You are viewing a single comment's thread from:
RE: A: What are the advantages and disadvantages of nuclear fusion compared to renewable sources?
Interesting post.
But the most important thing to remember, @samve and I had a discussion about this awhile back, is that until we have a "safe" and stable place for all of the isotopes left over post nuclear reactions for them to live out a happy half-life, that we should consider alternatives to nuclear power.
Right now, no such place exists making nuclear power actually one of the the least clean forms of energy. Thus 40,000 years from now, will we even be here to curate the waste?
Or will the plants and animals of the land and sea inherit the leftovers from our nuclear experiments?
Cool article.
That was indeed an interesting discussion! Here is a very interesting video about "SKB" I found recently. A company that handles Swedens nuclear waste. They have a great pilot project about permanent storage of this type of waste. Might be interesting to visualize the possible future of nuclear energy.
Awesome... glad my "call out" worked! I'll check the vid out. Thanks for sharing this knowledge!
I liked the comment about the fracture zones being "extremely old". Nothing to worry about then.
Those are only "old" fractures. Sounds stable! A decent sounding plan, nevertheless and slick production. 3 barriers sound good too.
That is the main drawback of nuclear fission yes. But because we are currently battling climate change which appears on a much smaller time scale then the nuclear waste problem, nuclear fission is considered a "clean power source" in terms of greenhouse gasses. In comparison the tritium used in nuclear fusion has a half-life of only 12 years, which is basically nothing.
Good discussion. I just watched the video from Sweden above and seems like an ok solution with a challenging problem.
Agreed the climate change and nuclear waste are both problems. One is global, the other is local. Well clearly as long is there are no major accidents that would put radiation into the atmosphere.
12 years is a long time if systems do not work 100% of the time. The checks and balances in place one day, may not exist the next. But agreed this is a shorter time scale. Interesting conversation!
Well compared to plutonium with 40k years I think 12 years is much better, but I see your point.