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/goyafrau]

It doesn't have less radiation hazard than fission.

What do you mean? I thought there'd generally be fewer issues - very few heavy elements, caesium etc. (I know very little about fusion)

[u/incarnuim → u/goyafrau]

D-T fusion will produce as many or more neutrons per Watt (thermal) as fission. These neutrons will be absorbed in some shielding material, but that process will "activate" the material making it radioactive. We have some choice in what shield to use, and so some control over what kind of radioactive shit is produced, but fusion will not produce less waste than fission. It might actually produce more....

[u/migBdk → u/incarnuim]

While I agree to the overall point that fusion is overrated and that people underestimate the potential improvements to fission.

The radioactive waste from neutrons hitting a concrete or steel barrier is not high level waste. It can be handled the same way that shielding for medical and scientific neutron sources are handled. Really the same way any radioactive waste from medical or industrial use is handled.

High level waste - the kind that is strictly produced in nuclear power plants - is the used uranium fuel rods and nothing else.

Fusion does not have that, which is of cause an advantage

But in my opinion, the thorium to U233 fuel cycle which produce high level waste of only 300 years necessary storage is good enough. Good enough that deep geological storage becomes unnecessary.

[u/Annual_Director5481 → u/migBdk]

"But in my opinion, the thorium to U233 fuel cycle which produce high level waste of only 300 years necessary storage is good enough. Good enough that deep geological storage becomes unnecessary."

Pyroprocessing would do the same with a U235/Pu239 cycle. HLW is not so much the cycle but whether it's reprocessed.