this post was submitted on 27 Jun 2024
651 points (69.5% liked)

Memes

45297 readers
2036 users here now

Rules:

  1. Be civil and nice.
  2. Try not to excessively repost, as a rule of thumb, wait at least 2 months to do it if you have to.

founded 5 years ago
MODERATORS
 
you are viewing a single comment's thread
view the rest of the comments
[–] elfahor@lemmy.blahaj.zone 59 points 3 months ago (18 children)

There are two main problems in my opinion, and they are both related to the "fuel". First, uranium is rare and you often need to buy it from other countries. For instance, Russia. Not great. Second, it is not renewable energy. We can't rely on nuclear fission in the long run. Then there's also the issue of waste, which despite not being as critical as some argue, is still a problem to consider

[–] someacnt_@lemmy.world 0 points 3 months ago (3 children)

That's why we need fusion, which will use a lot of the same tech.

[–] Tlaloc_Temporal@lemmy.ca 1 points 3 months ago (2 children)

I don't think it will. The large cost of a reactor will probably be shared, but fission plants don't deal with plasma, magnets, hydrogen/helium storage, lasers, or capacitors. And we don't even know the method by which a practical fusion plant will operate!

[–] someacnt_@lemmy.world 1 points 3 months ago (1 children)

I am talking in the sense that the same companies are participating in fusion research, and pretty sure the methods you mentioned are utilized somewhat in nuclear plants. Like handling and filtering radioactive materials.

[–] Tlaloc_Temporal@lemmy.ca 1 points 3 months ago

Radioactive waste maybe. Fusion plants are likely to create irradiated parts that degrade quickly, similar to fission plants. Fusion fuel on the other hand, is gaseous, and likes to escape. Hydrogen is explosive, while helium-3 is just expensive.

load more comments (14 replies)