>>>Fusion via D-T reactions (the easiest known to man to be able to implement) are real nasty in that everything in the reactor vessel will be hot. This is solely due to the neutrons from the reaction activating all the materials within the fusion chamber. D-D, which is the second easiest to do and the one we are involved with as amateurs, would be equally dirty in a full power station scenario.<<<
I for one would like to see a much more detailed discussion of these issues, though I'm not sure if this is the proper forum. It seems to me these are the sort of issues I was trying to introduce in the "Fusion Powered Future" area, which has been rather dormant of late.
What I'm trying to fathom is where I/we came up with the idea that fusion was a potentially "clean" source of energy. I understand from talking with Richard that the half-life of fusion byproducts is substantially less than those produced by fission, but if we've still got "tons" of radio-active effluent to deal with, then why bother?
What I'd really like to see is a precise estimate of whatever we're talking about here. Suppose we develop a fusion powered generating station on the order of, say, a San Onofre Nuclear plant? How much lethal garbage are we really talking about producing, and how are we going to contend with it.
This, as much as any thread on this BBS, is critical. If, in fact, fusion is just as "dirty" as fission, then we're never gonna sell it to the tree-huggers.
--PS
Created on Wednesday, March 21, 2001 6:37 PM EDT by The Perfesser