3 ms·

I totally agree with you, but now I'm wondering what the upside to fusion is over fission, besides being a great science landmark. No radioactive inputs or outp

I totally agree with you, but now I'm wondering what the upside to fusion is over fission, besides being a great science landmark. No radioactive inputs or outputs?

arethuza 13y ago
I guess availability of fuel is one big advantage, along with the cleanup of a fusion plant hopefully being a lot easier and cheaper than a fission reactor: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Fusion_power#Waste_management http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Fusion_power#Waste_management A lot safer too!
- vinceguidry 13y ago
  Isn't the primary cost of fission complying with safety regs? In that case, a safer design would directly translate to lower costs.
  - arethuza 13y ago
    According to Wikipedia the cost of electricity from modern nuclear stations is roughly comparable with sources like coal - which surprised me: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Cost_of_electricity_by_source http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Cost_of_electricity_by_source What I don't know is how much of the cost of nuclear power is the much higher level of safety precautions they need. I haven't seen any projected costs for DEMO which might well be the first fusion power plant (DEMO is the proposed successor to ITER): http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/DEMO http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/DEMO
    - coliveira 13y ago
      > the cost of electricity from modern nuclear stations is roughly comparable with sources like coal It has to be, otherwise nobody would be using nuclear power plants...
ufmace 13y ago
Stuff like no possibility of meltdowns, no direct long-lived radioactive waste, plus cheap and abundant fuel. Fusion reactions can only be self-sustaining at incredibly high temperatures and pressures. If the containment mechanism loses power, the reaction stops. Unlike fission reactions, at least as used in current reactors, which have the potential to keep on going unless we do something active to stop them. Yeah, the modern, well-designed ones have lots of designed-in safeguards against this, void coefficients and all, but it's still safer still to be running fusion. Hydrogen and it's isotopes in, with other isotopes or helium out is better than assorted radioactive heavy metal isotopes with relatively long half-lives. The only possibility for dangerous waste from a fusion reactor is any transmutation that takes place in reactor components from the neutron flux. Seems likely to be better, but I don't think anybody has really investigated what this part will look like in a running fusion reactor with reaction rates high enough for commercial power production.

I totally agree with you, but now I'm wondering what the upside to fusion is over fission, besides being a great science landmark. No radioactive inputs or outputs?

arethuza 13y ago

I guess availability of fuel is one big advantage, along with the cleanup of a fusion plant hopefully being a lot easier and cheaper than a fission reactor: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Fusion_power#Waste_management http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Fusion_power#Waste_management A lot safer too!

vinceguidry 13y ago
Isn't the primary cost of fission complying with safety regs? In that case, a safer design would directly translate to lower costs.
- arethuza 13y ago
  According to Wikipedia the cost of electricity from modern nuclear stations is roughly comparable with sources like coal - which surprised me: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Cost_of_electricity_by_source http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Cost_of_electricity_by_source What I don't know is how much of the cost of nuclear power is the much higher level of safety precautions they need. I haven't seen any projected costs for DEMO which might well be the first fusion power plant (DEMO is the proposed successor to ITER): http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/DEMO http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/DEMO
  - coliveira 13y ago
    > the cost of electricity from modern nuclear stations is roughly comparable with sources like coal It has to be, otherwise nobody would be using nuclear power plants...

ufmace 13y ago

Stuff like no possibility of meltdowns, no direct long-lived radioactive waste, plus cheap and abundant fuel. Fusion reactions can only be self-sustaining at incredibly high temperatures and pressures. If the containment mechanism loses power, the reaction stops. Unlike fission reactions, at least as used in current reactors, which have the potential to keep on going unless we do something active to stop them. Yeah, the modern, well-designed ones have lots of designed-in safeguards against this, void coefficients and all, but it's still safer still to be running fusion. Hydrogen and it's isotopes in, with other isotopes or helium out is better than assorted radioactive heavy metal isotopes with relatively long half-lives. The only possibility for dangerous waste from a fusion reactor is any transmutation that takes place in reactor components from the neutron flux. Seems likely to be better, but I don't think anybody has really investigated what this part will look like in a running fusion reactor with reaction rates high enough for commercial power production.