2 ms·

Is it really clear the fusion power, even if it's achieved, will actually be cheap enough to use? Sure, the fuel is almost free, but the fuel for solar, wind, a

Is it really clear the fusion power, even if it's achieved, will actually be cheap enough to use? Sure, the fuel is almost free, but the fuel for solar, wind, and hydroelectric power is also free and that doesn't make them cheap. If we're not worried about cost, we could build enormous batteries using existing technology and use solar and wind to power everything. Fusion has to be cheaper than that, and judging by the cost of ITER, it doesn't seem obvious that it can achieve that. Remember how nuclear fission was going to be "too cheap to meter"? Turned out it's expensive to build and operate the plants, regardless of how cheap the fuel is.

willis936 6y ago
Well, fusion has the benefit of having much lower operating costs. Violent terminations, quench events, and tritium containment breaches are serious concerns, but a risk assessment of a fusion power plant would give a much cozier feeling than a risk assessment of a fission power plant. The neutron activated materials are safe after a century and there is not much of it. All of the cost in a fusion plant sits on manufacturing and maintenance. If you can build a GWe plant for $30Bn or less, then it’s a no brainer. The five trillion dollar question is how much investment fusion power research needs before we get to that point.
- pfdietz 6y ago
  Fusion will likely have much MUCH higher operating cost. Fusion reactors are fearsomely complex things that will be too radioactive for hands on maintenance. They will be operating at much higher levels of radiation damage and thermal stress than fission reactors. That all adds up to a reliability and maintainability nightmare. The fuel being cheap doesn't mitigate this. Also, the need to replace major reactor components many times over the life of the reactor, due to cumulative neutron damage, will itself cause very large operating costs.

willis936 6y ago

Well, fusion has the benefit of having much lower operating costs. Violent terminations, quench events, and tritium containment breaches are serious concerns, but a risk assessment of a fusion power plant would give a much cozier feeling than a risk assessment of a fission power plant. The neutron activated materials are safe after a century and there is not much of it. All of the cost in a fusion plant sits on manufacturing and maintenance. If you can build a GWe plant for $30Bn or less, then it’s a no brainer. The five trillion dollar question is how much investment fusion power research needs before we get to that point.

pfdietz 6y ago
Fusion will likely have much MUCH higher operating cost. Fusion reactors are fearsomely complex things that will be too radioactive for hands on maintenance. They will be operating at much higher levels of radiation damage and thermal stress than fission reactors. That all adds up to a reliability and maintainability nightmare. The fuel being cheap doesn't mitigate this. Also, the need to replace major reactor components many times over the life of the reactor, due to cumulative neutron damage, will itself cause very large operating costs.