3 ms·
Excellent insight and perspective. >2) Commercially viable fusion energy. Will change a lot of things. How would that be any better than commercially viable f
by ETH_start 3y ago
Excellent insight and perspective.
>2) Commercially viable fusion energy. Will change a lot of things.
How would that be any better than commercially viable fission breeder reactors (which seem far closer to reality than commercially viable fusion energy)?
- XorNot 3y agoMostly public perception (annoyingly): people are still going to have a go at being anti-nuclear about it, but building a fusion power reactor is going to have a lot more public cultural cachet to draw upon then fission. We've got a generation of science fiction who's core message is "fusion power solved all the problems". Though there are genuine advantages: for as radioactive as the interior of a fusion reactor may get, if you cut power it'll just sit there safely doing nothing. No decay heat, no potential isotopes to leak - maybe a puff of tritium gas - but that's it. It is a technology that has a perfect control loop for safety because it can't self-sustain at all.
- ETH_start 3y agoThanks for the explanation. I think there should be a bigger effort to change public perception about nuclear fission reactors if we're on the cusp of what is effectively the equivalent of the dream of endless fusion energy in the latest generation fission breeder reactors.
- anticensor 3y agoContolled fusion may give way to real alchemy (think synthesising water and steel just from hydrogen atoms).