Startup company says it is one step closer to creating nuclear fusion

Re:Startup company says it is one step closer to creating nu... by delecti on Wednesday September 27, 2017 @07:03PM (#15353154)

Fusion has a huge political benefit in not being the same thing as fission. Fission isn't perfect, but it's way better than you'd think if you only looked at what we invest in. If it can be spun as a separate thing from Chernobyl/Three Mile Island/Fukushima then it might fare closer to what it should from a purely objective standpoint.

[ Parent | on HN ]

Re:Startup company says it is one step closer to creating nu... by Fnoord on Wednesday September 27, 2017 @08:02PM (#15353443)

I learned during an energy project at elementary school (begin '90) a hypothetical nuclear fusion reactor would be a prime target for military action more so than fission. Tho I forgot the exact details on why, I suppose the reactor is easier damaged, whereas a fission reactor is much more difficult to cause a fallout with. Can anyone confirm that's true or false?

[ Parent | on HN ]

Re:Startup company says it is one step closer to creating nu... by cygx on Thursday September 28, 2017 @01:17AM (#15354827)

It's the other way around:

If a fission reactor is insuffciently cooled (due do the cooling system getting destroyed by attack or natural causes, cf the Fukushima Daiichi nuclear disaster), the reaction will continue, the core can melt and breach containment.

If a (plasma-based) fusion reactor gets damaged, the plasma will dissipate and the reaction will stop.

[ Parent | on HN ]