undefined

points

[-]

My question is more about the safety of locating one smack in the middle of a city. There is radiation to shield but no radioactive fuel waste. HOWEVER, worn reactor parts that need to be replaced will be piping hot when measured with a Geiger counter. So is it safe to build and operate in the middle of e.g. NYC?

And further, if they are safe, what is the public's perception of fusion? Do people hear "nuclear fusion" and immediately think nuclear disaster imagery brought about by incidents like Three Mile Island and Chernobyl?

by hunterpayne12 hours ago|

parent|

[-]

"My question is more about the safety of locating one smack in the middle of a city. "

We don't put any other type of powerplant in a city, so why would we do it for fusion? That being said, fusion won't happen in our lifetimes and even when we do get it, we probably will never really use it. Fission is just better in almost every way. It makes 5x the power per amount of fuel, it makes far less neutrons, and the temperature generated is far more usable. Oh, and fusion absolutely makes radioactive waste and a fusion failure makes a meltdown (which doesn't have to be a failure case for fission) look like a Sunday picnic.

by DennisP14 hours ago|

parent|

prev|

[-]

Judging by the comments I see most places, the general public's perception of fusion is "magical scifi tech that will never happen."

by hunterpayne12 hours ago|

parent|

[-]

That's because it almost certainly is. Don't hate on the messengers.

by DennisP10 hours ago|

parent|

[-]

My point is, that's a pretty positive view of fusion. They think it's too good to be true, but if it actually happens then I doubt many people will suddenly switch into thinking it's a dirty old explodey thing like fission's public image.