Viewing a single comment thread. View all comments

n_choose_k t1_ir7g4dg wrote

Reply to comment by just1monkey in Many scientists see fusion as the future of energy – and they're betting big. by filosoful

Impossible to sabotage. As soon as the containment field is compromised the reaction fizzles out.

8

just1monkey t1_ir7gqge wrote

So basically the only possible states are:

  • On and safely contained; or

  • Off and incapable of harm?

That almost sounds too good to be true, but pretty exciting if it is! I think I’d need to understand it better - the last time I remember reading about it is some old article that disappointingly concluded that cold fusion was impossible.

1

n_choose_k t1_ir7h0wy wrote

Oh, there might be some risks from contaminated materials that need to be contained, but it's not going to make a big boom and spread fallout. Also, this is hot fusion. Cold fusion is still doubtful...

5

just1monkey t1_ir7hcm4 wrote

Haha yeah I was just reading the article and seeing the extensive security measures, including the giant concrete barriers that are intended to stop like neutrons from flying everywhere and destroying us all.

Also seems like still at energy loss in the process, and I’d be leery of any energy efficiency that could be gained by sacrificing safety measures.

Oh well. :(

0

dewafelbakkers t1_iraflov wrote

>stop like neutrons from flying everywhere and destroying us all.

What the hell are you talking about

1

just1monkey t1_irailbb wrote

The relevant links are probably scattershot throughout the comments to the post, but here’s the most recent research paper that I’d found talking about it.

Here’s another article, somewhat older and using more impassioned(-ish) language, though easier to follow for folks like me.

1

dewafelbakkers t1_irampwc wrote

Your language sounds like you think one fusion reactor without shielding will result in neutron escaping and killing everyone is some kind of apocalyptic scenario. Neutrons do not work like that lol

2

just1monkey t1_irapr3v wrote

Ha, no, I also mentioned elsewhere that I really like the ITER shutoff design that allows for multiple different circuit-breakers to basically turn the whole thing off for any number of more dangerous scenarios.

What I’m mostly worried about, for immobile energy sources that can be “weaponized” (used broadly to mean being harm to others), is:

  • The ability for a small group of coordinated bad actors with the right knowledge to weaponize it, in this case presumably by somehow keeping the reaction and tritium replenishment (or equivalent) going despite the mechanisms in place to prevent that. I consider this a more likely scenario than people might realize, because my view is that the tech to “hack” any defensive tech structure exists simultaneously with the creation of that defensive tech structure, effectively converting all of those scenarios into like these condottieri-style waiting games with only one ultimate absorption point: the defender slips up and fails to maintain all the necessary resources to defend against hacking attackers. I do think that an inside job is more likely to succeed for sabotage.

  • The fact that this neutron radiation is deadly to humans, and also eats away at the very structures that are designed to keep it safely isolated. That’s like putting deadly acid in a jar and hoping that you’re still going to be around later to replace it. And what weirds me out is that all the formal safety/risk papers don’t even mention the fact that the neutron radiation from the fusion reaction itself can be weaponized, instead focusing only on like uranium production or whatever to make bombs (in what they categorize as like three different ways, that sound to me like Sneaky Mode 1, Sneaky Mode 2, Grunt Rush).

  • If there’s even a possibility that it can be weaponized, then people need to consider strategic defensive and war-related crap, too. And I’m going to guess that’s going to mean a lot of annoying-as-fuck games of chicken and wasteful positioning. Also, my guess is that it’s going to be rare that “best for us in terms of energy infrastructure” is going to perfectly line up with “best for us if we’re fighting,” which means that whatever we do won’t be optimal, and at worst, we’ll just be missing two birds with one stone.

Haha, and yeah, I did hit the high hyperbole note with the “doom for all” rhetoric - you’re right about that and I don’t have any good excuses for that bit!

1