3 ms·
> Fusion will almost certainly have a lower power density than fission and therefore will require a larger plant to produce the same output. Suppose a fusion p
by Symmetry 5y ago
> Fusion will almost certainly have a lower power density than fission and therefore will require a larger plant to produce the same output. Suppose a fusion plant had to be ten times as big and therefore likely ten times as costly — as a present-day fission plant to produce the same amount of power.
I don't see how that follows. Different forms of power generation have orders of magnitude differences in costs on a per volume basis. If you're comparing within a type it might make sense, a coal plant 10 times larger probably does cost between 5 and 20 times more. But I don't see any reason to expect a fusion plant to have comparable per volume costs to a light water fission plant. And why is he assuming the cost is per volume rather than per mass?
- pfdietz 5y agoIt's because aside from the "nuclear steam supply system", a DT fusion power plant and a fission power plant would be the same. The non-nuclear parts will be similar (or cheaper for fission; a fusion plant needs a cryo plant and a tritium recovery system.) A fusion reactor will likely be MORE expensive per unit mass (or volume) than a fission reactor. A fission reactor is a rather simple thing, operated at relatively low thermal and neutron loading. Fusion's only real chance would be if some of the non-nuclear parts could be avoided, for example by direct conversion of plasma energy to electric power (so no or smaller turbines/generators). This would require advanced fuels (like DD or D3He).