Fusion reactors don't have the waste fuel problem of fission reactors, they don't create plutonium at all, and a fusion reactor is not remotely weaponizable. The result of d-t fusion is helium, not plutonium.Progress is good but fusion reactors pose many of the same problems as before.
So we are not there yet.
These neutron streams, which is what fusion reactors rely on, lead directly to four regrettable problems with nuclear energy: radiation damage to structures; radioactive waste; the need for biological shielding; and the potential for the production of weapons-grade plutonium 239—thus adding to the threat of nuclear weapons proliferation, not lessening it, as fusion proponents would have it.
In addition, if fusion reactors are indeed feasible—as assumed here—they would share some of the other serious problems that plague fission reactors, including tritium release, daunting coolant demands, and high operating costs. There will also be additional drawbacks that are unique to fusion devices: the use of a fuel (tritium) that is not found in nature and must be replenished by the reactor itself; and unavoidable on-site power drains that drastically reduce the electric power available for sale.
Some disagree.Fusion reactors don't have the waste fuel problem of fission reactors, they don't create plutonium at all, and a fusion reactor is not remotely weaponizable. The result of d-t fusion is helium, not plutonium.
LOL, you cut and pasted shit and presented them as your own words, and just handed me the goddamned proof. That's amazing. Just brazen plagiarizing.Some disagree.
Fusion reactors: Not what they’re cracked up to be
Fusion reactors: Not what they’re cracked up to be
Long touted as the “perfect” energy source, fusion reactors share many drawbacks with fission—and even add a few new ones of their own.thebulletin.org
Sorry you disagree with Daniel Jassby who was a principal research physicist at the Princeton Plasma Physics Lab until 1999. For 25 years he worked in areas of plasma physics and neutron production related to fusion energy research and development. He holds a PhD in astrophysical sciences from Princeton University.LOL, you cut and pasted shit and presented them as your own words, and just handed me the goddamned proof. That's amazing. Just brazen plagiarizing.
So, disagree about what? Nuclear physics? This isn't a matter of opinion. A fusion reactor doesn't produce plutonium unless you design it to do that. Your dumb straw man article waves this off as trivial, tries to give the impression you can just drop a box of uranium into the reactor and create plutonium. That's bullshit. Producing weapons-grade material is a challenging process and any nation capable of doing so inside a fusion reactor is already a nation capable of producing nuclear weapons whenever it wants.
The neutron radiation in a fusion reactor is nowhere near the level of the radioactive waste produced by a fission reactor. That's just objectively true.
Fusion is challenging and not perfect? No shit, sherlock. Wonderful contribution. Magic isn't real, I'm sorry you had to be taught this.
Gambling debts?Sorry you disagree with Daniel Jassby who was a principal research physicist at the Princeton Plasma Physics Lab until 1999. For 25 years he worked in areas of plasma physics and neutron production related to fusion energy research and development. He holds a PhD in astrophysical sciences from Princeton University.
I doubt if you know more about the subject than he does.
I am objectively correct that a fusion reactor doesn't produce plutonium unless you design it to do that. He did not disagree with that point.Sorry you disagree with Daniel Jassby who was a principal research physicist at the Princeton Plasma Physics Lab until 1999. For 25 years he worked in areas of plasma physics and neutron production related to fusion energy research and development. He holds a PhD in astrophysical sciences from Princeton University.
I doubt if you know more about the subject than he does.
Simple what he stated.I am objectively correct that a fusion reactor doesn't produce plutonium unless you design it to do that. He did not disagree with that point.
I am further objectively correct that a nation capable of designing a functional fusion reactor that produces plutonium is already capable of building nuclear weapons. He did not disagree with that point.
I am also objectively correct that the volume of radioactive material involved in a fission reactor is far higher. He did not disagree with that point.
So, what claim are you making, specifically?
That article was from 5 years ago, and is obsolete to a large extentSome disagree.
Fusion reactors: Not what they’re cracked up to be
Fusion reactors: Not what they’re cracked up to be
Long touted as the “perfect” energy source, fusion reactors share many drawbacks with fission—and even add a few new ones of their own.thebulletin.org
Also, anucleonic fusion doesn't have the neutron radition (that would be hydrogen-boron fusion). There are advances on that front too. It might not happen, but if it does, the output would be a protons, and the energy can be captured with a magnetic field, so no radiation, and no need for turbinesLOL, you cut and pasted shit and presented them as your own words, and just handed me the goddamned proof. That's amazing. Just brazen plagiarizing.
So, disagree about what? Nuclear physics? This isn't a matter of opinion. A fusion reactor doesn't produce plutonium unless you design it to do that. Your dumb straw man article waves this off as trivial, tries to give the impression you can just drop a box of uranium into the reactor and create plutonium. That's bullshit. Producing weapons-grade material is a challenging process and any nation capable of doing so inside a fusion reactor is already a nation capable of producing nuclear weapons whenever it wants.
The neutron radiation in a fusion reactor is nowhere near the level of the radioactive waste produced by a fission reactor. That's just objectively true.
Fusion is challenging and not perfect? No shit, sherlock. Wonderful contribution. Magic isn't real, I'm sorry you had to be taught this.
My (limited) understanding is that deuterium-tritium fusion is the lowest hanging fruit, so to speak, due to the lower amount of force required to get fusion to occur, so achieving an energy-positive reaction is easier.Also, anucleonic fusion doesn't have the neutron radition (that would be hydrogen-boron fusion). There are advances on that front too. It might not happen, but if it does, the output would be a protons, and the energy can be captured with a magnetic field, so no radiation, and no need for turbines
Fusion articles like this comes out once a month, telling us that its just around the corner. Well, the world has been waiting for about 50 years now... and we're still waiting.
Whoopee, all of five seconds. Image the reaction if Edison announced he had managed to make a light bulb work for five seconds.
You know plutonium is an entirely synthetic element, don't you?These neutron streams, which is what fusion reactors rely on, lead directly to four regrettable problems with nuclear energy: radiation damage to structures; radioactive waste; the need for biological shielding; and the potential for the production of weapons-grade plutonium 239—thus adding to the threat of nuclear weapons proliferation, not lessening it, as fusion proponents would have it.
We use cookies and similar technologies for the following purposes:
Do you accept cookies and these technologies?
We use cookies and similar technologies for the following purposes:
Do you accept cookies and these technologies?