5 ms·
1. No. The current bulk of research focuses on this pathway because d-t is both energetically favorable, and occurs at lower temps than other energetically favo
by Semirhage 8y ago
1. No. The current bulk of research focuses on this pathway because d-t is both energetically favorable, and occurs at lower temps than other energetically favorable pathways. Tritium is a key component of fusion as it is currently studied in many, but not all cases and is the most likely first reaction. If you had said that the bulk of current research focuses on d-t, I’d agree, but it’s definotely not “nuclear fusion as we know it.” D-3He is a thing, not to mention stellar fusion which we certainly won’t create in a power plant, but we do know about it.
2. No, although the kinds of reactors being dreamed of in the “short” long term do fit this bill. Again, the much more difficult to manage (not to mention fuel) D-3He reaction is aneutronic, and doesn’t require a breeding blanket. Another difficult reaction would be p-7Li, although the fuel would be easier to come by. I’m not claiming that we’re remotely capable of harnessing these reactions, but it’s important to point out that they exist. A high neutron flux, and the need for Trtium are not inherent to fusion in general.
3. A bigger issue would be sputtering from the neutrons and He infiltration of the vessel. Othereise, assuming d-t fusion... this is accurate.
4. We can already breed tritium, and plutonium... this is a reality we have to live with. Fusion won’t change that either way. We can also engineer plagues, and a lot of other nasty things, and every year it all becomes easier to do “out of the garage” so to speak. If we’re going to survive, we need a better solution than unspilling the milk. Maybe embracing fission energy and greatly raising quality of life around the globe would be a good first step?
5. Agreed, although it is worth mentioning that there are ways to harness energy without a turbine, they are also complex. Fusion won’t save us, it won’t save our kids or grandkids. We need fission, solar, and wind, and peobsbly a century or more of research into aneutronic fusion if we want to survive well.
- jnxx 8y agoYou point out that alternative reactions like D-3He are theoretically possible. But my argument is not that D-T (Deuterium-Tritium) fusion is theoretically impossible. It is practically impossible. While it is possible to generate very small amounts of Tritium in commercial reactors, a fusion power plant would need much much larger quantities before it could even be started. And while the D-D reaction is also theoretically possible, it is even more difficult to achieve practically. This is similar to aviation in 1800: While it was theoretically possible to build a flying machine, there was, for example, no known engine which would have been able to power an airplane. And for somebody to say "we just go ahead and will solve the technical problem of having a low-weight power source within 20 years" would have been delusional. You can't summon technological break-throughs like a mythical ghost in a bottle. So to sum up, your argument against that todays nuclear fusion research, which is dominantly based on the D-T reaction, will not lead to any energy reaction in foreseeable time, is that there are more exotic, more difficult, end less well understood reactions which are also theoretically possible but not even close to being practically usable in any way.