IllegalPaladin said:
Soleron said:
I'd like to point out that using the term "nuclear" like that refers only to nuclear fission. Nuclear fusion, generating power by combining light atoms, generates minimal radiation*, has a higher potential energy output than fission, has zero risk of "meltdown" (any failure would only affect the building itself), is cheap once set up, is clean and is renewable (uses hydrogen as fuel).
*The products aren't radioactive. The fuel is, but only weakly so and will obviously be used up in the process. The fuel only has a short half-life of 12 years, so there isn't a storage problem. |
Just that to get fusion, we would have to get the gas at hot as a star. I don't believe we can sustain that kind of heat at the moment.
|
I know. ITER is promising though. I just wanted to differentiate between nuclear fission and fusion so we don't get the kind of misinformed opposition that led to Greenpeace condemning it in the future.
