Quote:
Originally Posted by HarryT
Fusion plants still produce radioactive waste. The entire structure of the reactor vessel becomes intensely radioactive due to neutron bombardment from the fusion reaction.
|
Pesky neutrons! (But how long is the half-life of the structure components?)
HarryT, do you know anything about liquid-metal cooled reactors? I was reading about them a few years ago. I'm still kind of skeptical of using molten metal (and a very reactive one-- sodium) as a coolant. How would we detect what was going on inside the reactor? Ultrasound?
The reason I found them interesting was that they supposedly produced less long-lived radioactive waste. But I think that's primary waste, not secondary waste (such as tools, protective gear, etc.)
I know enough about physics not to be worried about a typical nuclear reactor blowing up. But I really do worry about the waste disposal problem. As a species, we don't have a very good track record for dealing with waste sensibly or safely. I also worry that several studies have shown higher leukemia rates near nuclear power plants. It might be the case that there are comparable health issues near coal plants (it wouldn't surprise me at all), but I'm not sure that makes the nuclear plants any better.
Our energy issues will be non-trivial to solve. I'm no luddite. I like my computer and my ebook reader.
(And I like having refrigeration and other less obvious benefits of current technology, too.) But I do believe we need to seek solutions, at a high priority. It seems to me that we ought to be able to maintain a reasonable standard of living for everyone without using nearly as much energy as we currently do.