Replying to Nobody

Fusion is certainly safer in terms of production. But, the process is far more time consuming and it has a higher potential to be cost-ineffective. Fission energy (as extremely dangerous as it is) has the potential to swiftly generate a massive amount of clean energy.
Avatar
Low Information Voter 1y ago

This. And hybrids.

Fusion is nowhere near economic break-even and I suspect never will be, but using high-energy fusion neutrons to fission the nuisance U238 / Pu240 in fission fuel is all kinds of win.

Reply to this note

Please Login to reply.

Discussion

3b
Nobody 1y ago

In terms of supply, when dealing with fusion neutrons, how significant would it need to be to generate a reaction of that scale?

Avatar
Low Information Voter 1y ago

It would be sweet to get 1:10 fusion:fission, burn-up would be a completely different game; but even 1:10000 allows the designer to remove the external neutron sources and improve the responsiveness of the reactor.

China is where it's at on innovation. Would have sounded ridiculous to say that 20 years ago, but here we are...

3b
Nobody 1y ago

Really?! Just 1:10000?! If that is true, then yea, it would be the best option. What about he-3?

Avatar
Low Information Voter 1y ago

Despite its use as a plot device in scifi, IRL He-3 is a neutron poison :(

3b
Nobody 1y ago

Lol. Yea, probably.

Avatar
🦄Onigirl🐹🐉 1y ago

There was a breakthrough not to long ago! To have nuclear fissure consume less then it took. I haven't followed it but if it comes to fruition we can see substantial lower cost in electricity