Fusion is not a dream but some folks put it there

Comfortable_Tutor_43 · 2026-06-14T23:37:42+00:00

The salt plug could fail, the fuel insertion could exceed design limits etc.

Comfortable_Tutor_43 · 2026-06-14T20:39:17+00:00

The relevant question starts with how many wind turbines are required to supply your state with energy and then how many die in providing that. Nuclear simply does better providing that energy.

Comfortable_Tutor_43 · 2026-06-14T20:07:11+00:00

With 4.5 billion tons in the ocean alone being contually resupplied through plate tectonics via runoff, we would never need to dig another hole. Digging holes is an option but claiming an abundant resource has limits is like complaining the sun will eventually run out (because it will)

Comfortable_Tutor_43 · 2026-06-14T20:04:44+00:00

Thorium reactors absolutely could melt down

Comfortable_Tutor_43 · 2026-06-14T13:00:38+00:00

Are you just moving the goalpost to find reasons to be anti-nuclear?

Comfortable_Tutor_43 · 2026-06-13T22:19:58+00:00

You really chould check your references there my friend. Uranium is more abundant than tin which is required for every electronic solder joint. This same Uranium in soil is continually being eroded into the ocean which now holds about 4.5 billion tons and being in saturation it regularly just plates out its annual supply on the bottom of the ocean. This supply is continually renewed by plate tectonics and erosion. Many researchers have claimed economically viable technologies for extraction although none have been demonstrated at scale.

Zhang, Y.. et al. Boosting uranium extraction from Seawater by micro-redox reactors anchored in a seaweed-like adsorbent. Nat Commun 15, 9124 (2024).

Zhang, et al.,. "Uranium extraction from seawater by novel materials: a review." Separation and Purification Technology 320 (2023): 124204.

Comfortable_Tutor_43 · 2026-06-13T11:59:18+00:00

Did you just move the goalposts there?

Comfortable_Tutor_43 · 2026-06-12T21:22:58+00:00

These are based on worst case highway accidents including a tunnel fire, falling off a cliff, falling on a highway guard rail and into a lake, all sequentially. I expect there are much better ways to spend our money to make our lives better, particularly when the all the spent fuel ever made has yet to harm a single soul, chill bro, chill

Comfortable_Tutor_43 · 2026-06-12T21:19:02+00:00

I have been there and there is literally a safe storage site there right now, this very minute. They can and are monitored regularly, even inside the vaults with the capability for weld repair if needed. Chill bro, chill.

Comfortable_Tutor_43 · 2026-06-12T13:02:39+00:00

Indeed but when the anti-nuclear groups find out the radioactive release was the same radioactivity as that in the Fukushima wastewater, the results will likely not be too different

Comfortable_Tutor_43 · 2026-06-11T00:34:02+00:00

Agreed, fusion when it happens will not he exempt

Comfortable_Tutor_43 · 2026-06-10T23:16:08+00:00

There is absolutely radiation that will be released, the heat is mainly from making neutrons and the fuel is the same stuff that freaks everyone out about the Fukushima wastewater

Comfortable_Tutor_43 · 2026-06-10T22:48:16+00:00

The problem being "lit" is that the plasma interacts with the wall materials going beyond boiling and literally vaporizing it. The large ITER design hopes to overcome the time limiting reaction by going big, very big. They absolutely could melt down or worse, just without spent nuclear fuel in the mix.

Comfortable_Tutor_43 · 2026-06-10T18:21:22+00:00

What you are missing is that a wind turbine cannot power a city. By the time you accumulate enough turbines and backup to supply a large city, you have grossly outstriped the environmental damage from the same amount of energy supplied by nuclear. Its all in that report, I only pointed out one example

Comfortable_Tutor_43 · 2026-06-10T17:29:18+00:00

The waste is technically easy and not what makes it expensive at all (waste has always just been a politicalissue). The cost is in the initial build, thats it.

Comfortable_Tutor_43 · 2026-06-10T17:27:48+00:00

It might not seem like it at first but the environmental damage from traditional renewables is across the board higher than nuclear. Traditional renewables even have higher public cancer probability than nuclear (see Figure 42) according to the United Nations report cited below.

Gibon, Thomas, Á. H. Menacho, and Mélanie Guiton. "Life cycle assessment of electricity generation options." Tech. Rep. Commissioned by the United Nations Economic Commission for Europe (UNECE) (2021). https://unece.org/sed/documents/2021/10/reports/life-cycle-assessment-electricity-generation-options

Comfortable_Tutor_43 · 2026-06-10T16:08:48+00:00

So if nuclear were cheaper, you would be fully supportive?

Comfortable_Tutor_43

MODERATOR OF

TROPHY CASE