Fusion, eh?

[INRM]

The one thing that bothers me about a fusion reactor is that if containment failed the thing would go up in a huge thermonuclear explosion.

If built far enough away from cities or populated areas, I'm for it. I just don't want there to be a new terrorist target on the list, and I certainly do not want to subject entire towns and cities to the risk of disappearing under a mushroom cloud

Tony L

 

[RecoveringYuppy]

No. Containment failure would mean an immediate end to the reaction in all current designs.

 

[Schneibster]

It's difficult for me to imagine a design in which a thermonuclear reaction that is usable for power generation on the surface of a planet could explode. For that matter, the reaction proposed here is p-B11, which does not produce neutrons; so there's not even any radioactive material to deal with, either in the fuel or in the products. Fusion reactors, at least as we understand them now, are far safer than fission plants.

 

[RecoveringYuppy]

Yeah. The only "designs" that seem to have any risk of runaway are the cold fusion concepts that claim that certain metals can catalyze a reaction. But you have to be awfully generous to call any of those concepts "designs".

 

[Schneibster]

Well, first, cold fusion isn't thermonuclear.

 

[RecoveringYuppy]

It probably isn't even fusion.

 

[Schneibster]

I don't think I'd quibble with that statement at this time.

 

[omegatron]

Necromancy:

1. Is North Korea onto something like this, or are they just blowing hot air out their asses as usual?
2. Bussard has died, so we'll never see a paper with his results. His team got more DoD funding to continue research, though.

The one thing that bothers me about a fusion reactor is that if containment failed the thing would go up in a huge thermonuclear explosion.

Totally wrong.

hxxp://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Fusion_power#Accident_potential

 

[Soapy Sam]

1.(b)