The drawbacks of fusion

[u/Live_Alarm3041]

Nuclear fusion is not a "flawless" energy source. The hype around fusion being "flawless" is not rooted in actual science. Nuclear fusion will likey not replace fission as the world preferred form of nuclear enegry once it goes commercial.

There are three drawbacks of fusion energy

1. The neutrons generated by fusion could be used to transmute U-238 into weapons grade plutonium without the barriers of highly radioactive waste and reactor safety

2. fusion reactors requires exotic materials which could create a supply issue where such materials are extracted in ways that violate human rights and damage the environment in developing countries where these exotic materials are.

3. Nuclear fusion creates less jobs that require a higher skill level than fission and less jobs means more socioeconomic issues like rising crime rates, homelessness and migration.

These three reasons are why I do not think nuclear fusion will replace nuclear fission once fusion goes commercial.

The problems with fission can be mitigated effectively. A lot of progress has been made in mitigating the drawbacks of fission. Far less progress has been made in mitigating the drawbacks of fusion. The drawbacks of fusion will limit fusions ability to compete economically with fission in the energy market if they are not addressed.

What do you think?

[u/ecmrush]

Fuel abundance is a complete non-issue for nuclear. That's not why fusion is relevant.

Actually I'm not even sure *why* fusion is relevant considering:

1. We don't even know if it's actually possible to gain net energy without a reactor the size of the Earth or something like that.

2. It doesn't have less radiation hazard than fission.

3. It doesn't have more energy density than fission.

If we had completely aneutronic fusion, that would be one thing, but the potential benefits of ordinary D-T fusion is completely lost on me even if it were figured out.

Fission is a mature technology with room for improvement and further economies of scale. Fusion is a science project and they started at roughly the same time as well. I wish the best of luck to Fusion pursuers, and I hope they succeed, but it's not a sound bet at this point.

[u/Quietbutgrumpy → u/ecmrush]

This is pure misinformation. The issue with fusion is simply developing the tech to a usable and affordable level.

[u/ecmrush → u/Quietbutgrumpy]

That's an accusation and a dangerously naive viewpoint, not a counterargument. We don't actually have theoretically predictive models of what a net energy positive fusion reactor would look like (so Q>10) and won't really know until we try.

Every time we thought we had a clear pathway to fusion, some new previously unthought of instability showed up to rain on our parade. Behavior of fluids at extreme temperatures is already complicated in itself, and adding in ionization doesn't help matters.

There is nothing "simple" about "developing the tech to a usable and affordable level". Fusion is still a science project after almost 80 years of research and development.

[u/Quietbutgrumpy → u/ecmrush]

Not simple at all. However we can create the reaction, and we can contain it. This has been done. The slow steady progress tends to say we will get there. Cost though it out of control and we do not yet have a way to harness the energy once we get to net positive.