Technically many of the issues with fusion might be solvable.
However, I see no reason what so ever why fusion would ever be cheaper then a GenIV fission reactor. I guess the advantage fusion has is that states actually invest serious money in fusion while fission is struggling to get funding.
The reason why I think fission will remain cheaper.
- Capital cost is less. A GenIV fission reactor is pretty low tech overall, in a non water based reactor the containment is mostly just a steel tub. Everything around the reactor, the heat loops, the turbine and so on will be mostly the same.
- Fuel cost. Fuel cost is already a small part of reactor cost, if we switch to a breeder the fuel cost is basically nothing. For Fusion, in the long term this is an issue and you likely have to breed new tritium.
- Operation cost. Seems to me that self regulating GenIV reactor should be easier to operate overall and there is much less complex technology involved that could break.
- Safty. A GenIV reactor that is passivly safe is already incredibly safe. Specially with a molten salt reactor, the radioactive chemical that get blown into the air, will just remain in the fuel salt and will remain in the reactor safety zone. A fusion reactor does actually contain radioactive material that could be dispersed into the air. A fusion reactor might still be safer, but the difference doesn't seem that big.
So really I don't get it, why would fusion ever be cheaper then fission?
That said, I'm not against research of fusion. I just wish more money was spent on actually getting GenIV fission reactors into real world uses. That would actually be a more viable solution to energy problems on the plant.
However, I see no reason what so ever why fusion would ever be cheaper then a GenIV fission reactor. I guess the advantage fusion has is that states actually invest serious money in fusion while fission is struggling to get funding.
The reason why I think fission will remain cheaper.
- Capital cost is less. A GenIV fission reactor is pretty low tech overall, in a non water based reactor the containment is mostly just a steel tub. Everything around the reactor, the heat loops, the turbine and so on will be mostly the same.
- Fuel cost. Fuel cost is already a small part of reactor cost, if we switch to a breeder the fuel cost is basically nothing. For Fusion, in the long term this is an issue and you likely have to breed new tritium.
- Operation cost. Seems to me that self regulating GenIV reactor should be easier to operate overall and there is much less complex technology involved that could break.
- Safty. A GenIV reactor that is passivly safe is already incredibly safe. Specially with a molten salt reactor, the radioactive chemical that get blown into the air, will just remain in the fuel salt and will remain in the reactor safety zone. A fusion reactor does actually contain radioactive material that could be dispersed into the air. A fusion reactor might still be safer, but the difference doesn't seem that big.
So really I don't get it, why would fusion ever be cheaper then fission?
That said, I'm not against research of fusion. I just wish more money was spent on actually getting GenIV fission reactors into real world uses. That would actually be a more viable solution to energy problems on the plant.