7 ms·

We could pretty much save the world with fission today, but we don’t because politics. I’m not confident that we’ll actually adopt fusion even when the tech is

by qntl 9y ago

We could pretty much save the world with fission today, but we don’t because politics. I’m not confident that we’ll actually adopt fusion even when the tech is ready.

Cthulhu_ 9y ago
I can imagine the first reactors would be prohibitively expensive.
- mark-r 9y ago
  Naturally. You don't pump money into something like this for years without expecting to get a huge payback. That patent had a lot of military applications in it.
danmaz74 9y ago
How could fission save the world today? It's not that cheap.
- ben_w 9y ago
  Part of the cost is relatively excessive safety margins. “Relatively excessive“ because despite the reputation fission is the safest power supply we have now, including solar because installing things on rooftops is not without risk. https://www.nextbigfuture.com/2011/03/deaths-per-twh-by-energy-source.html https://www.nextbigfuture.com/2011/03/deaths-per-twh-by-ener...
  - Majestic121 9y ago
    The risk is much higher because it is not only about human deaths, but also about unusable land for decades and decades. It will be impossible to re-populate land up to six miles from the Chernobyl for the next 10,000 years, and it will probably be the same for Fukushima Along with that, zones that can be repopulated are suffering much higher risk of cancer and misc health issues. The safety margins are big because the risks are tremendous, not because people love to waste money.
    - srslack 9y ago
      >It will be impossible to re-populate land up to six miles from the Chernobyl There are still humans living within the exclusion zone, still humans working at Chernobyl where three reactors continued to operate after the accident, the vast majority of gamma from the site is from an isotope with a half-life of 30 years, and the background radiation within the exclusion zone is provably less than the background radiation you find when living in high altitudes. Chernobyl was the absolute worst case in that it had no containment whatsoever, and Fukushima was an absolute worst case for a western reactor in that it couldn't SCRAM and cool properly with multiple backup systems failing, but the implication that large tracts of land are uninhabitable for tens of thousands, or even hundreds of years is patently false. In addition, there are no attributable deaths to either accident among the general population. Radiation doses in both cases were very low in the context of the general population surrounding these plants. The fact is that more people died from the sudden evacuations and stress of relocating than died, or will die, from the radiation levels.
      - Majestic121 9y ago
        Hmm, I got the 10000 years number from this source : https://www.telegraph.co.uk/news/worldnews/europe/ukraine/12189175/Chernobyl-and-Fukushima-contamination-a-risk-for-decades-or-even-centuries-to-come-warns-Greenpeace.html https://www.telegraph.co.uk/news/worldnews/europe/ukraine/12... But I can't seem to be able to find the original, even on Greenpeace You might be right on this
        lainga 9y ago
        You did it: you have found a piece of fake news. I am glad you took the time to look!
      - rsync 9y ago
        "In addition, there are no attributable deaths to either accident among the general population. Radiation doses in both cases were very low in the context of the general population surrounding these plants." I think you need to spend more time reading about chernobyl. Many, many of the cleanup workers at chernobyl in the weeks and months following the disaster were normal people who were essentially gang-pressed into service and handed a shovel. All of those people wrapping tree trunks in plastic and burying them were not all soldiers or paid, professional firefighters. These people were worked until they literally fell over and died in hospital shortly thereafter. I would characterize these people as part of the "general population". I recommend _All that is Solid Melts Into Air_ and _Voices from Chernobyl.
eloff 9y ago
We don't adopt fission because it's disastrous when things go wrong, so it scares people. Plus it produces a waste problem that lasts for an incredibly long time. Fusion doesn't suffer from those problems.
- ExcelSaga 9y ago
  D-T fusion suffers from all of those problems.
  - eloff 9y ago
    To the same extent as fission? You're being disingenuous here with that comparison.
    - ExcelSaga 9y ago
      Fission is required for D-T fusion at this point, otherwise you don’t have any tritium. It’s the people who ignore that, and our failure to breed tritium within a fusion reactor who are disingenuous. If you don’t know even that much about the science, I’d strongly recommmemd refraining from accusing people of being less tham forthright.
      - eloff 9y ago
        It is today, but my understanding is that fission is just our best source of neutrons to breed tritium from lithium 6. Fusion should also be an excellent source of neutrons, so I don't see that as being a hard requirement. I'm not a physicist, so I may be dead wrong.
      - yellowapple 9y ago
        Per the article, it sounds like the fusion reactor itself could indeed be the thing producing the tritium by way of a lithium blanket. Of course, that means it'd need to have some way of generating the neutrons (the design seems to include two spots for "neutral beams", but I missed any mention of what's supplying those beams).
carry_bit 9y ago
Not just today, we could've decades ago.
kwhitefoot 9y ago
We could save the world with solar right now and it can be started immediately and is indefinitely scalable. The problems of energy supply are political not technical.

by qntl 9y ago

We could pretty much save the world with fission today, but we don’t because politics. I’m not confident that we’ll actually adopt fusion even when the tech is ready.

