undefined | Better HN

0 pointsnickik4y ago0 comments

Very questionable if a fusion reactor is safer then a common molten salt fission reactor. I would argue that is far less likely to 'explode'.

And you can burn up the waste majority of that waste, the leftover waste after that would not really a huge issue.

Both of these are far more political problems then actual real problems a society based on modern fission would have.

0 comments

Symmetry4y ago

The problem with fission reactors in general is that after you stop the chain reaction you've still got a tenth or so of the power output you had when it was on from decay heat for a while and you need a reliable way to get rid of that heat even in the event of a disaster. With fusion the nice thing is that the new heat stops appearing as soon as the reaction stops.

nickikOP4y ago

Yes and that is far easier to do then containing a fusion reaction.

There are known well understood engineering solution that have been known since the 70s and that work fine.

The real danger is the high pressure that PWR are under and the chemical instability of the elements that were put together in those designs.

Reactors that are not under pressure and do not have chemical instability that lead to explosive cases have a very contained area of effect even in a worst case.

j / k navigate · click thread line to collapse