1
>> K. Shriraghav: Hello. It's my pleasure to welcome Swadesh Mahajan for the
Institute For Fusion Studies, University of Texas Austin. [indiscernible]
catastrophic climate change, I think nuclear energy has a pretty significant
role to play. But nuclear energy does have its share of problems, and we're
going to be hearing Professor Mahajan telling us about how we can address some
of these problems.
>> Swadesh Mahajan: Thank you. So the title of this talk is Greening of
Nuclear Energy plus a Sustainable Nuclear Future. And it might appear somewhat
contradictory, that how can nuclear energy be green, but we will try to kind of
build a case for that, and it will be a slow and deliberate case.
So let me first state my primary motivation here. So borrowing a quote from
Buddhism, there are four noble truths and instead of the eight full way, there
is only one full way to salvation. And so the first one is that nuclear
fission must be a major partner in any non-carbon, base-load electricity mix
required to fight global warming, okay? And please note the word base-load,
because that's extremely important.
And then, at the vastly expanded scale; that is, if you did indulge in nuclear
energy to the extent it will be needed, nuclear energy has to be made as
sin-free as possible. And we will pretty soon try to encounter what the sins
of nuclear energy are.
And the cardinal sin, of course, is that long-term radio toxicity and biohazard
associated with what's called the spent nuclear feel or nuclear waste. And
then, of course, there is another very important practical inadequacy, and that
is that if nuclear energy were to really expand at the rate expected, then
pretty soon we are going to be finding ourselves short of fissionable fuel.
Okay?
And, of course, you cannot build reactors today with an 80-year-old -- 80-year
life span if you cannot guarantee fuel for the next 50 to 60 years. Okay?
Nobody's going to build them.
So then the third one is that a technical solution to the waste problem is
possible within fission, and I will just give you a primer about fission and
fusion, and then, of course, these things will get a little clearer meaning.
And however, the solution turns out to be very inefficient, slow and very
2
expensive.
And an economic and much more efficient solution to the waste and fuel problem
can come from the sister nuclear channel, which is nuclear fusion. All right?
You must have heard about nuclear fusion and we will talk about it to some
event as we go along.
And, of course, then the way is exploit the natural symbiosis between fusion
and fission. Create a fusion fission hybrid system to incinerate the nuclear
waste and to breed fuel, okay?
So that's the little journey we are going to embark on. So my outline will
I'll give you some idea of what energy, electricity, nuclear electricity are.
Fission, fusion -- fission reactors and spent nuclear fuel. Fusion in
perspective. And I will keep on stressing the fact that producing net
electrical power using nuclear fusion is a very, very difficult job and perhaps
it's not going to be available to us for a long time to come, okay?
And so you must have heard that fusion is always 50 years from now, or fusion
will always remain the technology of future. And there is some truth to that,
particularly if you [indiscernible] fusion very literally, okay?
And then I will try to combine them for you, and then I'll show how this
so-called beast, the fusion-fission hybrid, how it will evolve over a period of
time. And then once we design it, then it can be a game changer in the energy
game.
And I will talk about the hybrid as a waste incinerator, which means that it
gets rid of the environmental problems that fission creates and that leads to
the Greening of nuclear energy and fight against global warming. And the
hybrid will also be a fuel breeder, so that it will be possible for us to
extend our sources almost infinity.
>>:
Is this something that [inaudible].
>> Swadesh Mahajan:
I will [indiscernible] terra power a little later, okay?
Okay. This is just to show you that 6.4% of the total energy you usage in the
world comes from nuclear electricity. But, of course, energy is much more
electricity, fair amount in transportation, et cetera, but 6.4% is the nuclear
3
component.
But what is of really great interest is how we are projecting the use of energy
in the future. And as you can see, there is one rogue graph, and that is here.
It's supposed to go from 2,000 appropriate units to something like above 12,000
in the next 20 to 30 years, okay?
Now, that is an absolutely great challenge for almost any mode of energy
production. As you all know, a new energy producing technology takes a long
time before it can settle in. And even from laboratory to commercial chain is
time consuming. And for it to become economical, it takes almost forever.
And although as you can see that even the U.S. usage is projected to keep on
increasing, but slowly. But the biggest actor in this game is going to be
Asia, and their voracious appetite for energy. I do want to say all these
graphs are really in some sense limited projections. They should not be taken
too seriously, because anything can happen tomorrow, you know. The economics
can change, et cetera, et cetera. But this is an indicator.
But what I really want to point out to you is that if you look at U.S., India
and China, U.S. today produces about 106 gigawatts electrical power from
nuclear. India, only 4.56. And China, about 10 gigawatts.
But by 2050, India wants to produce 200 to 250 gigawatts. It seems like an
absolutely absurd dream, but they are very serious about it. And the Chinese,
250 to 500 gigawatts of nuclear electricity. And I can assure you that they
are hell-bent to really achieve that.
>>:
Are you saying we're only using 10% of our stored capacity?
>> Swadesh Mahajan: Yes. So this is very interesting. In the U.S., we have
only 10% of the installed capacity. However, 10% of the electricity used in
the U.S. comes from nuclear, because the nuclear power plants run for a longer
time much for efficient [indiscernible], et cetera, et cetera. So even thought
total installed capacity, it creates 20% of the usable electricity. Which is
very remarkable. I mean, compared to everything else, it has a duty factor
which is twice as large.
So here is really our challenge. So such a vast commitment to go nuclear is
really exciting, especially in the nuclear field, which has been sleeping for a
4
very long period of time. And it offers a great opportunity.
to worry about is a great challenge.
But what we have
Are we ready for such an enormous undertaking? Can it be done and can it be
done right without subjecting the society to some big risk? And one can always
think of any number of hare-brained schemes of making energy, but the question
is will it be doing damage to the life as we know.
And I think this is in pursuit of this one that we do need to do a fair amount
of science and technology in order to understand.
But let me, since you're all scientists and engineers, let me give you an idea
of the physics of the whole thing. So this is a short primer for nuclear
energy. There are two major channels for nuclear energy. And in fact what
happens is that if you plotted what is called binding energy against a nuclear
number of various nuclei, it goes up steeply. This is where is ion and after
that it totally starts going down.
So what happens is ion nucleus is the most bound. So any approach to this one
releases energy. So whether you go from the low side or you come from the high
side, you have to go towards the middle in order to produce energy.
So this also states something very interesting, that any source that we have
for nuclear energy, okay, this is given to us on earth. We cannot produce it.
