Nescio224 t1_j1a3d5k wrote
Reply to comment by mystlurker in How do fusion scientists expect to produce enough Tritium to sustain D-T fusion (see text)? by DanTheTerrible
>much lower radioactivity concerns than fission, making it easier to deal with both from a safety perspective but also a public acceptance perspective?
The amount of "radioactive waste"(=radioactive resources) would be comparable to a breeder reactor. Newer reactor designs are much safer than old ones. If you eliminate the most common risks in the design, you can easily reduce the chance of a meltdown to practially zero. The development cycle for nuclear power is much slower than for other technologies, because of their high lifetimes and low numbers. Imagine if we stopped developing cars after the first 4 designs, with the biggest charge being a few hundred cars, because they were too unsafe. That's where we are with nuclear. If you can drop the mean time between meltdown incidents from every 10 years to every 1000 years worldwide, then that does matter. People want to make you believe this technology is inherently unsafe and the designs can't be improved. That is completely false.
>All the futurology stuff around fusion
Most of the futurology stuff is made by people who have no clue what they are talking about.
> It a fusion reactor exploded there may be major loss of life but it wouldn’t make the surrounding environment toxic for long periods, or at least that’s the idea.
This study concludes that the relocation of people after the Fukushima nulcear accident was not justified on the grounds of radiological health benefit. Also that "long period" is "only" about 100 years. Nuclear has still the lowest death rate of all alternatives.
>Obviously if you need lithium it’s clearly not truly unlimited
Lithium is abount 10 times more abundant than Uranium, so supply is not an issue.
> but the idea of something you could scale out much faster than solar/wind is rather appealing.
Why are you assuming that you can build fusion reactors faster than fission reactors or solar/wind? There are no commercial fusion reactor yet and all existing designs are very early prototypes. The data to make that conclusion doesn't exist yet. Not to mention that fusion is at least 20 years away (as always) and we need a solution now.
mystlurker t1_j1a4avk wrote
You are misinterpreting my post, I’m not saying I necessarily agree or support various aspects of this, just explaining why there is this mythical aspect to fusion.
Facts about fission haven’t done well to change public perception. And public perception has an outsized impact on government policy.
Fusion theoretically offers the upsides of fission without the downsides and it theoretically offers better scaling than existing renewables. But as you said this is all theory. But that is what makes it the holy grail, in theory it has major upsides but it’s far off from production. Dismissing the human element here is to dismiss a large part of what defines the allure of fusion.
Viewing a single comment thread. View all comments