2 ms·

While obviously true, I think it's also useful to distinguish where items in category b fall on the spectrum from "this will be commercially viable with minor r

by magila 4y ago

While obviously true, I think it's also useful to distinguish where items in category b fall on the spectrum from "this will be commercially viable with minor refinement" to "this is three orders of magnitude away from commercial viability and we don't even have a theoretical path to get there". AFAIK energy generation with ICF is much closer to the latter than the former.

panick21_ 4y ago
Not sure I agree. Fusion solves non of the problem of fission actually has. - Will Capx be lower compared to a advanced fission plant. Almost certainty not. - Will Fusion plan be significantly cheaper to fuel. Almost certainty not, uranium and thorium are available in waste quantities. - Will it solve proliferation concerns? No, if you have a control of a fission reactors you have the potential to do all sorts of things. - Will it solve the nuclear waste issue. Maybe slightly but advanced fission can produce waste that need to be stored for around 300 years and that is not actually that difficult. And that is of course if you assume that the 100s of billions in investment required will not have be be paid back in any way. That is partly fair because fission didn't have to do that either, but there the investment is shared with nuclear weapons (for better or worse). So I would say its closer to the second suggestion. I don't see a theoretical path of how a fusion reactor can be built cheaper then a comparable fission reactor. But I'm not a expert on fission, I have heard of some fission that could be built very small but all actual real designs for suggestion of commercial fission I have seen do not fall into that category.