In fact, it is our heritage from some star which exploded long ago, all right,
and its debris were there to make the cosmic dust from which our solar system
was created, okay.
So it's not renewable. I mean, there is absolutely nothing renewable about it,
okay? And, in fact, what is very fascinating is that when we go to the -okay. So let me finish that first. So we break have a nucleus, uranium, which
lies something here to some elements around here and you get [indiscernible].
But breaking takes place through the agency of a neutron. A neutron must go
and collide.
What is fortunate is that the reaction then produces enough neutrons that it
can then go and strike another one so the chain reaction can be
[indiscernible], okay? And so that is the basis for creating fission energy
and, of course, when it's controlled, it's a power reactor. When it's
uncontrolled, it a nuclear bomb.
5
And this statement I want to state very clearly. All of today's nuclear
production is fission-based. Fission is an established, mature, safe and
dependable technology with a well-understood scientific basis. That is despite
Fukushima, and I can make some comments about that.
Then the other end is that we take elements here and make them go up the curve
here. And so we take deuterium and tritium and make helium and a neutron and
energy. This is called fusion. And why deuterium and tritium? Because any
other very low form like, for instance, supposing I wanted to have hydrogen
mix. Just simple plain hydrogen. Then it requires enormously high
temperatures. I don't know how to create them. So deuterium and tritium are
the two substances. I can fuse them, [indiscernible] which we can kind of try
to create on earth and we have created them on earth, okay? And so it's the
cheapest reaction in that sense.
Now, one thing that will come to us later, that with one neutron, there is
about 100 mega watts of energy. 100 MeV of energy. MeV is a unit of energy.
While in this one, one neutron has 17.6 MeV of energy. So there's two ways of
looking at it. For every 100 MeV of energy, there is one neutron in fission.
But for every 100 MeV in fusion, there are five neutrons. Okay? So in some
sense, this is energy rich, this is neutron rich. And we shall explore it this
aspect of the physics quite seriously as we go further.
So fusion, though it sounds very attractive, again I take five units of mass,
destroy them and produce 20 MeV. Here, I take 236 units of mass and destroy
them and make 200 MeV. So this is, in fact, a much more efficient process.
And that is why such process are utilized in the cosmic furnaces, which are the
stars.
And however, fusion is not a power producing technology and it's not likely to
be for a very long period of time.
So question is if fission is as good as I am stating, why is it that it creates
so much of controversy? Why are there people demonstrating against all the
time and why are people like, you know, Helen [indiscernible] have gone on a
campaign to precisely discredit nuclear energy as much as they can?
So let's get to know the nuclear energy a little better. So there are two
kinds of materials that are available to us. Will you let me know ten minutes
6
before I should finish?
Okay.
So one is called fissile material. It means that that material can break up
and create energy in what is called the thermal spectrum of neutrons. Neutrons
at room temperature. And they go and hit them and there are huge
cross-sections and the reactions take place. Then there is another one which
is called fertile. It has local sections, in fact, very small cross-section
for neutron so they're not normally useable as nuclear fuel.
However, they're called fertile, because they can be bred to something which is
just as good as it fissile. And that's why they're called fertile, capable of
being fissionable nuclei.
And what is very fascinating is that the natural uranium that we find, it has
only 0.72% of uranium 235 isotope, which is fissile. Much of it is uranium
238, which does not fission in the regular reactors.
And however, as I said, it can be bred into plutonium [indiscernible]. So
nature by giving us the displays abundant rich of uranium 235, 238, decided in
part the fate of nuclear energy. So if I just depended on the fissile
material, you just cannot use it for too long.
Now, you'll ask me why is it that there's only one fissile material available
on earth, on the uranium 235? What happened to the others? After all, when
the super nova explosion produced this heavier element, everything was
produced. What happened to the others?
>>:
It's been four billion years.
It's all worn out.
>> Swadesh Mahajan: Damn right, damn right. So in fact, only two materials,
two nuclei, two big nuclei have survived which have the ability of being either
fissile or fertile. That is uranium and thorium. Everything had a short life
span, which was shorter than four billion years and they have died long ago.
Now, that brings us to a very interesting question. I'm just taking an aside,
since the group is small so I don't really have to be very formal. In, say,
two billion years, the percentage of uranium 235 in the world as much greater,
because uranium 235 has a somewhat shorter life span than 238, right?
Which means that the uranium that you put in the reactor today, which is about
7
5% enriched -- I'm sure you all know that, right? So there was about 5%
enrichment already at that time, two billion years ago. So the question is,
did a spontaneous nuclear reactor operate at any time in the life of the earth?
And you'll be surprised to know yes, indeed.
In the country called Gabon, there's a site called Oklo, and so the French and
[indiscernible] who were digging for uranium, they found that in that
particular site, there was a huge concentration of what are called
[indiscernible], which are the products of nuclear fission. And nowhere else
you could find such a thing. And so eventually, the picture that was created
was that there was rock containing fissionable material [indiscernible]. There
were some earthquakes, upheaval, and the rock got crashed. It rained, and the
water was the moderator. So, in fact, a nuclear reactor was operational for
something like two to five hundred thousand years. And eventually, what
happened is the percentage fell down and water disappeared.
>>:
Does this create a little [indiscernible].
>> Swadesh Mahajan: Yeah, right. So in some sense, then you would say, well,
fission is trivial. I mean, you know, just took place in nature. And in a way
that is right. Breaking a huge thing into something smaller under appropriate
conditions is not so hard.
Fusion, on the other hand, is very, very difficult. And that's why we are
running into this challenge, because if we could make fusion, then, of course,
we could replicate the process in the sun and we won't have to worry about
anything else. Every other energy will be totally irrelevant. But it's not so
easy.
Okay. Now, fertility of U238 is both a blessing and a curse. It's a blessing
in the sense that enormous amount of material available to us from which we can
make energy eventually. But in our current process of making energy, the only
way that we know, so I suppose this is probably you all know. That
[indiscernible] producing fission reactors are almost all thermal spectrum.
That's because their cross-sections are very large, and the standard workhorse
of the nuclear industry is called the light water reactor. I'll refer to it as
LWR.
And what happens is that in an LWR, uranium 238 doesn't fission. So when we
put the fuel, which is 5% or 4% uranium 235 and the rest 238, what happens to
8
238? So what it does is that by successive neutron capture -- this is kind of
a whole menagerie transuranic isotopes is created.
