3 ms·
People have priced these already, it's competitive. Fusion requires fewer safeguards, less insurance, and is more repairable than fission. Reliability isn't an
by Veedrac 7y ago
People have priced these already, it's competitive.
Fusion requires fewer safeguards, less insurance, and is more repairable than fission. Reliability isn't an issue just because it's 4m³.
Why would fusion reactors need ‘very large’ tritium supplies? SPARC would use, what, <100g/day? And it would generate excess, so they wouldn't need a stockpile. Tritium isn't even particularly dangerous; it goes away on its own, and doesn't stick around in biological systems.
- pfdietz 7y ago> People have priced these already, it's competitive. I don't believe these estimates, either in the input data or the methodology. They are basically an exercise in "how optimistic can I be before no one believes me". It's not as if any shenanigans in them will be checked against reality anytime soon. They aren't a good counter to the simple argument of "larger, more complex, and made of more exotic materials implies more expensive." But in any case, let's look at ARC, shall we? The cost comes to $29/W(e), very much higher than fission reactors. They have to resort to "and the Nth of a kind plant will be a factor of K cheaper". Never mind that the closest analogy, nuclear fission plants, has not shown good experience effects. About tritium: I don't think you grasp how problematic this material is. The amount of tritium consumed in a 1 GW(e) fusion plant in a year would be enough to contaminate 2 months worth of the flow of the Mississippi River, at New Orleans, above the legal limit for drinking water. Confinement of tritium is going to have to be damned near perfect for a DT reactor to be acceptable.
- Veedrac 7y agoI'll agree that if future designs look like ARC, and cost $5-6B, fusion won't be economical.