/kWHe Net Credit for Addition of Conversion equipment to produce electricity for plant use or sale: 28 mills/kWHe

APPENDIX REFERENCES Bender, D. J., and J. D. Lee. June l0, l976. The Potential for Fissile Breeding with the Fusion-Fission Hybrid Reactor. Livermore, California: Lawrence Livermore Laboratory. UCRL-77887 Preprint. Cook, A. G., and J. A. Maniscalco. June l976. 233U Breeding and Neu- tron Multiplying Blankets for Fusion Reactors. Paper presented at the l976 Annual Meeting of American Nuclear Society, Toronto. Livermore, California: Lawrence Livermore Laboratory, UCRL-77284 Preprint. Eastlund, B. J. l976. Enhanced Energy Utilization from a Controlled Thermonuclear Fusion Reactor. Fusion Systems Corporation (Rockville, MD) Final Report. Palo Alto: Electric Power Research Institute. EPRI ER-248. Electric Power Research Institute. March l977. The EPRI Asilomar Papers: On the Possibility of Advanced Fuel Fusion Reactors, Fusion- Fission Hybrid Breeders, Small Fusion Power Reactors. Palo Alto: Electric Power Research Institute. EPRI ER-378/SR. Fraser, J. S., C. R. J. Hoffmann, and P. R. Tunnicliffe. August l973. The Role of Electrically Produced Neutrons in Nuclear Power Genera- tion. Paper presented at Summer Study Group on Practical Applica- tions of Accelerators, Los Alamos, N.M. Chalk River, Ontario: Atomic Energy of Canada, Ltd. AECL-4658. Horoshko, R. N., H. Hurwitz, and H. Zmora. l974. Application of Laser Fusion to the Production of Fissile Materials. Pp. 223-232 in Annals of Nuclear Science and Engineering, Vol. I. Oxford: Pergamon Press. Lidsky, L. M. l975. Fission-Fusion Systems: Hybrid, Symbiotic and Augean. Review Paper. Nuclear Fusion l5:l5l-l73. Maniscalco, J. A. l975. Fusion-Fission Hybrid Concepts for Laser Induced Fusion. Paper presented at the l975 Annual Meeting of ANS. Livermore: Lawrence Livermore Laboratory. UCRL-76763 Preprint. Moir, R. W. August l, l976. Mirror Fusion-Fission Reactor Designs. Livermore: Lawrence Livermore Laboratory. UCRL-78629 Preprint. Mynatt, F. R., R. G. Alsmiller, Jr., J. Barish, T. A. Gabriel, D. A. Bartine, P. J. Burns, M. A. Martin, M. J. Saltmarsh, E. S. Bettis. February l977. Preliminary Report on the Promise of Accelerator Breeding and Converter Reactor Symbiosis (ABACS) as an Alternative Energy System. Oak Ridge: Oak Ridge National Laboratory ORNL/TM- 5750. 53

54 Proceedings of US-USSR Symposium on Fusion-Fission Reactors July l3-l6, l976. l976. Livermore: Lawrence Livermore Laboratory. CONF- 760733. Proceedings of ERDA Accelerator Breeding Conference, Brookhaven National Laboratory, January l8-l9, l977. l977. Springfield, Va.: NTIS CONF 770-l07. Steinberg, M., J. R. Powell, K. Batchelor, H. Takahashi, J. Blewett, T. D. Sheehan, H. Ludewig, V. D. Dang, T. Grand, A. Lazarus, H. J. C. Kouts. l976. Linear Accelerator Breeder (LAB): A Preliminary Analysis and Proposal Presented to ERDA. Upton, N.Y.: Brookhaven National Laboratory. BNL 50592. Tenney, F. H. January l977. A Brief Review of the Fusion-Fission Hybrid Reactor. Princeton: Princeton University. PPPL-l3l8. Weale, J. W., H. Goodfellow, M. H. McTaggart, and M. H. Mullender. l96l. Measurements of the Reaction Rate Distribution Produced by a Source of l4 MeV Neutrons at the Centre of a Uranium Metal Pile. Pages 9l-99 in Reactor Science and Technology, Vol. l4. Oxford: Pergamon Press. Wolkenhauer, W. C., and B. R. Leonard, Jr. Progress toward the Develop- ment of a Mirror Hybrid Fusion-Fission Reactor, Pacific Northwest Laboratory, Richland, Wash. Pp. 649-655 in Plasma Physics and Controlled Nuclear Fusion Research, Vol. 3. Vienna: International Atomic Energy Agency. The following references have appeared since this appendix was written, and are included for the benefit of the reader: Bethe, H. A. May l978. The Fusion Hybrid. Nuclear News 2l (No. 7): 4l-44. U.S. Department of Energy. July l978. Proceedings of the Second Fusion- fission Energy Systems Review Meeting, November 2-3, l977, Washington, D.C. Washington: U.S. Department of Energy, Office of Fusion Energy, Assistant Secretary for Energy Technology. CONF-77ll55. Volumes I and II.

Controlled Nuclear Fusion: Current Research and Potential Progress Get This Book
×
MyNAP members save 10% online.
Login or Register to save!
Download Free PDF

Controlled Nuclear Fusion was written as part of a larger study of the nation's prospective energy economy during the period 1985-2010, with special attention to the role of nuclear power among the alternative energy systems. Written to assist the American people and government in formulating energy policy, this report is an examination of the current state of fusion technology with an estimate of its future progress. Controlled Nuclear Fusion discusses the wide-ranging implications of energy in the coming decades.

  1. ×

    Welcome to OpenBook!

    You're looking at OpenBook, NAP.edu's online reading room since 1999. Based on feedback from you, our users, we've made some improvements that make it easier than ever to read thousands of publications on our website.

    Do you want to take a quick tour of the OpenBook's features?

    No Thanks Take a Tour »
  2. ×

    Show this book's table of contents, where you can jump to any chapter by name.

    « Back Next »
  3. ×

    ...or use these buttons to go back to the previous chapter or skip to the next one.

    « Back Next »
  4. ×

    Jump up to the previous page or down to the next one. Also, you can type in a page number and press Enter to go directly to that page in the book.

    « Back Next »
  5. ×

    To search the entire text of this book, type in your search term here and press Enter.

    « Back Next »
  6. ×

    Share a link to this book page on your preferred social network or via email.

    « Back Next »
  7. ×

    View our suggested citation for this chapter.

    « Back Next »
  8. ×

    Ready to take your reading offline? Click here to buy this book in print or download it as a free PDF, if available.

    « Back Next »
Stay Connected!