4 ms·

It might guarantee clean fusion power, but there's no guarantee it would be in any way economic. Edward Teller proposed something along these lines with conven

by rgmerk 4y ago

It might guarantee clean fusion power, but there's no guarantee it would be in any way economic. Edward Teller proposed something along these lines with conventional two-stage nuclear explosives back in the 1970s, but it was rapidly abandoned as horribly inefficient and costly: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Project_PACER https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Project_PACER I know this stuff is fun to speculate about but the boring and unsexy option of more solar panels, wind turbines, and transmission lines is likely to be both cheaper and more politically saleable.

denton-scratch 4y ago
> clean fusion power From what I understand, practical routes to fusion all produce a lot of fast neutrons, and tritium. The neutrons make the surrounding equipment radioactive, and create toxic elements. The tritium is itself toxic, and is hard to contain. And the high neutron flux means that such a machine could easily be used to create weapons-grade plutonium, by irradiating uranium. And come decommissioning time, the reactor itself is a pile of toxic waste that will need long-term storage. I don't believe that fusion is inherently dirty; just that none of the technologies currently being investigated can be described as "clean". And they all run the risk of nuclear proliferation. IANAP.
- DennisP 4y ago
  These issues apply to D-T fuel, whose output energy is 80% high-energy neutrons. Helion is using D-D/D-He3, whose output would be only 6% neutrons, at lower energy. If you do the D-D reactions in specialized fuel production facilities, you could sell the He3 to anyone with an He3 power plant and they'll have zero neutron radiation to deal with or misuse. Even with D-T, the reactor waste would stop being dangerously radioactive in a few decades.
- LarryMullins 4y ago
  All of what you say is true. But on the plus side, you don't have the transuranic waste. Transuranic waste is the worst waste, the most dangerous and the most expensive and vital to store properly.
- chasil 4y ago
  One fusion approach that was recently discussed here was anetronic fusion with Hydrogen and Boron-11. Because it produces no free neutrons, it doesn't have the (small) waste problem as this laser fusion approach. This article is newer from the one that I remember. https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=30841080 https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=30841080
goodpoint 4y ago
> solar panels, wind turbines, and transmission lines is likely to be both cheaper Not to mention more practical and achievable in less wealthy countries. And safe to use in politically unstable parts of the world.

by rgmerk 4y ago

denton-scratch 4y ago

> clean fusion power From what I understand, practical routes to fusion all produce a lot of fast neutrons, and tritium. The neutrons make the surrounding equipment radioactive, and create toxic elements. The tritium is itself toxic, and is hard to contain. And the high neutron flux means that such a machine could easily be used to create weapons-grade plutonium, by irradiating uranium. And come decommissioning time, the reactor itself is a pile of toxic waste that will need long-term storage. I don't believe that fusion is inherently dirty; just that none of the technologies currently being investigated can be described as "clean". And they all run the risk of nuclear proliferation. IANAP.

DennisP 4y ago
These issues apply to D-T fuel, whose output energy is 80% high-energy neutrons. Helion is using D-D/D-He3, whose output would be only 6% neutrons, at lower energy. If you do the D-D reactions in specialized fuel production facilities, you could sell the He3 to anyone with an He3 power plant and they'll have zero neutron radiation to deal with or misuse. Even with D-T, the reactor waste would stop being dangerously radioactive in a few decades.
LarryMullins 4y ago
All of what you say is true. But on the plus side, you don't have the transuranic waste. Transuranic waste is the worst waste, the most dangerous and the most expensive and vital to store properly.
chasil 4y ago
One fusion approach that was recently discussed here was anetronic fusion with Hydrogen and Boron-11. Because it produces no free neutrons, it doesn't have the (small) waste problem as this laser fusion approach. This article is newer from the one that I remember. https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=30841080 https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=30841080

goodpoint 4y ago

> solar panels, wind turbines, and transmission lines is likely to be both cheaper Not to mention more practical and achievable in less wealthy countries. And safe to use in politically unstable parts of the world.