The Technology and Economies of Hydrogen Production from Fusion Reactors

  • J. Powell
  • F. J. Salzano
  • W. A. Sevian


The technology, economics, and environmental effects of producing synthetic fuels (H2 gas, H2 liquid, and methanol) based on fusion (CTR) reactors are assessed. Four United States energy systems (2020 A.D.) with different degrees of CTR implementation are compared: in System A, no CTR input is assumed; in System B, CTRs replace 50 percent of nuclear fission electric; in System C, CTRs supply all electrical demand, produce synthetic fuels to re-place all oil and gas imports, and eliminate strip mining; and in System D, CTRs supply all electrical demand and virtually all fuel demand. CTR reactor costs are analyzed in detail for a range of containment parameters, reactor outputs, and first well loadings for DT and catalyzed DD fuel cycles.


Fusion Reactor Coal Gasification Fission Reactor Strip Mining Synthetic Fuel 
These keywords were added by machine and not by the authors. This process is experimental and the keywords may be updated as the learning algorithm improves.


Unable to display preview. Download preview PDF.

Unable to display preview. Download preview PDF.


  1. 1.
    Jones, L. W., Science 174, 367 (1971).CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  2. 2.
    DeBeni, G. and C. Marchetti, Euro Spectra 1970, 46 (1970).Google Scholar
  3. 3.
    Gregory, D. P., D. Y. C. Ng, and G. M. Long, The Electrochemistry of Cleaner Environments, Brockris, J. O’M., ed., Plenum Press (1971).Google Scholar
  4. 4.
    Winsche, W. E., K. C. Hoffman, and F. J. Salzano, Science 180, 1325 (1972).CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  5. 5.
    Eastlund, B. and W. C. Gough, “Generation of Hydrogen by U-V Radiation,” Symposium on Non-Fossil Chemical Fuels, American Chemical Society (1973).Google Scholar
  6. 6.
    Huse, R. and E. Tanner, Proceedings 7th Intersociety Energy Conversion Engineering Conference, p. 1323 (1972).Google Scholar
  7. 7.
    “Reference Energy Systems and Resource Data for Use in the Assessment of Energy Technologies,” AET-8, Associated Universities, Inc. (1972). U.S. Dept. Comm., NTIS #PB-221422/9.Google Scholar
  8. 8.
    Hallet, N. C., NASA-CR 73, 266 (1968).Google Scholar
  9. 9.
    “Hydrogen and Other Synthetic Fuels,” Synthetic Fuel Panel of Federal Council on Science-and Technology, T1D-26136 (1972).Google Scholar
  10. 10.
    Danner, G. A., Ed., “Methanol Technology and Economics,” Chemical Engineering Progress Symposium Series 66 (1970).Google Scholar
  11. 11.
    Williams, K. R. and N. Campagne, “Synthetic Fuels from Atmospheric Carbon Dioxide,” Symposium on Non-Fossil Chemical Fuels, American Chemical Society (April 10—14, 1972 ).Google Scholar
  12. 12.
    MW(e) Central Station Power Plants Investment Cost Study, United Engineers and Constructors, WASH-1230.Google Scholar
  13. 13.
    Bennett, L. L., ORNL (personal communication) (1973); Power engineering, p. 62 (Jan. 1973).Google Scholar
  14. 14.
    Powell, J. and P. Bezier, “Warm Reinforcement and Cold Reinforcement Magnet Systems for Tokamak Fusion Power Reactors: A Comparison,” BNL 17434 (1972).Google Scholar
  15. 15.
    Powell, J., “Costs of Magnets for Large Fusion Power Reactors: Phase I, Cost of Superconductors for Large D.C. Magnets,” BNL 16580 (1972).Google Scholar
  16. 16.
    “Potential Environmental Effects of an Offshore Submerged Nuclear Power Plant,” Vols. I and II, prepared by General Dynamics for EPA, Program 16130 GFI (1971).Google Scholar

Copyright information

© Plenum Press, New York 1975

Authors and Affiliations

  • J. Powell
    • 1
  • F. J. Salzano
    • 1
  • W. A. Sevian
    • 1
  1. 1.Brookhaven National LaboratoryUptonUSA

Personalised recommendations