Now, these guys are not so good, because they have shorter life spans, which
mean they're very active, but it doesn't mean that they have sufficiently short
life span that we can just weed them out. So they're in the intermediate
range. The worst possible range. And, in fact, they are the primary problem
which nuclear fission faces.
So by the sheer process of creating energy by splitting U235, we keep on
creating these monsters and as the time going on, they keep on building up.
And let's see what are we going to do with them. Just let me give you an idea
that when a reactor is operational for, I think it's for a three-year burn,
1,000 kilogram of input fuel creates about 12 grams of these spent nuclear
fuel. These bad guys.
And [indiscernible] transuranic waste from a typical one gigawatt reactor is
about 322 kilograms, and you take the entire fleet of United States, then you
produce about 800 tons per year. And it's in a metric which is about 60,000
tons for which the famous Yucca Mountain was designed.
It's not a staggering amount. Doesn't appear that much so huge, right? But it
is really bad stuff. And I would not recommend anyone to come in its defense.
To basically steer clear of these guys, you have to subject them further to
torture. You must bombard them with more neutrons. So what happens? Some of
them can fission. Some of them can transmute and that can fission. But what
is there to close the so-called fuel cycle, to get rid of these bad guys, we
have to keep on bombarding them with extra neutron so that they are converted
into something which either has fission or the end product has a short
lifetime. So short that we can wait it out.
>>:
What's the definition of short?
>> Swadesh Mahajan: Short, let's suppose we can design a repository, say,
safely, about a hundred years.
>>:
Okay.
9
>> Swadesh Mahajan: But 10,000 years would be hard, right? And so the
question is, can fission, by itself, take care of its disease.
And terra power and Bill Gates, they have gone on to state that, yes, it can.
But I will try to show, I mean, I do not really wish to bite the hand that paid
my travel, but I will try to show that perhaps that may not be the most
straightforward part, okay?
So now let me introduce you with another actor in the fission game. It's
called the fast reactor. Fast reactor is that which operates when the neutrons
are fast, and that's how they're produced in a [indiscernible] reaction. In an
LWR, the fission neutron, we have to cool them down, moderate them by water to
bring them to low temperatures, because the cross-section, they are very large.
But in the fast reactor, you don't do that, okay. You just let them as they
are. And in real fast spectrum, almost anything can break. With local
exception, but anything can break down. And of course, in the fast reactors,
the energy densities become much larger, and since you cannot cool the thing
down, but you have to get the energy out of the system so you always need some
coolant, all right. So you do not use water, but you use something like liquid
sodium, which does not blow up neutrons and does not slow them down.
So then, of course, you create another very serious problem. That here is a
flammable liquid in molten state. You are adding misery, piling misery upon
misery, as it is already the problem was difficult, and now you have made it a
lot more difficult.
So fast reactors have a very interesting thing. They have been great favorites
of most of the national [indiscernible] everywhere. Every country, United
States at one time had about, oh, over 50 experimental fast reactors in various
national labs. India has, China is building them. Japan had. Everyone had
them.
However, they were all these commercial failures. France had two big reactors
called Phoenix 1 and Phoenix 2, and both of them really were shut down not only
that they were costly to run. They were expensive, prone to accidents and too
many shutdowns. So, in fact, fast reactors have never been able to make their
mark in a commercial way.
And terra power reactor is a fast reactor, okay.
In fact, it is even a
10
super-fast reactor.
I'll give you some idea later.
Okay. So then where does it bring me? Recently, about in 2008, the Electric
Power Research Institute published a report which kind of sums up the wisdom of
many nuclear proponents, including the nuclear industry.
So they basically say, okay, the only study which we should follow is maintain
the fleet of light water reactors, okay, the current way we produce energy,
expand it with advanced LWRs, which are already in some sense introduced into
the system, but look at both these things. Assure long-term spent fuel
management, okay. And assure long-term nuclear sustainability, but nobody is
going to build a reactor unless you can assure them fuel supply for 60 years.
It's a big capital investment. Nobody is going to take it.
So both these things. So what we have as a duty is a fusion-based new
scientific technical part to create conditions in which a generic LWR economy
can flourish. So I'm not saying that my reactor will be the energy producing
reactor from tomorrow, no. That reactor is not going to be online for another
20 years, even if you started working on it today. All that I'm saying is that
my reactor will take care of problems as LWR, okay. And the tandem, the two of
them together will be able to create a nuclear energy structure which you will
find acceptable.
And so what do we need? We need a good technical solution to the destruction
of nuclear waste. And the destruction to some extent I already defined. While
you destroy the nuclear waste, you produce energy, because all of these guys
are in the range where they can be broken up into [indiscernible] and produce
energy.
So destruction or incineration is an energy producing, not an energy consuming.
Energy producing process, okay? And then we want to create a sustainable
supply of plentiful fuel at reasonable prices. And both these applications
need extra neutrons and, in fact, lots of them.
So what I'm going to present to you is something precisely to take care of
these two. So let me introduce you to fusion for a minute. As I said,
deuterium and tritium can produce vast amounts of energy, and deuterium is
available in almost infinite amounts in the sea water. Tritium, of course, has
to be created. But this whole thing can be almost an infinite source of
energy.
11
It has no problems like the transuranic wastes. It is kind of clean nuclear
thing. Of course, there will always be some radio activity whenever there are
neutrons, but it's so minimal that one does not really worry about.
So the question is that in spite of all the difficulties that we have had in
fusion, it still remains something which people would want to achieve, but it
is so attractive, so [indiscernible].
>>:
Do you know what the worst case failure mode is for a fusion reactor.
>> Swadesh Mahajan:
>>:
Say it again, please.
The worst case failure mode for a fusion reactor.
>> Swadesh Mahajan:
Case failure?
>>: Yeah, as in what happens.
like a nuclear bomb?
The worst possible scenario.
Does it explode
>> Swadesh Mahajan: No, no. The fusion reactor, actually even a fission
reactor cannot become a bomb. But a fusion reactor, in fact, is so sensitive
to the magnetic field at all almost anything that happens, the [indiscernible]
shuts down. So in fact, it's very safe in that regard. Yeah. Okay. So there
are staggering physics and technology challenges. And this is a device which
is being constructed in trucks right now. It's called ITER. ITER started as
some international text reactor, but now they call it ITER, which is a Latin
word which means the way. The part to take. And so it's a $20 billion
experiment, and by the time, it's possible that it will be even more, okay?
