I don't yet understand why this is better than Fission. Surely Fission provides us with unlimited carbon free energy (given enough fissionable material).
What will Fusion give us that Fission can't already? Is it safer perhaps?
What will Fusion give us that Fission can't already? Is it safer perhaps?
Certainly, fusion does have the big advantage that it makes far fewer Curies of radioactive material per kWh as it operates. That has been the main driver of nuclear fission safety and waste issues.
On the other hand, there are good arguments suggesting that conventional fission has been reasonably good at containing and controlling the radiation, such that it's among the safest and cleanest forms of energy known already. But the PR issue is a hard one, and people don't think like actuaries.
That being said, fission is already pretty darn safe. But the public perception of it is not good.
> Surely Fission provides us with unlimited carbon free energy (given enough fissionable material).
The crux of the problem is, there is a limited supply of fissionable material. If we manage to survive as a species, our energy demand will continue to grow, and one day we would meet a hard cap, limiting what humanity as a species, is able to do.
As a very very rough estimate, if we burnt through all the fissionable material that we have available on earth, it would be about enough energy to launch the mass of Mt. Everest into orbit. Long term (as in, many generations from now) we will need more energy than that.
Realistically, today, it's only better because of decades of lobbying and propaganda for fear mongering around fission. There is no reason why nuclear energy couldn't be the vast majority producer of all electricity in the world while massively lowering environmental damage and loss of human life.
Long term, fusion might be better because it can produce a lot more energy and be safer. I feel like the safety improvement is negligible however compared to modern fission reactors that are properly maintained and governed.
Since you brought up lobbying, it's fascinating to me how many nuclear power fans the industry has created who are not informed by data and facts but are utterly convinced that nuclear power is the solution to all our energy issues.
> attackers can even create more destruction and chaos by initiating a meltdown
This is not a feasible thing to do with modern reactor designs, and the same danger is present for infrastructure like dams or even just a big building.
> not informed by data and facts
Said by the person who's repeating misinformation
The cost btw is even higher than most people think considering that energy companies aren't paying for most of it but tax payers do. Some not even born yet. But even without factoring in those future costs, as you suggested we do, nuclear power in its current form is among the most expensive forms of power production. Again, look at the data, not energy company propaganda: