Future fusion vs future fission

Drakkith

Yes, it is known that fusion via D-T in a Tokamak produces radioactive waste. However a fusion reactor is still FAR safer than a fission one. There is literally zero chance of a meltdown or other catastrophe on a similar scale. There is no chance of proliferation and waste disposal doesn't have to plan ahead on the order of thousands of years like fission.

Fission reactors are generally seen as much cleaner and safer than fossil fuel plants, and if fusion is even better than fission, then it is a very attractive power source if we can get it to work.

Enthalpy

By you maybe, but this doesn't mean "generally"!
And not everyone is willing to accept the "nuke or hydrocarbon" story. Geothermy, thermal solar, wind... all are usable and nearly cheap as of now.
Uranium is a fossil energy.

As for long-lived radioactive waste at fusion reactors, I'm confident there will be, and enough to be a worry. Just simulate it properly, you'll certainly find some.

And for proliferation: plenty of tritum in it!

Drakkith

While I'm sure it's arguable, as everything is, I have never heard or seen differently from anyone who knows much about nuclear power. It is *usually* people who have little knowledge of nuclear power that have problems with it. At least in my limited experience.

All of those have their own problems to deal with, both in use and in manufacturing. And uranium is not a fossil energy to my knowledge.

Of course there will be enough to be a worry. Just not the same as we worry about current nuclear waste. Also, there is not enough tritium inside the reactor at one time to do anything with and, as far as I know, it will not be stored anywhere, instead it being burnt soon after production. And even then, tritium by itself is useless. You can't make a thermonuclear warhead with just tritium-deuterium alone, you need a regular nuke to provide the required compression and energy.

Ryan_m_b

This thread is not about which energy to use, it is about the potential advantages of nuclear fusion over nuclear fission, especially in light of the proposed GIV reactors
No it is not. Fossil fuels are, by definition, created by the decomposition of buried organisms.
Where is the evidence for this claim? Cite please. As far as I'm aware a nuclear fusion reactor would not produce radioactive waste though the inside of the reactor would be mildly radioactive for a century or so.
I'm not sure that plenty is the right word. There is far more uranium and it is far easier to enrich and convert into a nuclear weapon.

Enthalpy

http://www.physicsforums.com/showthr...33#post3353633

Ryan_m_b

So a small amount of short lived radioactive waste for which could be adequately dealt with with existing waste disposal schemes. I'm not seeing any problem with this. The benefits more than outweigh the risks.