But even this machine is nowhere near sufficient to guarantee fusion reactor
which will produce net energy.
So our contention is that fusion is not our contention. Everybody knows it,
but we are building on that, that fusion is a lot more than just an energy
source. Its primary product is really the high energy neutron. And a neutron,
we could do many more things than just use it as a heat source. In fact, one
of the founders of fusion physics said we're dumb thing to use the 70.67
neutron just to boil water. We should do some other things with it.
12
And, in fact, that's precisely what we are going to indulge in and show how the
transmutation ability of this neutron can be much, much more important than its
ability to just be an energy source.
And you must have heard the word Tokamak. That is the most advanced magnetic
fusion facility. So the worldwide research and several recent crucial
inventions that we have had the privilege to be associated with that we are in
no stage to make a fusion power reactor right now.
However, we can design a relatively cheap, compact source of fusion neutrons.
And eventually, question is, what can we do with such a source? Can we do
wonders with it? Yes.
>>:
The difference is whether this produces energy or consumes energy?
>> Swadesh Mahajan:
Nuclear energy?
>>: No, the difference between having a reactor or a fusion source is just
whether it consumes energy or produces energy?
>> Swadesh Mahajan: No. The difference is whenever a neutron is produced,
there's always an energy associated with it, right. So but a power producing
fusion reactor -- actually, to some extent, what you said is right. I'm
rephrasing. So power producing fusion reactor has to be such that the total
amount of energy that has gone into it should be less than the -- yeah, but we
don't need that. As long as we depend on the neutron, my cue can be less than
one, and it still can be very useful.
>>:
Sure, yeah.
>> Swadesh Mahajan: Right, I'm sorry. Yeah. All right, so it seems then
quite clear that we should try to create a fusion-fission axis. And the
optimization of that axis is a fusion-fission hybrid. And fusion now will be
augmenting and strengthening fission, and fission then brings fusion to the
current market.
So that's very symbiotic, extremely mutually beneficial, and it should excite
both groups to work towards it. And the real good news is that fusion-fission
hybrid, the new reactor, always runs quite sub-critically. What does it mean?
In order to keep a chain reaction going, you always must produce neutrons at
13
the same rate as you're consuming.
It's critical.
So this is called K factor equal to 1.
Now, of course, even a small increase from 1 means an explosion. Not
necessarily a bad one, but the reactor doesn't -- goes crazy, okay. So
although it seems how the hell do they run a machine always at K factor equal
to 1. But quite amazing, both physics and technologies have put together that
such a state can be maintained almost forever without any serious problems.
But still, if you do that, there's one requirement. In order to maintain K
factor equal to 1, the fuel that you use has to be good quality. Because the
bad quality fuel is not so dependable. But the junk that we warrant to burn
eventually, the transuranics, they are very bad quality fuel. So I would never
want to operate critically with that fuel. I must keep a fair amount of
margin, okay, and a fusion-fission hybrid, because it uses external neutrons,
the blanket itself can be very subcritical. And that's an extremely important
safety measure which will be relevant to our system.
We'll never, never go critical.
>>:
[inaudible].
>> Swadesh Mahajan: As I said, the neutron producing system is in some sense
it's very difficult to keep it going, easier to shut it off. So there's a
built-in safety in that any little disturbance that happens, it shuts off the
neutron source. But you are quite right, I mean. If you couldn't shut it off,
it could drive a system crazy.
>>: So is it possible that the neutrons could spike for no apparent reason at
they point in time?
>> Swadesh Mahajan: Well, what happens is that nuclear physics is quite well
understood. So we can simulate these things to a tremendous degree, a certain
degree of confidence. And what is not so well understood is that how do the
materials respond to these things over a long period of time, okay?
But the fact that the neutrons can create some very unusual thing, that's
something we can rule out. We can design that system appropriately.
So let me give you some idea of the scale of the nuclear waste problem.
So a
14
geological repository for storing non-transmuted reactor waste, one example
that we know was the Yucca Mountain, it was slated to be $90 million and it was
recently abandoned after they had spent about $13 billion trying to design it.
It's one of those colossal failures.
Now, if we do want to have nuclear expansion, enough to meet the growing global
energy needs, one will need a Yucca Mountain every ten years for U.S., every
seven to ten years for India. And for China, you can take a wild guess, okay?
So it's not only the amount of money that one is going to need. You could say
that you could always exploit cheap labor or whatever. But the point is where
are we going to find so many depositories in the century, and especially in
highly populated countries like India. So it's a no-go. It just simply
wouldn't work. And then there is this red signal there that every time you
take the untreated waste and bury it somewhere, it's a plutonium mine.
And in about 100 years, or even less than that, the protective radio activity
from what are called the fission products die out. So now, a particularly
interested and courageous person can simply go and mine plutonium. You don't
even have to do reprocessing. You can just go and pick it out. They left it
for you.
So I don't think that this is something, this is the kind of terror that you
want to leave for our children. Simply wouldn't be very wise.
So the only -- it's crying for a solution, and the solution is you must
transmute the waste to vastly reduce its heat as well as its radio toxicity.
And in the process, destroy plutonium and such materials which could be used
for a bomb. And, of course, then, you will need greatly reduced need for
geological depositories. In fact, we are aiming at 99% reduction, which mean
that maybe throughout the century, you will need one depository for the whole
world.
And that I'm sure, one could put together. Now, you'll notice there's always a
kind of a -- I believe that different energy sources will be the defining
certain centuries or half centuries, okay?
One would definitely like solar energy as it is to be our primary source. It
is the source of life in every other way, so it should be the source of energy
also. So if we could get to a stage where solar energy can take care of all
15
our needs, glory be.
Forget the nuclear.
I won't touch the damn thing.
Okay?
But the point is 'til we wait for that and we keep on burning coal and gas
which will destroy the earth almost altogether, that is not a possibility. So
I am projecting that nuclear fission energy should be really for the next 50 to
70 to 100 years. No more than that. By the time hopefully either fusion will
come online or solar would have gotten to that stage that we can -- and we
would have probably, hopefully, reduced our energy needs also to some extent.
Which doesn't seem likely, though.
All right. So we introduce now the fusion-fission hybrids. So the definition
is a fusion-fission hybrid is a sub-critical nuclear system which harnesses
fusion neutrons to advance and augment the capabilities of a fission reactor.
And, of course, the important thing is for this hybrid venture, the marriage
between these two very complicated technologies better be proficient enough
that the progeny has less vices than parents. And this was not easy, because
you have two complicated technologies with their own modes of failure, and I
really want to put them together so that the whole system does not have many
more modes of failure than they each had.
