University of Texas at Austin Proposes Compact Tokomak Fusion/Fission Hybrid to Burn Nuclear Waste

U of T at Austin scientists propose destroying nuclear waste from other nuclear fission reactors using a fusion-fission hybrid reactor, the centerpiece of which is a high power Compact Fusion Neutron Source (CFNS) made possible by a crucial invention, the Super X Divertor. This has a different fusion system than the Lawrence Livermore fusion fission hybrid follow up to the National Laser Ignition Facility Project. Other alternatives are advanced fission nuclear reactors is liquid flouride fission reactors or accelerator driven fission reactors.

UPDATE:A new article on this site estimating how long it will take to make a Compact Fusion Neutron source.

This site had previously looked at non-direct electric uses for nuclear fusion and transmutation was one of them. Transmutation is over three times easier to do than fusion for electricity. It does not have to be positive energy generating for the nuclear fusion part. The electricity is supplied and the fusion device is viewed as an “energy using neutron generator”. The uranium is converted by the neutrons back to an isotope or into plutonium that the nuclear fission reactor can use as fuel. The fusion neutron generator only has to be available about half the time.

The CFNS would provide abundant neutrons through fusion to a surrounding fission blanket that uses transuranic waste as nuclear fuel. The fusion-produced neutrons augment the fission reaction, imparting efficiency and stability to the waste incineration process. One hybrid would be needed to destroy the waste produced by 10 to 15 LWRs (light water reactors). So Seven or eleven hybrids would be need to match up with the existing 104 nuclear reactors in the United States. Thirty to forty-five would be need to match up with the worlds existing nuclear fission reactors. The process would ultimately reduce the transuranic waste from the original fission reactors by up to 99 percent.

A fusion-assisted transmutation system for the destruction of transuranic nuclear waste is developed by combining a subcritical fusion–fission hybrid assembly uniquely equipped to burn the worst thermal nonfissile transuranic isotopes with a new fuel cycle that uses cheaper light water reactors for most of the transmutation. The center piece of this fuel cycle, the high power density compact fusion neutron source (100 MW, outer radius
Waste Destruction System

The scientists’ waste destruction system would work in two major steps.

First, 75 percent of the original reactor waste is destroyed in standard, relatively inexpensive LWRs. This step produces energy, but it does not destroy highly radiotoxic, transuranic, long-lived waste, what the scientists call “sludge.”

In the second step, the sludge would be destroyed in a CFNS-based fusion-fission hybrid. The hybrid’s potential lies in its ability to burn this hazardous sludge, which cannot be stably burnt in conventional systems.

“To burn this really hard to burn sludge, you really need to hit it with a sledgehammer, and that’s what we have invented here,” says Kotschenreuther.

One hybrid would be needed to destroy the waste produced by 10 to 15 LWRs.

The process would ultimately reduce the transuranic waste from the original fission reactors by up to 99 percent. Burning that waste also produces energy.

The CFNS is designed to be no larger than a small room, and much fewer of the devices would be needed compared to other schemes that are being investigated for similar processes. In combination with the substantial decrease in the need for geological storage, the CFNS-enabled waste-destruction system would be much cheaper and faster than other routes, say the scientists.

A seven page paper on the Super X Divertor (SXD) and High Power Density Experiment by the University of Texas at Austin team

A new magnetic geometry, the Super X divertor (SXD), is invented to solve severe heat exhaust problems in high power density fusion plasmas. SXD divertor plates are moved to the largest major radii inside the TF coils, increasing the wetted area by 2-3 and line length by 3-5. 2D simulations show a several fold decrease in divertor heat flux and plasma temperature atthe plate. A small high power density device using SXD is proposed, for either 1) useful fusion applications using conservative physics, such as a Component Test Facility or 2) to develop more advanced physics modes for a pure fusion reactor in an integrated fusion environment.

A highly technical presentation on the Super X Divertor (SXD)

The heat flux is up to 5 times less with the SXD versus a regular divertor.
Without the lower heat there would need to be super-materials from the EU or Japan in a few decades because the USA is not developing advanced fusion materials anymore. With the SXD current materials appear to be good enough.

About The Author

Add comment

E-mail is already registered on the site. Please use the Login form or enter another.

You entered an incorrect username or password

Sorry, you must be logged in to post a comment.


by Newest
by Best by Newest by Oldest

Yes, very interesting indeed. I agree with you BW. We do not need to stay on Oil, even if Bakken is the "next oil boom" We still need to mitigate. However the Bakken will serve us in making our mitigation all the more smoothly. Doomer you actually believe in Jevon's paradox? To each his own.


I look at the thoildrum and peakoil sites fairly regularly and I am aware of the arguments and their statistics and the case and statistics against peak oil.

The last two months the IEA liquid numbers have reached new peaks above 2005 and 2006. World oil production is also heading up and should exceed the 2005 and 2006 peaks.

I believe that we will be moving up from about 100,000 barrels per day from the Bakken at the end of last year to 200,000+barrels per day this year and 400,000+ barrels per day next year (from all states and provinces) and then over 4 more years it will be over 1 and headig to 2 million barrels per day.

Next month we will see what the new USGS survey says.

I think the higher prices are good to get people conserving and becoming more efficient. Enhanced oil recovery (THAI and CAPRI processes) and cheap supercomputer oil field analysis will also help. However, I would prefer that this be used for a smooth transition to nuclear clean fission, fusion and other electrical energy sources.


This is a joke, man, a joke. Peak Oil is already here everyone who is a realist and not in denial will tell you it happened in 2005-2006.

This field will do NOTHING for us. We are still destined to collapse. Period! Ever heard of Jevons Paradox, buddy? Well we're are consuming it more quickly, instead of posting this you should head over to He knows EVERYTHING about what will happen. He has facts and links to prove it all. We are doing nothing but advancing the dieoff much more quickly.