Not much. We have nuclear power already. Fission and fusion aren't all that different if you are just looking at them as power sources. Both have 0 carbon footprint. Both would be used to biol water to turn a steam turbine.

[removed]

Well, economically, it means that for every $1.00 spent in production costs, the reactor returns a $1.10 worth of electrical power (just made up #s). That means that energy prices will, inevitably, get lower and lower across the board.

​

Now, think about your life if you no longer had to pay (or paid a MINIMAL COST) for electricity. How much MORE $$$ will you have to spend, in that scenario? Then factor in that EVERYONE, including businesses, will be in the same boat.

​

Everyone LITERALLY becomes "wealthier overnight".

That's not at all what it means. And it makes no sense. Net energy positive has nothing at all to do with cost or price of development. And as I said, comparing output value to production cost (rather than running cost) also makes no sense without a time span.

If you run it long enough, even a trillion dollar reactor that produces only a milliwatt of power will eventually have produced more value out than it's production cost.

Except for the spent nuclear fuel from fission…

This isn't really that accurate. Yes, both fission and fusion have zero carbon footprint and in the end will (at least in most cases) just boil water. Fusion however, if fully realized in its most ideal form, would allow us essentially turn seawater into fuel (so the source is basically limitless). Also fuel for fusion contains abot 100 times the energy per pound compared to fission. Finally, fusion has much less risk (but not zero risk) of danger from radioactive byproducts.

You really believe the power companies would pass those savings on to the consumers?

Probably nothng as long as greed is such a big motivator in the world. Someone will buy the technology to protect their outdated technologies place in the energy market.

Fission and fusion aren't that different, just opposites. One takes radioactive materials and splits an atom making more radioactive waste. Fusion starts with hydrogen, the most abundant element in the universe, and outputs helium. No long lasting radioactive waste and can produce a literal metric fuck ton more energy.

saying they are zero carbon footprint is not true. you have to factor in the mining of resources, building of the physical power plants, huge amounts of cement and steel, etc., backup power sources, all of the vehicles and other fossil fuel related activity used in maintenance, operation, construction, waste 'disposal,' etc. the only part of the process that's carbon neutral is the part that proponents of nuclear like to think about; the f(us,iss)ion.

From an electrical grid perspective, not from "how it makes energy" perspective

And H3 is not the most abundant element in the universe.

No buddy, without the risk of radiation, we can put them everywhere. That is huge.

That's not really a concern. It's tiny amounts, we have ample places to put it, that is a political issue, not a science problem

From an electrical grid perspective, wind and coal aren't that different.

> Also fuel for fusion contains abot 100 times the energy per pound compared to fission.

Citation? I thought energy densities were pretty similar.

> . Fusion however, if fully realized in its most ideal form, would allow us essentially turn seawater into fuel

Incorrect. Seawater is not H3 and cannot be fused.

Not everyone lives in capitalist america... In some places, power providers are not-for-profit or state-owned, meaning any real savings in production costs automatically get passed on to users.

Yes they are. Wind only generates power when the wind is blowing,. Coal has a carbon footprint per unit of electricity made.

There is ample storage that exists, today, for storing spent fuel rods.

Please read this entire message

Your submission has been removed for the following reason(s):

• Rule #2 - Questions must seek objective explanations

• Subjective or speculative replies are not allowed on ELI5. Only objective explanations are permitted here; your question is asking for speculation or subjective responses (Rule 2).

If you would like this removal reviewed, please read the detailed rules first. If you believe this submission was removed erroneously, please use this form and we will review your submission.

> saying they are zero carbon footprint is not true

Fair point. I was specifically focusing on the reaction, but your point is a god one. However, the carbon footprint of building a reactor of any type can't really be avoided.

Well not really, "electricity too cheap to meter" opens up all sorts of possibilities. Internal combustion engine transportation will be obsolete and transportation costs will collapse. The cost of running data centers collapses because refrigeration and electricity for powering computers, the major costs, becomes insignificant, so computing power will dramatically expand. Urban night will become like day with streetlights everywhere. Climate control will be available to almost all of the world population. Indoor agriculture will be feasible for most crops and worldwide hunger will be eliminated. We can expect major advances in science and technology because some scientific research is bound by the cost of energy. This just scratches the surface. Dirt cheap electricity will make changes akin to the industrial revolution.

The grid doesn't care about anything other than power. Wind only generates when there is air movement and coal only generates when it's burning.

Just want to point out that you also need to figure in operating and maintenance costs, and cost of capital. If you invest a trillion dollars, you need to generate at least $50B-ish per year just to cover the interest on the loan. You ain't gonna make $50-B-ish per yera on a milliwatt. You also need to consider opportunity cost. If you took that trillion and invested in gas fired turbine plants, you'd get back your investment....

Functionally it would mean cheap, green, unlimited energy for mankind. Hydrogen is just everywhere and there are no harmful byproducts, unlike fossil fuels or nuclear that are non renewable resources. Granted they use mostly dueterium and tritium currently which are a little more rare and expensive.

Important to note that the reaction didn't really get "more energy out than they put in" in fact they put in about 100 times more energy than they got out. However it is still a massive achievement, but I wouldn't hold my breath and wait for fusion reactors to come online. Probably about ten more years.

Yeah, probably, don't touch it the next 1000 years and let's hope nature doesn't freak out. Ow, and not in my backyard please.

Ofcourse Fukushima and Chernobyl are unicorns, but why even risk it.

Nuclear is better than burning stuff, but fusion is even better.

You can find it in this table on Wikipedia: https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Energy_density_Extended_Reference_Table Or at this site: https://epress.lib.uts.edu.au/student-journals/index.php/PAMR/article/download/1383/1464?inline=1#:~:text=Energy%20density%20of%20Deuterium%2Dtritium,reactants%20and%20products%20%5B1%5D.

The key detail is that pure uranium is only about 1/3 the energy density of Tritium-Deuterium but fission rods are only a couple percent U-235.

Seawater contains Deuterium (D) which can be used in a full cycle fusion reactor. Basically D+D creates either Tritium (T) + H or He3+ a neutron. Those products can then react with one another. The easiest reaction to do is D+T since it requires the lowest temperautures but Tritium needs to be manufactured which can be difficult.

The VAST majority of the western world capable of nuclear power is capitalistic and will not see a monetary benefit from nuclear fusion/fission on the consumer level. But congrats to those handful of Nordic countries with tiny populations that are lucky enough to have socialist programs for necessities I guess. But most of us aren't that lucky.

The chart shows 338 vs 86 TJ/kg for fusion vs breeder reactor. That's about 4x, not 100x. The U-235 is essential for the process but not the only source of energy in a fission chain reaction, which can convert U-238 to unstable plutonium.

However, as basically every fission reactor out there is a non-breeder reactor, I can see your point. If we count all the non-fissile parts of the fuel in the density equation (which is a debatable metric), then sure, the fuel density goes way down. But ultimately that isn't too relevant for figuring out the efficiency of the process overall.

Funny that you bring up populations... Less than a quarter of the world's population would "suffer" under your supposed situation of greedy power companies... Both the largest and the second largest countries by population are nuclear powers, and both have massive stakes in fusion research as well.

Maybe, just maybe, you guys can look beyond how "big" your problem is, actually go out and vote for something worth believing in, and change the rules in favour of the people in stead of the corporation...

Nothing is changing over here short of violent revolution. Voting does nothing when both sides are in on the grift. But I appreciate your youthful optimism. If I could move to a socialist country I would do so in an instant.