And, in fact, much of our several years work basically went in designing how to
combine the two systems synergistically and properly.
Sew with did two things. First of all, we designed a credible, high powered
density neutron source. And then we designed the whole hybrid system so that
the fusion source and the fission reactor may interact very effectively and
synergistically. Of course, our eventual aim is we want to do waste
destruction and we want to do fuel production.
So what would the hybrid do? Since fusion neutrons can be a most efficient
means for incinerating the transuranic nuclei, while producing energy in the
bargain, the hybrid will provide an efficient, fast and economic solution of a
nuclear waste problem. That is our first intention.
Of course, at this time, it's a wish. We have not demonstrated it yet. And by
burning the long-lived transuranics to one to ten percent of original, the UT
fusion-fission transmutation system effectively solves two fundamental fission
problems. Burn all the bomb-making isotopes like plutonium, minimize
proliferation risk and drastically reduce the number of geological repositories
16
for storing waste.
And both of them are a must according to me.
Hybrids are extremely efficient fuel breeders. A hybrid driven by a very
moderate fusion source can pursue fuel for five equally powered LWRs. And the
fuel can also be produced without any rere processing. So we keep on kind of
adding new feathers to their cap.
I'm not going to give you too many details, but I just want to share with you,
you might wonder, you know if hybrids can sob wonderful, why aren't they there?
There should be some reason. It's a very old idea and with a very patchy
history. And there was a lot of work done on it early and then it went into
long sleep. And the reason for that was that it was not possible to think of a
neutron source which will be good enough.
The physics of fusion at this time had not evolved sufficiently to think of a
proper source. You can ask me are there any alternatives, could we get
neutrons from elsewhere? Yes, you can get them from fission, which I told you
doesn't quite do the job, and then you can get it from [indiscernible], for
which, of course, there have been programs all over the world. But one can
demonstrate that when sufficient intense tis of neutrons are needed,
accelerators are very, very expensive. By effect of ten more than what's
[indiscernible].
So barring a fusion source, there was almost no way of creating a hybrid. And
furthermore, the hybrids were basically very, very badly designed. And I'll
show you how.
So I'm ending this one that in spite of the fact that I'm blowing my own
trumpet, prior to the innovations of the Texas group, neither a credible
neutron source nor a credible hybrid system could be honestly designed. And I
hope you will forgive me for being so immodest.
So here is what a traditional hybrid looks like. If you keep on adding the
meters, it becomes an enormous machine. These are the coils, super conductor
coils which carry current and produce the magnetic -- no need to go into the
details, but the point is the fusion and the fission system in this one are
terribly inter-connected.
And the device is huge, as you know that huge super conducting magnets require
a tremendous amount of shielding. So the devices weigh so much that it's hard
17
for you to imagine.
I'll give you some numbers.
So this possibility that they are interwoven in a totally unmanageable and
unmaintainable manner, it really detracted all the practical engineers from
ever wanting to touch such a thing.
So what we have done is to learn from this what is it that we should not do?
One thing is there that we want a small, lightweight and replaceable modular
fusion source. It should not be mechanically connected to the fission source.
So they can be independently developed as well as in the end put together. In
fact, our fusion source is going to be so small that it can be slipped in and
out of a fission reactor after every 18 months when the [indiscernible].
So as I'm very low in technologies, which is supposed to be a movie which I'm
afraid I cannot show. This showed how the replacability and removability comes
into this. The important point is we want to have a separate existence of the
two units and they combine only through neutrons. No mechanical coupling, no
electrical coupling, nothing of the sort.
And this is -- was extremely important for acceptance by the engineering
community. So just give you an idea how big the neutron sources could be, this
is ITER. The machine being constructed, it weighs 27,000 tons. And there's no
way you could have this machine and be connected to a nuclear reactor and slip
it in and out.
The University of Texas fusion source, which is going to produce the same
amount of power as this one, is it can fit in its womb. The whole reactor.
And our fusion unit is going to way about 300 to 700 tons. Now, these numbers
don't mean anything right now, but the point is just to show the scale of the
two. And that is why this will be much cheaper than this was.
And so there were three basic ideas, and which were needed in order to get this
thing going. So when you make a machine very compact, small, and it still has
to have high intensity of neutron, then the energy densities become large.
So fusion is a very interesting thing. You produce energy in a volume and you
take it out on the surface. So it's a very, very hard bargain, which means
that everything comes out in a very thin layer at the surface.
And so any material which is in touch with them to connect the inner region
18
with outer region gets, you know, very [indiscernible]. So when the machine
becomes compact, and it still has to maintain very large number of neutron,
then the energy density to exhaust become enormously large. And there was
really no solution to the system.
So this was our first attempt. We created a new magnetic geometric in this
region. So that this little region could be expanded enormously. So
eventually, when it got in touch with the material surface, the image of this
one on this one was not a meter but, say, 50 meters. So the energy was spread
out over a large region so we could have real physical materials that could
take care of that rather than depend on totally imaginary materials that will
come into existence from somewhere, okay?
So the creation of SuperX divertor was the idea which set us on the spot. That
you were able to make a compact machine. So once we have an exact machine,
then, of course, we can make it modular. Small and modular, all right? And
then furthermore, we can make it removable also, because we can pick it up and
take it out of the system, because maintenance is much better done in a remote
bay rather than in the fission reactor. So we'll have two of such machines.
When one is operational, the other one is being refurbished and brought back.
So without these three ideas, it was very, very difficult to envisage creating
a hybrid, okay? And I can speak for about ten more minutes? Yeah? Okay. So
let's now put hybrid to work. So transmutation schemes have been proposed all
over the time, and in the United States, literally billions and billions of
dollars were spent in studying these -- in addition to the [indiscernible], you
know, just investigation of these systems in the national laboratories.
And the recommendation of national study and recent Congressional testimony, et
cetera, they were all negative. That fission cannot be used to solve its own
problems. The fission reactor, the first reactors as I talked about, which can
in principle do the job, they are too slow and too costly.
And then there are proliferation concerns due to some things. And why are they
so expensive? Because in order to really take care of this problem you, have
to introduce these more expensive reactors into the game. And the larger the
number of more expensive reactors you introduce, unique the cost of the system.
