Fusion devices are not "nuclear fusion reactors"

Point out news stories, on the net or in mainstream media, related to polywell fusion.

Moderators: tonybarry, MSimon

Post Reply
Skipjack
Posts: 6805
Joined: Sun Sep 28, 2008 2:29 pm

Fusion devices are not "nuclear fusion reactors"

Post by Skipjack »

This is an interesting thing I have stumbled upon today:
The Fusion Industry Association and the NRC are making a move to not label fusion devices "reactors".
Instead the words "accelerators" or "generators" are to be used for them.
For one that is because the NRC has pretty strict rules for what defines a "reactor". So from their POV fusion devices were never reactors anyway.
And the FIA is very happy to follow suit, since it means that they can argue for less strict regulations to be applied to fusion generators than are currently applied to fission reactors.
At the same time, it seems that at least some FIA members want to get rid of the word "nuclear" as well to further position themselves away from fission.
It is another sign of the impending commercialization of fusion. Fission is notoriously over regulated. Falling into the same regulatory trap would severely harm fusions prospect at a quick market penetration. And of course public acceptance is another big factor in that.
The general public associates the words "nuclear" and "reactor" with fission and the members of the FIA seem to want to distance themselves more and more from that.

Personally, I am not 100% sure how I feel about all that.
For one, we call a lot of things "reactors" that are not even regulated by the NRC, like bioreactors for example.
The other question is whether it really makes that big of a difference to the general public? I think that even the least informed people have heard the terms "fusion reactor" and "nuclear fusion" a few times in their lives (every other science fiction movie...)
Of course it also means that ITER is named wrong ;)
It will certainly take me some time to get used to the new terminology (old dogs..., you know).

What I do find interesting is that fusion has obviously come far enough that things like these are becoming an area of concern rather than just physics and engineering issues. A few years ago, all we worried about were neutron counts and triple products and issues like labeling and marketing seemed like a thing for the distant future...

Giorgio
Posts: 3061
Joined: Wed Oct 07, 2009 6:15 pm
Location: China, Italy

Re: Fusion devices are not "nuclear fusion reactors"

Post by Giorgio »

I think that is not a bad move. To the average person "Fusion Generator" will sounds pretty harmless.
A society of dogmas is a dead society.

Skipjack
Posts: 6805
Joined: Sun Sep 28, 2008 2:29 pm

Re: Fusion devices are not "nuclear fusion reactors"

Post by Skipjack »

I mean, it can't hurt to do it.
It feels weird to me to not say "fusion reactor" or "nuclear fusion" anymore after almost 40 years of talking about that topic.

Giorgio
Posts: 3061
Joined: Wed Oct 07, 2009 6:15 pm
Location: China, Italy

Re: Fusion devices are not "nuclear fusion reactors"

Post by Giorgio »

After all the hatred and disinformation that media spread in the last years on anything that has to do with the word nuclear, it makes sense that now they need to start to clean the ground to prepare the average person to accept this new tech.
It will be fun the day that I will discuss fusion reactors with someone just to be corrected that is a "generator" and not a "reactor"! :mrgreen:
But at least it will make it more easy to quickly understand the level of competence and understanding of future interlocutors.

Old Romans used to say "veritas filia temporis"(truth is the daughter of time) and I think it fits well in this occasion.
A society of dogmas is a dead society.

billh
Posts: 18
Joined: Thu Mar 18, 2010 2:14 pm
Location: Houston, TX

Re: Fusion devices are not "nuclear fusion reactors"

Post by billh »

As a chemical engineer, I would say we run into this all the time. Reactors are a common piece of equipment in chemical plants. It just means a vessel in which a chemical reaction takes place. But for the general public, "reactor" means "nuclear" and "nuclear" means "Chernobyl". People quickly accept the difference when I explain, but I think it won't be so easy when you start talking about building a "fusion reactor" in their neighborhood. I'm not sure anybody will really be fooled, so to speak, if you call it a fusion generator, but it can't hurt.

