There is no possibility of a catastrophic accident in a fusion reactor resulting in major release of radioactivity to the environment or injury to non-staff, unlike modern fission reactors. The primary reason is that nuclear fusion requires precisely controlled temperature, pressure, and magnetic field parameters to generate net energy. If the reactor were damaged, these parameters would be disrupted and the heat generation in the reactor would rapidly cease. In contrast, the fission products in a fission reactor continue to generate heat through beta-decay for several hours or even days after reactor shut-down, meaning that melting of fuel rods is possible even after the reactor has been stopped due to continued accumulation of heat.
Second because the cost of production does not suffer from diseconomies of scale:
An important aspect of fusion energy in contrast to many other energy sources is that the cost of production does not suffer from diseconomies of scale. The cost of wind energy, for example, goes up as the optimal locations are developed first, while further generators must be sited in less ideal conditions. With fusion energy, the production cost will not increase much, even if large numbers of plants are built. It has been suggested[by whom?] that even 100 times the current energy consumption of the world is possible.
I am glad 30 years ago our government scrapped the GE Nuclear reactor equipment they bough a year before the 3 Mile Island incident in 1979. Even the nuclear reactor at our Engineering School was scrapped.
Member for
21 years 8 monthsI believe for the moment the
I believe for the moment the future is on the fusion reactor, especially now after what is happening on Japan.
http://web.mit.edu/newsoffice/2010/fusion-ignition-0510.html
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Fusion_power
Frist because of Safety:
There is no possibility of a catastrophic accident in a fusion reactor resulting in major release of radioactivity to the environment or injury to non-staff, unlike modern fission reactors. The primary reason is that nuclear fusion requires precisely controlled temperature, pressure, and magnetic field parameters to generate net energy. If the reactor were damaged, these parameters would be disrupted and the heat generation in the reactor would rapidly cease. In contrast, the fission products in a fission reactor continue to generate heat through beta-decay for several hours or even days after reactor shut-down, meaning that melting of fuel rods is possible even after the reactor has been stopped due to continued accumulation of heat.
Second because the cost of production does not suffer from diseconomies of scale:
An important aspect of fusion energy in contrast to many other energy sources is that the cost of production does not suffer from diseconomies of scale. The cost of wind energy, for example, goes up as the optimal locations are developed first, while further generators must be sited in less ideal conditions. With fusion energy, the production cost will not increase much, even if large numbers of plants are built. It has been suggested[by whom?] that even 100 times the current energy consumption of the world is possible.
I am glad 30 years ago our government scrapped the GE Nuclear reactor equipment they bough a year before the 3 Mile Island incident in 1979. Even the nuclear reactor at our Engineering School was scrapped.
GO FUSION