3 ms·
Which by itself wouldn't really be a problem if they had any real advantages over fission, or some overwhelming lifecycle/weight/etc type advantage. But right n
by StillBored 7y ago
Which by itself wouldn't really be a problem if they had any real advantages over fission, or some overwhelming lifecycle/weight/etc type advantage. But right now they pretty much loose on every metric that isn't measured in "gee-wiz".
I as much as anyone would love a Mr Fusion from back to the future, even if it required hydrogen/etc rather than food waste, but the truth is none of the current designs have clear paths forward to grid scale production, or even small self contained units as used on subs or potentially space applications.
I do think we should be funding the research, but I also think we should be spending equal amounts on engineering better fission processes. The former is basic research while the latter is targeted engineering.
- AnthonyMouse 7y agoNot generating long-lived "nuclear waste" is a strong political advantage. The waste problem for fission reactors is overstated, but as long as it continues to be overstated, not having it at all is an advantage.
- pfdietz 7y agoIt's an advantage of fusion over fission. It's not a terribly strong one, since the cost of dealing with fission reactor waste is small. The cost of dealing with the large mass of activated material from a fusion reactor may well exceed that cost. And, of course, it's no advantage whatsoever over the non-radioactive power sources that are currently beating, and pulling away from, fission.
- AnthonyMouse 7y agoIt's not a terribly strong one in engineering, but it's a strong one in politics, because it gives no cover to the people railing against fission over the long-lived waste. And then you still have all of the usual advantages of nuclear reactors -- low land use, steady power that doesn't depend on weather, etc.