4 ms·
The end of this article has an interesting note: > And we are likely to need fusion well beyond 2050, too: as a source of large-scale power to extract the carb
by throwawaysea 5y ago
The end of this article has an interesting note:
> And we are likely to need fusion well beyond 2050, too: as a source of large-scale power to extract the carbon dioxide we’ve already put into the atmosphere, and because it’s the only feasible way we can explore space beyond Earth’s immediate vicinity.
Can’t we achieve both of these with fission? It seems to me that fusion offers some safety advantages but that we could scale up conventional nuclear energy production to perform carbon capture.
- deleted 5y ago[deleted]
- profile53 5y agoI think the safety advantages of fusion are exactly why fission is not viable. The target (which we have not met) is one reactor accident per 10,000 reactor years with fission. If we have 5,000 reactors worldwide, that means that we expect a nuclear meltdown every two years. From my understanding, fusion is much safer at scale because it doesn’t spread as much long-lasting radioactive material in the event of failure.