So, in fact, national academy of science has said no go. You really must not
try to do the transmutation, okay? And so what we really need what is you call
19
a high support fission system where you can take the junk of lots of LWRs and
need a small number of reactors to take care of that. And that's what fusion
provides, a high support incinerators. And just giving simple numbers, the
waste destruction, one hybrid for 20 LWRs. So in a steady state, you can
maintain 20 LWRs with one of these.
And for fuel breed, one hybrid of the same power can produce fuel for five
LWRs, while a fission reactor, like a fast reactor, it can produce for only
half of that. And they are probably very comparable in price.
And then there are many other advantages. Let me not into detail, but the
point is that we can -- all the problems which people are worried about, like
proliferation, like reprocessing, et cetera, we can minimize. And this is the
kind of bird's eye view of what exactly the whole process looks like.
You have your uranium, then we put it in the hybrid, we reprocess. There's
some detail but the whole point is this is the closed fuel cycle as opposed to
an open fuel cycle where you do the stuff and then put it in the repository.
>>:
So you basically take the waste and basically make it into fuel again?
>> Swadesh Mahajan:
>>:
it?
Yes.
And put it back in the LWR.
And when it goes out of the LWR, you destroy
>> Swadesh Mahajan: That's right. LWR cannot destroy the bad guys.
why we need the hybrid. But LWR can destroy plutonium very easily.
>>: Is it just a one screw cycle?
and then destroy and then --
That's
You turn into -- regenerate it to make it
>> Swadesh Mahajan: Yes, depending upon how much percentage of the junk you
want to destroy. After some time, it becomes uneconomic. So I suppose like
pretty typically, the thing that we worked out in detail about two cycles in
which we can destroy up to about 95 to 97 percent. Silly to be so accurate,
but typically 95 percent.
>>:
So you reprocess it twice?
20
>> Swadesh Mahajan: Right. And then I'm going to just show you a diagram of
how do we do the fuel production. We use a thorium cycle, which is certainly
more efficient than a uranium cycle, but it can be used for everything.
So what you do there is that you take the thorium from bind, make thorium oxide
and then you breed it in a hybrid, okay. So the bred material, then, we take
it to a PWR, LWR, you know, and you burn it there.
After some time, the fuel falls below a certain percentage.
back to the hybrid, recharge it, and do it.
Then you take it
So what is the advantage of this kind of a thing? Typically if you remember,
what we do today in LWRs, there is 0.72% of fuel in M235 and 99, et cetera, in
fuel in M238. So once the thing is done, and we have SNF, the total
utilization of the material is less than a percent.
So out of the 100 grams that the good Lord gave us, we are using only one, and
that's not very clever.
So with this kind of a system, we can increase the utilization to about 15
percent. Without reprocessing. If we did reprocessing, we can do it further.
So the point is that do you really want to make use of the two guys which have
been given to us in the heritage, as much as you want. And if you were able to
make this kind of 15 percent utilization, then in principle, nuclear energy
could last you for several thousand years.
So let me kind of formally conclude and then we can talk about terra power and
other things. So advances in fusion research plus the invention of SuperX
divertor and the engineering innovation that I talked about, they can conspire
to create a sound scientific and engineering basis for a fusion-fission hybrid.
And a preconceptual design already exists and it's waiting to be converted to a
near term project.
So through the hybrid, fusion can make a fundamental contribution to the
nuclear energy scene long before one could ever dream of net power from pure
fusion.
The trick is to harness the neutron-making ability of fusion, a task much
easier than producing pure fusion power into the service of nuclear fission,
21
which, as we all know, is a very strong and well-understood technology.
With the help of extra neutrons, a sub-critical fusion-fission reactor acquires
very advance the capabilities for curing two serious problems which has
prevented the rapid expansion of fission energy. The problem of nuclear waste
and the expected problem of inadequate naturally occurring fissile fuel.
So I think the hybrid open as brand new nuclear channel and it's the harbinger
of a green and well supplied nuclear economy. But this one, we can make the
whole system not only green and sustainable but near term.
So the machine that I'm talking about, they are not in existence. They have to
be created. Even the fusion source has to be put together. But with the very
reduced requirements that I have enumerated, this kind of a system could be put
together so the fusion system may be within the next 10 to 15 years. Then
combining it with efficient reactor might take another five. So in some sense,
this technology which will take care of the problems of the current mood of
fission energy production can be available in 20 years.
Which, of course, is a very short time, realizing what energy technologies
really need.
So most important thing is that we are not asking anybody to wait for a new
reactor. Let's use the reactors that are already there. Make many more of
them. In fact, with better, much better and advanced designs, which are
already in existence.
It is thus that whatever problems that they create, we will be ready to take
care of them in 20 years. And in any case, spent nuclear waste can be very
safely on the side of a nuclear reactor for 20 years.
All right. So this is where I will end the formal presentation. I have
several slides on terra power if you like, I could go through them. Or I
could, you know, just ask questions.
>>: One question. So in terms of the volume of waste that's left over after
you've reprocessed a couple times, is it the same, or is it less?
>> Swadesh Mahajan:
In terra?
22
>>:
No, in the hybrid.
>> Swadesh Mahajan:
See, the hybrid itself does not produce any waste.
>>: You reprocess it and then you destroy it. What is the act of destroying?
Is it sort of the act of taking away the radio activity, or is it actually
destroying the material?
>> Swadesh Mahajan: Well, you know, nothing ever gets destroyed. So when one
says destroy, you basically mean you convert it into something less dangerous,
okay. So if you take a transuranic isotope, let's suppose plutonium, okay. So
when you say you destroy plutonium, it means you fission it. Why fissioning is
such a good thing? Because the fissioning product to which it goes, they have
half lifetimes they're short. So you have taken away the 40,000 year lifetime
of plutonium and converted into something which will die away in 50 years.
Nuclear energy is never, never going to be totally sin-free. There will be
always radioactivity associated with it. But the point is, is it a manageable
radioactivity? Because there is no source of energy which is cheap, which
comes free. There are always problems.
And when you see a source of energy, it's always converts.
form of energy to another.
You convert one
Now, interesting thing is that if you think of the fossils, right? Fossils,
really in a fundamental sense are also renewable. But their renewability time
is 10 million years, 100 million years. It's not a human scale, right? But
they are made on earth. They're created right here.
But the nuclear fuel does not have earthly origin. It cannot be created on
earth. So for fission, the heavy stars and the super nova can create it. But
for fusion, the nuclear material was created right in the big bang. It was
created right in the beginning. So as you go from fossil to fission to fusion,
you are making a journey backwards into the past of the universe.
