[crazygringo]

> I feel that fusion is one of humanity's best shots at actively reversing climate change

Couldn't the same thing be said about current fission reactors?

I get that fusion doesn't have the downsides of fission... but I'm also worried that people will be "scared" of fusion in the same way they're against GMO vegetables and irradiated fruits, totally irrationally...

[phscguy]

Sadly no. While I think that it would work and probably be cheaper and easier than fusion, fission has an absolutely abysmal public image.

People are terrified of radiation, even if the danger is very low. This means it becomes prohibitively difficult and hence expensive to build and run a fission plant because safety has to be prioritized so heavily. That is even if permission is granted to build in the first place.

I think it is unlikely for irrational fear of fusion to become mainstream like it has with fission.

Because of this I think the barriers to fusion power are at this point lower than the barriers to scaling up fission power.

[nickik]

Fusion also produces radiation. So not sure why changing one word to the other should magically change public opinion.

We can just rename fission to #goodenergy or something, that would be cheaper then developing fusion.

People don't even know that nuclear reactors use fission, so the idea that this would change anything is crazy. People opposed will call fusion reactors 'nuclear' just like they do fission.

[zaarn]

Fusion Radiation is only immediate, ie, only in the area where the reactor is. And it can be contained with comparatively little effort, even put to use to breed Tritium for more Fusion fuel.

If a Fusion reactor blows up, the radiation risk is basically 0, aside from the lack of potential melt downs.

[phscguy]

The amount of long lived radioactive material produced by fusion reactors is many orders of magnitude less than fission. Iirc it's about the same amount of the radioactivity released as burning coal in a coal plant of the same power output.

[lambdatronics]

Yeah, I don't have much hope that the general public will understand the nuances here, especially if the greenies decide to mount a PR campaign against it. OTOH, we can call it "fusion" instead of "nuclear fusion" and that will undoubtedly help. (lol)

Fusion does indeed come with radiological hazards: a fire could release radioactive gas and dust. If designed right, the worst-case scenario would still be way less severe than for a fission plant -- and the worst-case scenario is really what stokes all the popular fears about 'nuclear'. OTOH, tritium leakage could mean that routine emissions are larger.

[krageon]

> even if the danger is very low

The day-to-day danger perhaps, but it's kind of hilarious in a sad way to read this right after fukushima spent god knows how long leaking radioactive shit into the ocean.

[phscguy]

Yeah. It's these low probability events that scare people away from fission. Fossil fuel pollution kills millions of people per year. Like more than 5 million. How many has nuclear power killed in 60 years? Probably less than 100,000 as a conservative estimate. Events like Chernobyl and Fukushima are sensational and radiation is a sexy topic. People dieing of lung cancer from air carcinogens produced by coal burning is not.

[ncmncm]

There is no need worry about that. Extreme high cost will suffice. It could never come within 10x fission cost. You might notice people are not breaking down doors to build fission plants.