Cthulhu_ 9y ago

I can imagine the first reactors would be prohibitively expensive.

mark-r 9y ago
Naturally. You don't pump money into something like this for years without expecting to get a huge payback. That patent had a lot of military applications in it.

danmaz74 9y ago

How could fission save the world today? It's not that cheap.

ben_w 9y ago
Part of the cost is relatively excessive safety margins. “Relatively excessive“ because despite the reputation fission is the safest power supply we have now, including solar because installing things on rooftops is not without risk. https://www.nextbigfuture.com/2011/03/deaths-per-twh-by-energy-source.html https://www.nextbigfuture.com/2011/03/deaths-per-twh-by-ener...
- Majestic121 9y ago
  The risk is much higher because it is not only about human deaths, but also about unusable land for decades and decades. It will be impossible to re-populate land up to six miles from the Chernobyl for the next 10,000 years, and it will probably be the same for Fukushima Along with that, zones that can be repopulated are suffering much higher risk of cancer and misc health issues. The safety margins are big because the risks are tremendous, not because people love to waste money.
  - srslack 9y ago
    >It will be impossible to re-populate land up to six miles from the Chernobyl There are still humans living within the exclusion zone, still humans working at Chernobyl where three reactors continued to operate after the accident, the vast majority of gamma from the site is from an isotope with a half-life of 30 years, and the background radiation within the exclusion zone is provably less than the background radiation you find when living in high altitudes. Chernobyl was the absolute worst case in that it had no containment whatsoever, and Fukushima was an absolute worst case for a western reactor in that it couldn't SCRAM and cool properly with multiple backup systems failing, but the implication that large tracts of land are uninhabitable for tens of thousands, or even hundreds of years is patently false. In addition, there are no attributable deaths to either accident among the general population. Radiation doses in both cases were very low in the context of the general population surrounding these plants. The fact is that more people died from the sudden evacuations and stress of relocating than died, or will die, from the radiation levels.
    - Majestic121 9y ago
      Hmm, I got the 10000 years number from this source : https://www.telegraph.co.uk/news/worldnews/europe/ukraine/12189175/Chernobyl-and-Fukushima-contamination-a-risk-for-decades-or-even-centuries-to-come-warns-Greenpeace.html https://www.telegraph.co.uk/news/worldnews/europe/ukraine/12... But I can't seem to be able to find the original, even on Greenpeace You might be right on this
      - lainga 9y ago
        You did it: you have found a piece of fake news. I am glad you took the time to look!
    - rsync 9y ago
      "In addition, there are no attributable deaths to either accident among the general population. Radiation doses in both cases were very low in the context of the general population surrounding these plants." I think you need to spend more time reading about chernobyl. Many, many of the cleanup workers at chernobyl in the weeks and months following the disaster were normal people who were essentially gang-pressed into service and handed a shovel. All of those people wrapping tree trunks in plastic and burying them were not all soldiers or paid, professional firefighters. These people were worked until they literally fell over and died in hospital shortly thereafter. I would characterize these people as part of the "general population". I recommend _All that is Solid Melts Into Air_ and _Voices from Chernobyl.

eloff 9y ago

We don't adopt fission because it's disastrous when things go wrong, so it scares people. Plus it produces a waste problem that lasts for an incredibly long time. Fusion doesn't suffer from those problems.

ExcelSaga 9y ago
D-T fusion suffers from all of those problems.
- eloff 9y ago
  To the same extent as fission? You're being disingenuous here with that comparison.
  - ExcelSaga 9y ago
    Fission is required for D-T fusion at this point, otherwise you don’t have any tritium. It’s the people who ignore that, and our failure to breed tritium within a fusion reactor who are disingenuous. If you don’t know even that much about the science, I’d strongly recommmemd refraining from accusing people of being less tham forthright.
    - eloff 9y ago
      It is today, but my understanding is that fission is just our best source of neutrons to breed tritium from lithium 6. Fusion should also be an excellent source of neutrons, so I don't see that as being a hard requirement. I'm not a physicist, so I may be dead wrong.
    - yellowapple 9y ago
      Per the article, it sounds like the fusion reactor itself could indeed be the thing producing the tritium by way of a lithium blanket. Of course, that means it'd need to have some way of generating the neutrons (the design seems to include two spots for "neutral beams", but I missed any mention of what's supplying those beams).

carry_bit 9y ago

Not just today, we could've decades ago.

kwhitefoot 9y ago

We could save the world with solar right now and it can be started immediately and is indefinitely scalable. The problems of energy supply are political not technical.