2 ms·
Fusion will not be economical in our lifetimes. Compared to fission, you've replaced an expensive and dangerous fuel with a cheap and safe fuel, and replaced an
by kibwen 2y ago
Fusion will not be economical in our lifetimes. Compared to fission, you've replaced an expensive and dangerous fuel with a cheap and safe fuel, and replaced an expensive containment vessel with the most complex machine ever engineered by mankind, that also needs to be disposable because of the absurd energies contained within.
We already have a perfectly good fusion reactor. It's about 1 AU away, and it's beaming more power to us than any Kardashev Type I civilization could ever use (and small-scale fusion will be useless to any Type II civilization anyway).
- AtlasBarfed 2y agoAs far as I understand it, no matter what kind of magic fusion device you come up with, it's going to be throwing off lots of fast neutrons which will be absorbed by the equipment generating the fusion reaction So a fusion reaction will gradually irradiate the generator that is creating the reaction. A molten salt reactor which consumes virtually all of its nuclear fuel as the closest approximation to your desire to have nuclear reactors without nuclear waste. Edit: I recall that helium 3 fusion may actually be pretty neutron free. But you got to get your hands on a lot of helium 3