4 ms·

^ -intact- fission nuclear power plant ^ should ^ might ^ dramatically greater engineering constraints than fission reactors ^ (if you exclude engineering and m

by jpxxx 14y ago

^ -intact- fission nuclear power plant ^ should ^ might ^ dramatically greater engineering constraints than fission reactors ^ (if you exclude engineering and manufacturing and plant construction costs) Sorry for the highlighter attack, but fusion still means building extraordinarily complex and expensive reactors that are going to have one hell of a carbon footprint and shed tons of radioactive waste in normal operation. Let's roll it back to "potentially cleaner in some key ways".

deleted 14y ago
[deleted]
InclinedPlane 14y ago
This is just plain FUD with no backing in reality. Let me make it as clear as possible. Fusion energy is fundamentally safer and cleaner than fission energy, period. Firstly, it is simply not physically possible for fusion energy to generate even a tenth as much of the radioactive waste as an equivalent fission power plant. Secondly, it is not possible to have a dangerous power excursion at a fusion plant. When a fusion plant malfunctions it doesn't experience a runaway reaction, it stops working. If a fusion plant experiences some sort of catastrophic structural failure everything stops. This is in stark contrast to fission reactors which can undergo continued fission chain-reactions even if, and perhaps especially if, the reactor vessel is disrupted and the fuel melts down and also produce fission byproduct isotopes which continue to generate enough heat after the fission reactions have stopped to melt the reactor core if it is not continuously cooled. Also, there is little evidence that the construction of a fusion reactor would entail a higher energy-usage footprint than a fission reactor, and the lack of a need for massive reinforced concrete structures in a fusion reactor tends to argue that the footprint would be rather less. Let's roll it forward back to: undoubtedly cleaner if it can be made to work.
- jpxxx 14y ago
  I hear how passionate you are on this issue and I understand the enthusiasm. I'm not here to strangle the baby in the cradle. But my concerns are real. Granted: Fusion energy is a conceptually simpler process that is virtually impossible to runaway by its very nature. That alone is a massive plus any way you look at it. Granted: the total bulk volume of radioactive waste products is dramatically lessened. Granted: the radionuclides created by a fusion reactor are likely to be less problematic than those from a fission reactor. My points: There is still radioactive waste: magnetic confinement reactor liners will handle so much corrosive flux they'll essentially be disposable and replaced frequently - possibly on the order of weeks or months. Same (but lessened) story for inertial confinement reactor liners and the metallic waste products. Those have to go somewhere safe. They're not small. Same story for the electrical generation system. Regardless of the final reactor type, it's still going to involve managing heat-exchange fluids with neutron exposure. Then there's the environmental + carbon load from building a reactor complex, which is not going to be quantifiable until there are working reactor designs and working fuel flows and a working understanding of how much staffing and security and land and ancillary support is needed. NIMBY is going to be just as strong for fusion as it is for fission, and that's going to mean compromises. Then there's going to be the cost of purifying the fuel source, which won't be negligible when it literally involves boiling the seas. Then packaging it. Then shipping it. Then handling the waste products. Then planning for the plant's functional lifetime, which won't be forever. The conceptual clarity of fusion is wonderful and I fully support the research, but the execution is going to be quite a bit less sexy and come with some well-known downsides.

by jpxxx 14y ago

deleted 14y ago

[deleted]

InclinedPlane 14y ago

This is just plain FUD with no backing in reality. Let me make it as clear as possible. Fusion energy is fundamentally safer and cleaner than fission energy, period. Firstly, it is simply not physically possible for fusion energy to generate even a tenth as much of the radioactive waste as an equivalent fission power plant. Secondly, it is not possible to have a dangerous power excursion at a fusion plant. When a fusion plant malfunctions it doesn't experience a runaway reaction, it stops working. If a fusion plant experiences some sort of catastrophic structural failure everything stops. This is in stark contrast to fission reactors which can undergo continued fission chain-reactions even if, and perhaps especially if, the reactor vessel is disrupted and the fuel melts down and also produce fission byproduct isotopes which continue to generate enough heat after the fission reactions have stopped to melt the reactor core if it is not continuously cooled. Also, there is little evidence that the construction of a fusion reactor would entail a higher energy-usage footprint than a fission reactor, and the lack of a need for massive reinforced concrete structures in a fusion reactor tends to argue that the footprint would be rather less. Let's roll it forward back to: undoubtedly cleaner if it can be made to work.

jpxxx 14y ago
I hear how passionate you are on this issue and I understand the enthusiasm. I'm not here to strangle the baby in the cradle. But my concerns are real. Granted: Fusion energy is a conceptually simpler process that is virtually impossible to runaway by its very nature. That alone is a massive plus any way you look at it. Granted: the total bulk volume of radioactive waste products is dramatically lessened. Granted: the radionuclides created by a fusion reactor are likely to be less problematic than those from a fission reactor. My points: There is still radioactive waste: magnetic confinement reactor liners will handle so much corrosive flux they'll essentially be disposable and replaced frequently - possibly on the order of weeks or months. Same (but lessened) story for inertial confinement reactor liners and the metallic waste products. Those have to go somewhere safe. They're not small. Same story for the electrical generation system. Regardless of the final reactor type, it's still going to involve managing heat-exchange fluids with neutron exposure. Then there's the environmental + carbon load from building a reactor complex, which is not going to be quantifiable until there are working reactor designs and working fuel flows and a working understanding of how much staffing and security and land and ancillary support is needed. NIMBY is going to be just as strong for fusion as it is for fission, and that's going to mean compromises. Then there's going to be the cost of purifying the fuel source, which won't be negligible when it literally involves boiling the seas. Then packaging it. Then shipping it. Then handling the waste products. Then planning for the plant's functional lifetime, which won't be forever. The conceptual clarity of fusion is wonderful and I fully support the research, but the execution is going to be quite a bit less sexy and come with some well-known downsides.