Skipjack
Posts: 6805
Joined: Sun Sep 28, 2008 2:29 pm

Re: Fusion devices are not "nuclear fusion reactors"

Post by Skipjack »

Yes, it will be interesting to see how that plays out in the end. I too think that it can not hurt with the public perception. The most important part, though is the way the NRC views future fusion power plants from a regulatory POV. Particle accelerators and other nuclear equipment that are not classified as "reactors" by the NRC have a much easier time getting licensed and certified, etc.
The NRC is very specific about what constitutes a "reactor":
The heart of a nuclear power plant or nonpower reactor, in which nuclear fission may be initiated and controlled in a self-sustaining chain reaction to generate energy or produce useful radiation.
Since fusion generators (generally) do not do nuclear fission, nor have a self sustaining chain reaction, they should not qualify.
Though I do wonder whether at least the first part could apply to PB11 fusion devices, since technically they produce a highly excited Carbon12 as an intermediate product that then immediately fissions into 3 Alpha particles. The other criteria of a "self sustaining chain reaction" is still not met. So they still would not qualify as "reactors", or so I guess/hope anyway. Will be interesting to see how the NRC will act once the first fusion operators are looking for commercial licenses. Hope politics does not get in the way. That is another potential problem. Greenpeace has already started lobbying against fusion. They see the writing on the wall...

ltgbrown
Posts: 198
Joined: Mon Jun 22, 2009 11:15 am
Location: Belgium

Re: Fusion devices are not "nuclear fusion reactors"

Post by ltgbrown »

Greenpeace has already started lobbying against fusion.

Why in the world would they be against fusion?

I agree there will be a sector that feels threatened by fusion power and therefore will try to use the stigma attached to the word "reactor" to undermine the speedy transition. So, it is maybe worth the try to avoid that label from the beginning. Not sure it will work though. In the end, people will have to be taught the difference and accept that fusion (in particular PB11 based) is an absolute necessity if we are overcome human induced climate change.
Famous last words, "Hey, watch this!"

Giorgio
Posts: 3061
Joined: Wed Oct 07, 2009 6:15 pm
Location: China, Italy

Re: Fusion devices are not "nuclear fusion reactors"

Post by Giorgio »

Since several decades there is little difference in Greepeace dogmatic environmentalism attitude and religious fundamentalism.

I stopped supporting them since 1987 when they used the general hysteria of Chernobyl accident to push (and win) a referendum in Italy that forced the closure of the country Nuclear power plan.
We are still paying the economic and political costs of that silly decision.
A society of dogmas is a dead society.

RERT
Posts: 271
Joined: Mon Jun 02, 2014 9:10 pm

Re: Fusion devices are not "nuclear fusion reactors"

Post by RERT »

Try ‘Confessions of a Greenpeace Dropout’. Not a great work of unbiassed literature, but an interesting peek at the start of Greenpeace from an insider, and how it got nuts.

Also the quote from Paul Erlich of Stanford: “Giving society cheap, abundant energy would be the equivalent of giving an idiot child a machine gun”.

I assume the logic us that more energy means more consumption.

I see no doubt that environmentalists will go after fusion.

mvanwink5
Posts: 2143
Joined: Wed Jul 01, 2009 5:07 am
Location: N.C. Mountains

Re: Fusion devices are not "nuclear fusion reactors"

Post by mvanwink5 »

Green Peace has been usurped by politics, it is not about the environment. They are highly selective on who they go after.
Counting the days to commercial fusion. It is not that long now.

RERT
Posts: 271
Joined: Mon Jun 02, 2014 9:10 pm

Re: Fusion devices are not "nuclear fusion reactors"

Post by RERT »

Depressing but consistent: everything else is weaponized, why not Greenpeace.

Can you cite any examples on the 'who-not-what' idea?

Skipjack
Posts: 6805
Joined: Sun Sep 28, 2008 2:29 pm

Re: Fusion devices are not "nuclear fusion reactors"

Post by Skipjack »

https://publications.parliament.uk/pa/c ... 64ap06.htm

Greenpeace is a piece of spinach shit.

mvanwink5
Posts: 2143
Joined: Wed Jul 01, 2009 5:07 am
Location: N.C. Mountains

Re: Fusion devices are not "nuclear fusion reactors"

Post by mvanwink5 »

Chinese (mainland) fishing fleets are ravaging the coral reefs off the west coast of Africa, drag netting the reefs, nothing discarded. Any action from Green Peace? Nada. GP never goes after Red China, yet they are the worst.
Counting the days to commercial fusion. It is not that long now.

kurt9
Posts: 588
Joined: Mon Oct 15, 2007 4:14 pm
Location: Portland, Oregon, USA

Re: Fusion devices are not "nuclear fusion reactors"

Post by kurt9 »

Its typical leftist greenie idiocy.

Post Reply