4 ms·

Nuclear fusion substantially eliminates the "meltdown" risk associated with contemporary fission-based nuclear energy sources. But it's no panacea [1], there's

Nuclear fusion substantially eliminates the "meltdown" risk associated with contemporary fission-based nuclear energy sources. But it's no panacea [1], there's still substantial radioactive waste produced and radiation hazards to those working near the reactor. If you operate under the assumption that we should pursue nuclear energy, then this is great. But if you operate under the assumption that between solar wind and storage, we have everything we need without any radioactive waste or radiation hazards to workers, this is pretty uninteresting beyond academic purposes. https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Fusion_power#Safety_and_the_environment https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Fusion_power#Safety_and_the_en...

TillE 9y ago
> In general terms, fusion reactors would create far less radioactive material than a fission reactor, the material it would create is less damaging biologically, and the radioactivity "burns off" within a time period that is well within existing engineering capabilities for safe long-term waste storage. There's really no comparison; fusion is vastly cleaner and safer.
- LifeLiverTransp 9y ago
  I think the problem here, is that all those environement protection groups fighting fission, would cease to be after they "won" and thus are desperat in search of a new "evil". Has there ever been a activist group that stated loudly: "Yes, we pulled it off"- and then peacefully disolved, with the promise to reunite the day the defeated cause should return?
  - yodon 9y ago
    As a freshman at MIT in the 1980’s, I was impressed to hear the announcement that the MIT Group Against Smoking had just disbanded. They had accomplished everything they set out to do and felt their were better places for them to invest their time. And yes, I vividly recall the only time in my tenure at MIT I saw a student light a cigarette. It was in 10-250, the person was sitting audience right side of the lecture hall, about 1/3 of the way back in the room. She did so once, on her first day of class as a transfer student. So yes, change can happen, and be recognized, and the activists move on.
    - LifeLiverTransp 9y ago
      Well my hat off to that. I just have a very negative counter-example here though: It was a radio-interview with a green-peace activist on ITER. And they would go to great length, to put the nuclear waste problem of fusion into the same category as the nuclear waste dilema of fission- although the fusion byproducts decay down to zero in 300 years- which is near nothing next to fission. I really rooted for greenpeace once, but such intellectual dishonesty- with a fundamentalistic approach, expecting humanity to give up civilisation as we know it, instead of working with the humanity they got- lead to a deep distrust to everything they publish.
  - TheSpiceIsLife 9y ago
    Steven Pinker put it better then I could have when he wrote: No one has ever recruited activists to a cause by announcing that things are getting better, and bearers of good news are often advised to keep their mouths shut lest they lull people into complacency. Also, a large swath of our intellectual culture is loath to admit that there could be anything good about civilization, modernity, and Western society. My favourite example is this that in Australia we have no nuclear electricity generation large as a result of the good intentions of Greenpeace and The Wilderness Society, the later of which is largely responsible for there being no new hydro electric power stations in Australia after they were success in blocking the Franklin River dam project. That and there being pretty much no good sites left. That realisation and my ensuing confusion resulted in me withdrawal from the whole debate with the hope that greater minds will work toward improving the situation.
- newnewpdro 9y ago
  I don't disagree, but this is saying more about how miserable nuclear fission is than anything else. If we have a path which involves zero radioactive waste, and zero biologically-active radioactive effluents, obviating the need for nuclear anything - why would we bother?
  - davrosthedalek 9y ago
    Assuming that path is actually viable, which is debatable, that path might have other risks. It's not clear a priori where the total risk is lower. IIRC, wind power has, for example, a rather high accident rate for workers. Impact on birds was also something discussed. Massive solar power plants in Africa, for example, have an associated political risk.
  - mpweiher 9y ago
    Little known fact: fission is currently our safest and cleanest energy source. https://www.nextbigfuture.com/2008/03/deaths-per-twh-for-all-energy-sources.html https://www.nextbigfuture.com/2008/03/deaths-per-twh-for-all...
    - newnewpdro 9y ago
      Tell that to the residents of Japan.
      - mpweiher 9y ago
        Precisely. Deaths from the Tsunami: 15895 Deaths from radiation: 0 Note that the deaths include those from technology that failed due to the Tsunami. And note that by "little known fact", I mean "fact that is so little known that people 'know' the opposite of what is actually true"
        newnewpdro 9y ago
        You're willfully choosing to focus on provable deaths from acute radiation poisoning as some kind of metric of general safety. Anything requiring the immediate long-term evacuation of an entire prefecture in a failure mode is obviously unsafe. Lies, damn lies, and statistics.

