Mihai
Full Member
- Joined
- Dec 11, 2013
- Messages
- 4,621
Take a look at this article below, granted it's from 2017, but it's actual at the moment:Please carry on. I am interested.
https://thebulletin.org/2017/04/fusion-reactors-not-what-theyre-cracked-up-to-be/
A solution to this would be to have aneutronic fusion, like proton-boron, but it requires a lot more temperature and pressure to fuse.But unlike what happens in solar fusion—which uses ordinary hydrogen—Earth-bound fusion reactors that burn neutron-rich isotopes have byproducts that are anything but harmless: Energetic neutron streams comprise 80 percent of the fusion energy output of deuterium-tritium reactions and 35 percent of deuterium-deuterium reactions.
Now, an energy source consisting of 80 percent energetic neutron streams may be the perfect neutron source, but it’s truly bizarre that it would ever be hailed as the ideal electrical energy source. In fact, these neutron streams lead directly to four regrettable problems with nuclear energy: radiation damage to structures; radioactive waste; the need for biological shielding; and the potential for the production of weapons-grade plutonium 239—thus adding to the threat of nuclear weapons proliferation, not lessening it, as fusion proponents would have it.
In addition, if fusion reactors are indeed feasible—as assumed here—they would share some of the other serious problems that plague fission reactors, including tritium release, daunting coolant demands, and high operating costs. There will also be additional drawbacks that are unique to fusion devices: the use of a fuel (tritium) that is not found in nature and must be replenished by the reactor itself; and unavoidable on-site power drains that drastically reduce the electric power available for sale.
The article below is about the TAE Technologies, who plan on developing proton-boron fusion reactor.
Add to that the severe underfunding and the public fear of anything that contains "nuclear" in it.