>>: So the fission that you would store the final waste product actually at
the hybrid site as opposed.
>>: No, you would have to have a repository. The question is that repository
is designed for to take care of the fission products over 100 years or 200
23
years. Those can be designed very well and maintained with certainty of
confidence.
But the repositories which will have very large, long-lived. And long-lived
here means 1,000 to 10,000 to 100,000 years, it will be preposterous for an
engineer to claim that I'm going to design something for 50,000 years.
>>:
So these are the same scale but not the same durability?
>> Swadesh Mahajan:
>>:
Right.
Did you mention that you need just one repository for waste?
>> Swadesh Mahajan: If all the thing that I'm talking about do work in the way
we expect, then in that case I would say that if supposing I didn't treat the
waste at all, buried it, then I think that I'll need about 50 depositories for
the century. And I think we can reduce it to half and one. One, certainly.
And one we could afford. Hoping by that time we won't need repositories by
that time. We'll have gone to something else.
>>: So I didn't see, so you have this what's called SuperX thing.
also rob the neutrons?
>> Swadesh Mahajan: I'm sorry.
didn't want to get ->>:
Does that
I probably went through it fast because I
How do you rob the neutron?
>> Swadesh Mahajan: Neutrons, of course, don't see a magnetic field. Neutron
diffuse freely. So neutrons are not a part of the SuperX. SuperX has nothing
to neutrons.
>>:
So how do you route them to the fission.
>> Swadesh Mahajan: You don't. There's no way to do anything with them except
capture them from wherever they are.
>>:
So that's why you have them in the middle?
>> Swadesh Mahajan:
That's right.
They spray in all directions?
So it's only the [indiscernible] articles
24
which you can direct. What happens here is the whole idea of magnetic
confinement is that you create a set of magnetic nesting surfaces so that the
particle, that is the deuterium, tritium and electron are forced to move on
these substances.
That's how you design the machine. However so in this main region, they do not
go across very high, because if it did go across, I would have no confinement
and I would not have them spend enough time with one another to fuse. So the
better the confinement, the worse is the problem of connection with outside
world.
There's a huge amount of energy which is so well confined and now I have to let
it out somehow. It's just like you have a fire, all right? Fire is very hot
and if you don't have a good chimney, you know, it will suffocate itself.
So the point was how do you create a good chimney?
through the SuperX divertor.
>>:
And that's what we did
Could you elaborate on that a little?
>> Swadesh Mahajan: Yes. Okay. So here is -- these are called the closed
feed lines. And they're bordered group which is called the open feed lines.
And this is where now you're eventually, some of your material containers are,
which are supposed to withstand and absorb the excess heat, okay?
So what happens now is that this is a very small region in which all the
particles try to get out. You all know that the particles stream along the
magnetic feed line. They do not go across them. And here, the feed lines are
closed. So they'll never get out. Here the feed lines are open, and then they
get out.
But it's again in a very, very small region. In fact, the thickness of it's
called the scrape of lead is basically in millimeters for enormous machines.
So you have this entire exhaust coming out in one millimeter. So supposing I
put now a metal, the one that we know, and I'm going to produce so much of
energy there, it's going to be just burn it. There's no way I could do it.
So I must take this particular flux here and spread it as much as I can.
However, without creating two things. One is I must not screw up the
25
confinement here, because if I did, then my system will not be producing enough
energy, all right? And the second thing I must do is that I must not put too
much of extra [indiscernible] on it outside because this is again likely to
interfere with the system.
And then there is the cost. So the idea that without changing, producing too
much current, without changing the equilibrium configuration, which was very
good, can you exhaust the heat efficiently? And that required several years of
work before we could figure out that high magnetic configuration.
>>: But this advancement seems equally useful for people working on fusion
just as a self-sustaining reactor. Is it fundamentally a different problem, or
is this also useful for them?
>> Swadesh Mahajan: That's a very good question. So one would have asked that
the people who have been designing fusion reactors, how come they didn't think
of this problem, or solve it, right?
So it's some kind of a commentary on my field. That is, a fusion physicist.
We were so far from any practical application of the thing that we did that the
problem of power exhaust amount was driven back, way back. One day, you know
when we get there, we will be able to take care of it. So in some sense,
extremely cavalier solutions were given. Oh, you know, we'll put some
impurities and radiate the power. Oh, we will, you know, do something else.
The problem was that we were really in a different century as compared to that
climate. So we started, in fact, infusion, my group was the pun which took
this problem very seriously even for the fusion reactor. I said, when you are
going to produce, you know, in order to make one gigawatt of electricity, you
are to produce 3,000 -- one big watt of electricity, you're to produce three
gigawatts of heat because, you know, heat conversion to electricity.
So you will have a 3,000 megawatt heat and you're going to exhaust it from the
small edge of a machine. How do you do it. Our neutron source is a
scaled-down version of a nuclear reactor. We have 400 megawatts of heat
information, but the machine size is about fifth as much.
So, in fact, in [indiscernible] units, the problem are equivalent. So once we
solve that problem, okay, in fact this was one thing with the rest of the
fusion community quickly to cover so it doesn't become now a legend there. In
26
fact, there's an experiment being -- going to take place in England soon. They
were -- they got a grant of $30 million pounds to exactly test their
[indiscernible] work. Primary reason for that. So SuperX diverter is a still
a theoretically idea. Nobody has put a SuperX divertor and demonstrated it
will have these capabilities. But the state of the art codes are sufficiently
advanced that we believe unless something totally strange happens, we'll be
able to do that.
>>:
Will that prove the concept be --
>> Swadesh Mahajan:
>>:
on.
Yeah.
About 2015, the machine is going to come, the new machine is going to come
>>: It seems like that source, I assume you'll be turning that back into
electricity to help feed the reaction.
>> Swadesh Mahajan:
>>:
The waste heat are you using that to create electricity?
>> Swadesh Mahajan:
>>:
My ears are very bad.
Yes.
But there's more energy in this being generated.
>> Swadesh Mahajan:
Yes.
>>: What's the ratio of power in to power out?
cycle when it goes back into the LWR?
You look at the full life
>> Swadesh Mahajan: Probably already know that France, it isolate plutonium
and makes a fuel call to mox fuel. It's a mixed oxide with plutonium and
uranium and then they do conventionally feed it to the reactors. However if
you do it just for fuel extraction, extra fuel, and it's about 10 to 15 percent
of what the energy had gotten out of that system, then it turns out very
expensive. You canal enrich uranium cheaper, at least to these prices.
