4 ms·
> but really if we are not willing to switch to Fission, a technology we already have, why would be do it for Fusion. I thought the extremely compelling ration
by hamburglar 7y ago
> but really if we are not willing to switch to Fission, a technology we already have, why would be do it for Fusion.
I thought the extremely compelling rationale for Fusion was (assuming it can be done) not just orders of magnitude more energy, but also extremely little safety risk and on top of that, your "waste" is pure helium. Am I misinformed? This seems like of course we'd be willing to put the effort into that.
- pauljurczak 7y ago> your "waste" is pure helium No. The cladding of fusion chamber is bombarded with neutrons and has to be replaced frequently, producing radioactive waste. This a drawback of all experimental designs today, AFAIK.
- p_l 7y agoThe reason we don't have fusion is partially that the focus is on aneutronic fusion that doesn't have that problem. JET could run above break-even in neutronic fuel cycle.
- pfdietz 7y agoThat rationale ignores that the power/volume of fusion reactors will be hideously bad, making them much more expensive than fission reactors.