Is fusion capable of replacing all our energy systems?
If it works, is it the energy miracle humanity needs?
If it works, is it the energy miracle humanity needs?
Same can be said for fission, but it only powers 5% of the world due to what can be called complications (even though many scientists insist that it's safe and responsible).
Fusion is expected to have fewer complications, but we won't know until we scale up a fleet of fusion power plants and understand all the nuance.
How's that for an answer?
> Same can be said for fission, but it only powers 5% of the world due to what can be called complications
But weren't these complications obvious before deciding to scale up fission power plants?
The ones I know about:
- Radioactive waste
- Risk of failure
- Unavoidable EOL
> It is not clear that the public will accept an energy source that produces this much radioactivity and that can be subject to diversion of material for bombs.
However, the nuclear fission industry has arguably shown that it can technically manage radioactive wastes without undue harm to the populace. Fission plants have killed up to 4000 people while producing 5% of the world's energy. Fossil kills 4.2M people/year at 84% total energy. The math suggests that nuclear fission has been highly successful. But the public largely still doesn't like it.
Fusion indeed has a better going-in position. Potential complications involve how hard/complex/expensive it is to realize the engineering challenges.
Aneutronic fusion plants, like fossil plants, will likely also have an EOL from a thermal creep, corrosion, cracking, etc. POV. Normal fusion plants will definitely have a EOL from neutron doses to structural materials.
https://www.nwmo.ca/en/A-Safe-Approach/Facilities/Deep-Geolo...
If the waste was 500m below ground in a designed deep geologic repository I wouldn't feel that much safer (because I already feel totally safe from the dry casks). But it would be at least a little more out of reach for terrorists and whatnot so from that perspective, yeah I'd prefer if it was underground.
I would gladly put my house and raise my family directly on top of a deep geologic nuclear waste repository. This really isn't reckless. I have a Geiger counter. I know what levels of radiation are safe. I know the risks. It's exceedingly low. I am far more worried about hamburgers.
> Fossil kills 4.2M people/year
Where does this number come from?
That number comes from the WHO: https://www.who.int/airpollution/ambient/health-impacts/en/
That's really sad.
2. No, because we already have fission reactors. How many miracles do we need?
Right, but humanity won't scale up fission to power everything.
I have heard of efforts in India and China to develop and build out nuclear fission plants, though I do not know the scale of these plans. However, even ITER (the largest fusion project right now) has a budget of only $10-20 billion. I have high hopes for ITER, but even that has been protested by anti-nuclear organizations such as Greenpeace. I worry that fusion, despite its many advantages, may be stalled or stopped in the same way fission has been. If we cannot solve this issue with a currently-available zero-emission power source, I just cannot see how a new one based on the same principles can succeed.