So mox fuels are, unless some other element was associated with them, and that
is that they take care of the Hazard, you could not justify it economically.
27
Now, of course, what happens is that with our system, we not only destroy
plutonium, but the other transuranics also. However, the total amount of the
transuranics is not very high. So the change in energy, just by the
destruction of that system, will no more than about 20 percent, 15 to 20
percent of what energy has been extracted from them already.
However, when we do the breeding cycle, then, of course, we go a totally
different part. Now we do not let the system rest 'til a fair amount of it has
been converted into usable or fissionable system. So we do it again and again.
And so having just 10% to 15% increase, we go by factor of 15 to 20.
of 15 to 20 in utilization.
By factor
>>: So you said that this could be possible in 20 years. Is there anyone
starting down that -- I mean, are you guys planning on trying to build one?
>> Swadesh Mahajan: We are actually theoretical physicists with no
capabilities of building any machine, okay? So these things have to be done at
-- since the initial expenditures are expected to be very large, so I don't
believe any venture capitalist is going to pony up that kind of money.
So it has to become a kind of national program. The United States Department
of Energy is in a strange state of funk right now. It's very difficult to wake
them up. They're in slumbers. So it's not clear to me that they are going to
pick it up soon.
However, both China and India are extremely interested. In fact, the Chinese
basically, they want to buy us, and we are making a visit to China in December
to talk about certain things. But I have yet no idea whether we really want to
make this partnership for the way they would want it.
So I believe that -- I mean, my worst fears are that United States, Europe is
not going to really get into the game soon. They will get in eventually, when
it's too late. India is sufficiently incompetent to get into it so the Chinese
are going to do it. Because much of what we are doing is published.
>>: So is the waste issue not seen as a significant enough problem that, I
mean, you know, this seems -- this is a, if you take all the energy increases
off, this is a cost efficient way, in fact, to some it's virtually free from
28
what I can gather, of getting rid of the waste, right, versus spending dollars
on long-term storage.
>> Swadesh Mahajan: Right. So given that we're not likely to decommission our
nuclear reactors anytime soon, even though there's maybe some questions about
whether we'll be building new ones, doesn't the Department of Energy care about
it just from that perspective?
>> Swadesh Mahajan: Okay. Department of Energy does care about waste
destruction and as I've said, they have spent many billions of dollars in waste
management first, not destruction. But at the same time, they've got a large
number of experiments using fast reactors and all towards the waste
destruction.
The problem is that they cannot make a case through the fast reactors, because
it is just way expensive and it will probably add to the cost of electricity by
a factor of two or three.
So I don't believe that they are in anybody's really. LWR industry is not
interested. Then the LWR industry does not like fast reactors. They basically
believe that there is very little good about them.
So and the industry, you know, which has waste piling up on the reactor sites,
it says that the government signed a bond with them in 1984 to take care of the
waste so it's not our responsibility. So waste destruction is really people's
responsibility, the government's. And there's a fund called the waste
destruction fund, which still, in spite of the Yucca Mountain stuff, still has
about $30 million in it. So in principle, one would think that they have the
money and now the technical solutions are becoming possible. So somebody
should wake up. But they aren't.
I mean, look at Germany's response to Fukushima. It says that it's going to
close down nuclear reactors and replace them with the coal reactors. Germany
by far is environmentally the most committed country according to data. I
mean, it's total insanity.
>>:
They're still not dealing with the waste problem.
>> Swadesh Mahajan: No, I agree with you. I believe, this will astonish you.
We had a meeting with the Chinese group recently, and they kept on repeating
29
that their political leadership is very, very interested in having a solution
to the waste problem before they embark on a nuclear campaign. So this means
their leadership is more enlightened than the leadership we have here.
>>:
They actually care about it.
>> Swadesh Mahajan: Right. And in England, where they are going to be doing
the experiment to test SuperX divertor, until very recently, they were not
allowed to say that this will have a possibility for the fission related
activities. Only pure fusion, because the press would run away with it. So
it's difficult how you try to get rid of the strange psychological mold that we
have gotten into.
I mean, we are willing to go back to coal and not try to improve the nuclear -I mean, of course, nuclear energy always has to be managed with great care.
And the responsible society should put as many possible, you know, constraints
on it as possible. But the fact of the matter is we have no other choice
today.
If even the people talk about global warming, if what they're saying is even
50% true, we better get going away from coal right tomorrow.
>>:
Do you have time to show the terra power?
>> Swadesh Mahajan:
The terra power?
Yes, sure.
>>: So why industry not interested in trying out your ideas?
they're not responsible for the waste?
You said that
>> Swadesh Mahajan: Yeah. The government, there was a United States law in
1988 where taking care of the nuclear waste is the government's responsibility.
>>: But in the [indiscernible] when the fusion is running nuclear reactor, the
other person operating, the other person doing things with the waste. So
you're saying they're not responsible?
>> Swadesh Mahajan: They're not. I'll tell you why. Because for every
kilowatt they sell, they give one tenth of a cent to the treasury for waste,
for eventual destruction of waste. So say we are paid, the government, for
taking care of the waste.
30
So nuclear industry basically says I don't care, you know. I'm not willing to
pony up $5 billion in order to try your gadget. Okay? This is public
responsibility. You guys took it. I mean, there's a law. It's law.
>>:
Even if it's providing them a source of fuel that would be cheaper?
>> Swadesh Mahajan: Well, at the current uranium prices that increase in fuel,
you know, is not -- you know, you realize that for a fossil fuel, fossil plant,
the fuel is more than 50 percent of the cost of electricity production. But
today, in nuclear industry, the fuel is only 10 percent of the cost of nuclear
production.
So, you know, it's not -- it's a capital investment. I mean, for the reactor,
the big thing is the money spent at the beginning, overnight cost.
>>: Deuterium, I'm not really sure like how available is it in different
parts? It's extracted from what source?
>> Swadesh Mahajan:
>>:
Uranium?
Deuterium.
>> Swadesh Mahajan: Deuterium is the sea water. Deuterium is the heavy
isotope of hydrogen. So wherever there is water, there is some extra. There's
some heavy water. Now, heavy water, getting it out is not trivial, okay? But,
you know, it's something that we know how to do.
>>:
Actually, I want to hear about the terra power.
>> Swadesh Mahajan:
Terra power?
Okay.
All right.