3 ms·
Closing the building off for 100 years might work fine, but that can't be the solution to every problem, it wouldn't be economically viable. Ostensibly simple
by slipframe 5y ago
Closing the building off for 100 years might work fine, but that can't be the solution to every problem, it wouldn't be economically viable. Ostensibly simple matters like routine maintenance are very complicated propositions for fusion reactors; you can turn the reactor off but it will still be too radioactive for anybody to work inside. So you either need some sophisticated robotics to repair anything that might ever need repairing, or you have to consider the entire reactor to be disposable.
Of course, repairing things inside a fission reactor is no less nasty, but fission reactors are comparably much simpler and much smaller. Swapping a fission reactor out with a new one is comparably much easier than with a fusion reactor.
- DennisP 5y agoFor General Fusion, about the only part exposed would be the central column, which I suspect they'll design to be easily replaced; pull out from the top and drop in a new one. Aside from that, the burning plasma is just surrounded by liquid lead/lithium. MIT's Commonwealth uses an inner wall that's 3D-printed and designed to be replaced annually. They've tested joints in their superconducting tape, which will let them open up the coils on hinges so they can drop in a new inner wall. They'll surround that with liquid beryllium/lithium as coolant and breeding blanket.