4 ms·

Sure, kid.

• panick21_ 4y ago
  Ok please tell why its so much better rather then being patronizing asshole. Lets start with some really basic economics, the most important being capital cost, fuel cost and operating cost. In terms of capital cost, a fission reactor is a far, far simpler device. Its so much simpler that its not even a comparison worth making. Fission reactors can often run for many decades without major maintenance on any of the core structures. Unless the vision of really tiny fusion reactors comes to pass, i.e. not anytime soon, this is a clear win for fission. Fuel cost is also no comparison. Fusion will require complex fuel breeding, often requiring the fusion reactor itself to breed fuel. With Fission uranium and especially thorium are almost free, thorium being a waste product of rare earth mining. Operation cost, on that we have no idea what fission will be like in practice. Seem to me containing a little Sun inside a box will lead to much higher maintenance requirements. In fusion the there is a plasma that can escape, even at far lower radioactivity. I rather life next to most GenIV fission designs. If you want to build interstellar spaceships, yes fusion is your fiend. If you want to make cheap power on earth fission will always beat fusion unless its for some dumb political reasons.
  • clouddrover 4y ago
    > Ok please tell why its so much better Fusion doesn't produce waste that's dangerous for 100,000 years: https://www.wired.co.uk/article/olkiluoto-island-finland-nuclear-waste-onkalo https://www.wired.co.uk/article/olkiluoto-island-finland-nuc... > rather then being patronizing asshole You show a remarkable lack of self awareness, kid.
    • panick21_ 4y ago
      Ok so you don't have an actual counter argument to what I said and instead you revert the tiered old 'but but but nuclear waste' nonsense argument.
      • clouddrover 4y ago
        Sure, kid.