✺roguetrick✺

Nuke subs are a bad example for looking at waste because they use higher enriched uranium. And that creates big casks of depleted uranium hexafluoride that we just have no idea what to do with other than sitting them in fields and hoping they don’t leak.

I don’t think it’s worth abandoning fusion research. I just think we’re much farther than popsci ever portrays and I have serious problems with the no waste framing.

It’s not particularly long but it’s very much in Superfund abandonment territory when you look at the economics of that “recycling” of low grade radioactive waste. I mean look at how much higher the cost per target is in this presentation alone for internal confinement is based on their kilowatt hours with recycling included. And that’s not including the reprocessing and production costs of targets or the fact that rapid target replacement will just frankly break as high energy neutrons and ablation screw up internals.

It’s not a quote, just a reality for non-existent blanket recycling technology and dealing with neutron energies that far exceed anything fission produces in slow neutron reactors and the large amounts of waste created from spallation and tritium handling.

https://iopscience.iop.org/article/10.1088/1741-4326/ac62f7/pdf

without leaving behind hazardous waste

By volume blanket reprocessing and neutron activated vessel components create more hazardous waste than fission could dream of (not including the nightmare of on site fuel reprocessing for breeders that are similarly pie in the sky)

I don’t agree. The prices will rise across the board no matter where you site the memory or if it’s in a gaming computer or otherwise. Renting will always be more expensive than owning because competitors must recoup the capital cost of buying and make margin at the same time.