> only needs hydrogen atoms for fuel rather than rare and dangerous elements like uranium and plutonium
hydrogen isn’t exactly the safest element. not that any element is truly safe if used in the wrong way.
hydrogen isn’t exactly the safest element. not that any element is truly safe if used in the wrong way.
most elements are safe if you handle them properly. that assumes nothing outside of your control. and no one.
Where did he push tritium?
Is the word tritium in the article? (Chrome can't find it.)
Is hydrogen more common than uranium?
Is hydrogen more common than plutonium?
What quote demonstrates "accuse", as in, "they had the nerve to accuse"?
These are honest questions, I hope you don't take offense.
Full disclosure: I live in Cambridge, MA, where MIT is located.
Deuterium and Tritium are the fuels, they have to be. There are lots of other pathways, but they all require even higher temperatures/pressure than D-T, and we can't really sustain even D-T for any useful length of time.
Unfortunately, as we don't have any commercially viable fusion reactors yet, we can't even guess if we can afford to make T in the future.
If you didn't know this you need to pay much more attention to them. IMO, they are the least dubious of all the fusion efforts at reaching a practical reactor, and that includes the DT efforts.
Helion is also going to produce prodigious amounts of excess tritium if their scheme works, which is good news for others trying the DT path (although how they compete against a workable advanced fuel reactor is not clear.)
Why would anyone make a plan to use it as a fuel without a plan to generate it? They don't. You breed it in the blanket that collects the energy. The energy balance is quite positive.
https://www.tecaccessories.com/collections/tritium-isotope-f...