TillE 9y ago

> In general terms, fusion reactors would create far less radioactive material than a fission reactor, the material it would create is less damaging biologically, and the radioactivity "burns off" within a time period that is well within existing engineering capabilities for safe long-term waste storage. There's really no comparison; fusion is vastly cleaner and safer.

LifeLiverTransp 9y ago
I think the problem here, is that all those environement protection groups fighting fission, would cease to be after they "won" and thus are desperat in search of a new "evil". Has there ever been a activist group that stated loudly: "Yes, we pulled it off"- and then peacefully disolved, with the promise to reunite the day the defeated cause should return?
- yodon 9y ago
  As a freshman at MIT in the 1980’s, I was impressed to hear the announcement that the MIT Group Against Smoking had just disbanded. They had accomplished everything they set out to do and felt their were better places for them to invest their time. And yes, I vividly recall the only time in my tenure at MIT I saw a student light a cigarette. It was in 10-250, the person was sitting audience right side of the lecture hall, about 1/3 of the way back in the room. She did so once, on her first day of class as a transfer student. So yes, change can happen, and be recognized, and the activists move on.
  - LifeLiverTransp 9y ago
    Well my hat off to that. I just have a very negative counter-example here though: It was a radio-interview with a green-peace activist on ITER. And they would go to great length, to put the nuclear waste problem of fusion into the same category as the nuclear waste dilema of fission- although the fusion byproducts decay down to zero in 300 years- which is near nothing next to fission. I really rooted for greenpeace once, but such intellectual dishonesty- with a fundamentalistic approach, expecting humanity to give up civilisation as we know it, instead of working with the humanity they got- lead to a deep distrust to everything they publish.
- TheSpiceIsLife 9y ago
  Steven Pinker put it better then I could have when he wrote: No one has ever recruited activists to a cause by announcing that things are getting better, and bearers of good news are often advised to keep their mouths shut lest they lull people into complacency. Also, a large swath of our intellectual culture is loath to admit that there could be anything good about civilization, modernity, and Western society. My favourite example is this that in Australia we have no nuclear electricity generation large as a result of the good intentions of Greenpeace and The Wilderness Society, the later of which is largely responsible for there being no new hydro electric power stations in Australia after they were success in blocking the Franklin River dam project. That and there being pretty much no good sites left. That realisation and my ensuing confusion resulted in me withdrawal from the whole debate with the hope that greater minds will work toward improving the situation.
newnewpdro 9y ago
I don't disagree, but this is saying more about how miserable nuclear fission is than anything else. If we have a path which involves zero radioactive waste, and zero biologically-active radioactive effluents, obviating the need for nuclear anything - why would we bother?
- davrosthedalek 9y ago
  Assuming that path is actually viable, which is debatable, that path might have other risks. It's not clear a priori where the total risk is lower. IIRC, wind power has, for example, a rather high accident rate for workers. Impact on birds was also something discussed. Massive solar power plants in Africa, for example, have an associated political risk.
- mpweiher 9y ago
  Little known fact: fission is currently our safest and cleanest energy source. https://www.nextbigfuture.com/2008/03/deaths-per-twh-for-all-energy-sources.html https://www.nextbigfuture.com/2008/03/deaths-per-twh-for-all...
  - newnewpdro 9y ago
    Tell that to the residents of Japan.
    - mpweiher 9y ago
      Precisely. Deaths from the Tsunami: 15895 Deaths from radiation: 0 Note that the deaths include those from technology that failed due to the Tsunami. And note that by "little known fact", I mean "fact that is so little known that people 'know' the opposite of what is actually true"
      - newnewpdro 9y ago
        You're willfully choosing to focus on provable deaths from acute radiation poisoning as some kind of metric of general safety. Anything requiring the immediate long-term evacuation of an entire prefecture in a failure mode is obviously unsafe. Lies, damn lies, and statistics.