3 ms·

Fusion byproducts are by and large significantly safer than fission. Fission byproducts are well known to just be a ton of heavy metal junk that decays over th

Fusion byproducts are by and large significantly safer than fission. Fission byproducts are well known to just be a ton of heavy metal junk that decays over thousands of years. I'm sure there's fusion byproducts that are nasty too, but fundamentally you can't get byproducts as high up on the elemental chart as you can with fission strictly because fusion is merging 2 smaller atoms into 1 larger atom. With fission you start with a larger atom and break it into 2 smaller ones. Oversimplified, but you get the idea.

StreamBright 5y ago
This is the 1990's view on the subject. There were several projects to address the fission leftover problem. Some of these: - Method to Reduce Long-lived Fission Products by Nuclear Transmutations with Fast Spectrum Reactors https://www.nature.com/articles/s41598-017-14319-7 https://www.nature.com/articles/s41598-017-14319-7 - Fast-neutron reactor https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Fast-neutron_reactor https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Fast-neutron_reactor - Evolution of transuranium isotopic composition in power reactors and innovative nuclear systems for transmutation https://inspirehep.net/literature/1243003 https://inspirehep.net/literature/1243003 And few other things. It is possible to have nuclear power with shorter byproducts than thousands of years.
- Kirby64 5y ago
  Given that the US has only 1 reactor that was commercially put into operation after 1990s [1], it's a pretty realistic way to look at it in the US. Newer reactors and spent fuel reprocessing are definitely ways to solve the issue, but the fact is you still create those nasty byproducts in the traditional reactors today. [1]: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Nuclear_power_in_the_United_States https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Nuclear_power_in_the_United_St...
  - AtlasBarfed 5y ago
    Well if you're talking about a in-development fusion reactor, then it's fair to use in-development fission reactors for comparison.

StreamBright 5y ago

This is the 1990's view on the subject. There were several projects to address the fission leftover problem. Some of these: - Method to Reduce Long-lived Fission Products by Nuclear Transmutations with Fast Spectrum Reactors https://www.nature.com/articles/s41598-017-14319-7 https://www.nature.com/articles/s41598-017-14319-7 - Fast-neutron reactor https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Fast-neutron_reactor https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Fast-neutron_reactor - Evolution of transuranium isotopic composition in power reactors and innovative nuclear systems for transmutation https://inspirehep.net/literature/1243003 https://inspirehep.net/literature/1243003 And few other things. It is possible to have nuclear power with shorter byproducts than thousands of years.

Kirby64 5y ago
Given that the US has only 1 reactor that was commercially put into operation after 1990s [1], it's a pretty realistic way to look at it in the US. Newer reactors and spent fuel reprocessing are definitely ways to solve the issue, but the fact is you still create those nasty byproducts in the traditional reactors today. [1]: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Nuclear_power_in_the_United_States https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Nuclear_power_in_the_United_St...
- AtlasBarfed 5y ago
  Well if you're talking about a in-development fusion reactor, then it's fair to use in-development fission reactors for comparison.