5 ms·

Widespread energy generation nuclear fission is politically impossible in most Western countries. Why are people optimistic that fusion won't have the same kin

Widespread energy generation nuclear fission is politically impossible in most Western countries. Why are people optimistic that fusion won't have the same kind of problems, such as new plants being too expensive to build and old obsolete plants being too useful to decommission?

BudaDude 4y ago
I'm a bit more optimistic about this. This technology will be more important for space exploration than it will be (currently) on the ground.
BeetleB 4y ago
IIUC, there is no concern about radioactivity with fusion.
fullstackchris 4y ago
I'm sure they said the same thing about coal plants before any of them ever existed
dontwearitout 4y ago
Fission's amazing potentially is nerfed by three main things: proliferation risk, meltdown risk, and waste handling. These are all solved problems but dramatically raise the cost (you need armed guards, and the reactor has to be built to withstand a 747 strike, etc etc). The fuel cost is a very small fraction of the price of nuclear. If you can eliminate or reduce the need for armed guards and mountains of red tape, this has the potential to solve many of fission's problems while providing the same benefits (unlimited zero carbon power with dirt cheap fuel).
DoughnutHole 4y ago
> such as new plants being too expensive to build and old obsolete plants being too useful to decommission? There's no guarantee that these issues will be surmountable. But fusion largely avoids the fear association with past fission disasters and fears about nuclear waste. This is a non-trivial political problem in many parts of the world, especially much of Europe. If fusion becomes economical (big if) and the differences between it and fission are well communicated it might be easier for the world to swallow. I think visions of a 100% fusion world are fairly pie in the sky. Most of our energy most of the time will probably come from already viable renewables. But renewables cannot offer consistent baseline power all day, year-round, in every part of the world. We need either huge breakthroughs in storage, or carbon-free baseline generation. Economical fusion if it were achieved could offer that without some of the most politically difficult drawbacks of fission. I'd probably still bet the farm on renewables + storage though, at least for my lifetime.
kzrdude 4y ago
It is already widespread, being used for 10-20% of US energy, isn't it? And 30-40% in several European countries. I think it's definitely possible since it's already in place, we just need to talk about it more.
risyachka 4y ago
The main backlash for fission is not cost but danger. Fusion removes it.

BudaDude 4y ago

I'm a bit more optimistic about this. This technology will be more important for space exploration than it will be (currently) on the ground.

BeetleB 4y ago

IIUC, there is no concern about radioactivity with fusion.

fullstackchris 4y ago

I'm sure they said the same thing about coal plants before any of them ever existed

dontwearitout 4y ago

Fission's amazing potentially is nerfed by three main things: proliferation risk, meltdown risk, and waste handling. These are all solved problems but dramatically raise the cost (you need armed guards, and the reactor has to be built to withstand a 747 strike, etc etc). The fuel cost is a very small fraction of the price of nuclear. If you can eliminate or reduce the need for armed guards and mountains of red tape, this has the potential to solve many of fission's problems while providing the same benefits (unlimited zero carbon power with dirt cheap fuel).

DoughnutHole 4y ago

> such as new plants being too expensive to build and old obsolete plants being too useful to decommission? There's no guarantee that these issues will be surmountable. But fusion largely avoids the fear association with past fission disasters and fears about nuclear waste. This is a non-trivial political problem in many parts of the world, especially much of Europe. If fusion becomes economical (big if) and the differences between it and fission are well communicated it might be easier for the world to swallow. I think visions of a 100% fusion world are fairly pie in the sky. Most of our energy most of the time will probably come from already viable renewables. But renewables cannot offer consistent baseline power all day, year-round, in every part of the world. We need either huge breakthroughs in storage, or carbon-free baseline generation. Economical fusion if it were achieved could offer that without some of the most politically difficult drawbacks of fission. I'd probably still bet the farm on renewables + storage though, at least for my lifetime.

kzrdude 4y ago

It is already widespread, being used for 10-20% of US energy, isn't it? And 30-40% in several European countries. I think it's definitely possible since it's already in place, we just need to talk about it more.

risyachka 4y ago

The main backlash for fission is not cost but danger. Fusion removes it.