4 ms·

I don't yet understand why this is better than Fission. Surely Fission provides us with unlimited carbon free energy (given enough fissionable material). What

I don't yet understand why this is better than Fission. Surely Fission provides us with unlimited carbon free energy (given enough fissionable material). What will Fusion give us that Fission can't already? Is it safer perhaps?

acidburnNSA 4y ago
I think it's just like thorium molten salt reactors. It's a new awesomer kind of nuclear energy that doesn't have any of the baggage of fission! Certainly, fusion does have the big advantage that it makes far fewer Curies of radioactive material per kWh as it operates. That has been the main driver of nuclear fission safety and waste issues. On the other hand, there are good arguments suggesting that conventional fission has been reasonably good at containing and controlling the radiation, such that it's among the safest and cleanest forms of energy known already. But the PR issue is a hard one, and people don't think like actuaries.
justsocrateasin 4y ago
I think the main difference is safety. Simplifying / IAMAPhysicist, but you can't get a runaway chain reaction with Fusion, and the reaction tends to just burn itself out if you shut it off. That being said, fission is already pretty darn safe. But the public perception of it is not good.
usrbinbash 4y ago
Issues of potential output and safety considerations aside: > Surely Fission provides us with unlimited carbon free energy (given enough fissionable material). The crux of the problem is, there is a limited supply of fissionable material. If we manage to survive as a species, our energy demand will continue to grow, and one day we would meet a hard cap, limiting what humanity as a species, is able to do. As a very very rough estimate, if we burnt through all the fissionable material that we have available on earth, it would be about enough energy to launch the mass of Mt. Everest into orbit. Long term (as in, many generations from now) we will need more energy than that.
93po 4y ago
> I don't yet understand why this is better than Fission Realistically, today, it's only better because of decades of lobbying and propaganda for fear mongering around fission. There is no reason why nuclear energy couldn't be the vast majority producer of all electricity in the world while massively lowering environmental damage and loss of human life. Long term, fusion might be better because it can produce a lot more energy and be safer. I feel like the safety improvement is negligible however compared to modern fission reactors that are properly maintained and governed.
- trompetenaccoun 4y ago
  Yes there is reason: The high cost, the unsolved waste issue and the inherent strategic danger such a centralization of power production would pose. You'd only have to hit a few large power plants to take out the electricity of an entire country. When done right, attackers can even create more destruction and chaos by initiating a meltdown. Since you brought up lobbying, it's fascinating to me how many nuclear power fans the industry has created who are not informed by data and facts but are utterly convinced that nuclear power is the solution to all our energy issues.
  - 93po 4y ago
    The cost is not high if you consider the cost of pollution caused by other methods. And nuclear waste is absolutely a solved problem and is entirely unproblematic. These are thoroughly debunked talking points. > attackers can even create more destruction and chaos by initiating a meltdown This is not a feasible thing to do with modern reactor designs, and the same danger is present for infrastructure like dams or even just a big building. > not informed by data and facts Said by the person who's repeating misinformation
    - trompetenaccoun 4y ago
      It's not feasible but also it's the same danger as with dams? Which is it? In reality, both nuclear power plants and dams have been attacked many times over the past decades. More decentralized power production has other disadvantages but clearly it can't be targeted as easily. The attacker would take out a single wind turbine or someone's roof PV. The effects would be negligible on a national level. The cost btw is even higher than most people think considering that energy companies aren't paying for most of it but tax payers do. Some not even born yet. But even without factoring in those future costs, as you suggested we do, nuclear power in its current form is among the most expensive forms of power production. Again, look at the data, not energy company propaganda: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Levelized_cost_of_electricity https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Levelized_cost_of_electricity

acidburnNSA 4y ago

I think it's just like thorium molten salt reactors. It's a new awesomer kind of nuclear energy that doesn't have any of the baggage of fission! Certainly, fusion does have the big advantage that it makes far fewer Curies of radioactive material per kWh as it operates. That has been the main driver of nuclear fission safety and waste issues. On the other hand, there are good arguments suggesting that conventional fission has been reasonably good at containing and controlling the radiation, such that it's among the safest and cleanest forms of energy known already. But the PR issue is a hard one, and people don't think like actuaries.

justsocrateasin 4y ago

I think the main difference is safety. Simplifying / IAMAPhysicist, but you can't get a runaway chain reaction with Fusion, and the reaction tends to just burn itself out if you shut it off. That being said, fission is already pretty darn safe. But the public perception of it is not good.

usrbinbash 4y ago

Issues of potential output and safety considerations aside: > Surely Fission provides us with unlimited carbon free energy (given enough fissionable material). The crux of the problem is, there is a limited supply of fissionable material. If we manage to survive as a species, our energy demand will continue to grow, and one day we would meet a hard cap, limiting what humanity as a species, is able to do. As a very very rough estimate, if we burnt through all the fissionable material that we have available on earth, it would be about enough energy to launch the mass of Mt. Everest into orbit. Long term (as in, many generations from now) we will need more energy than that.

93po 4y ago

> I don't yet understand why this is better than Fission Realistically, today, it's only better because of decades of lobbying and propaganda for fear mongering around fission. There is no reason why nuclear energy couldn't be the vast majority producer of all electricity in the world while massively lowering environmental damage and loss of human life. Long term, fusion might be better because it can produce a lot more energy and be safer. I feel like the safety improvement is negligible however compared to modern fission reactors that are properly maintained and governed.

trompetenaccoun 4y ago
Yes there is reason: The high cost, the unsolved waste issue and the inherent strategic danger such a centralization of power production would pose. You'd only have to hit a few large power plants to take out the electricity of an entire country. When done right, attackers can even create more destruction and chaos by initiating a meltdown. Since you brought up lobbying, it's fascinating to me how many nuclear power fans the industry has created who are not informed by data and facts but are utterly convinced that nuclear power is the solution to all our energy issues.
- 93po 4y ago
  The cost is not high if you consider the cost of pollution caused by other methods. And nuclear waste is absolutely a solved problem and is entirely unproblematic. These are thoroughly debunked talking points. > attackers can even create more destruction and chaos by initiating a meltdown This is not a feasible thing to do with modern reactor designs, and the same danger is present for infrastructure like dams or even just a big building. > not informed by data and facts Said by the person who's repeating misinformation
  - trompetenaccoun 4y ago
    It's not feasible but also it's the same danger as with dams? Which is it? In reality, both nuclear power plants and dams have been attacked many times over the past decades. More decentralized power production has other disadvantages but clearly it can't be targeted as easily. The attacker would take out a single wind turbine or someone's roof PV. The effects would be negligible on a national level. The cost btw is even higher than most people think considering that energy companies aren't paying for most of it but tax payers do. Some not even born yet. But even without factoring in those future costs, as you suggested we do, nuclear power in its current form is among the most expensive forms of power production. Again, look at the data, not energy company propaganda: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Levelized_cost_of_electricity https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Levelized_cost_of_electricity