Fusion devices are not "nuclear fusion reactors"
Posted: Thu Jul 22, 2021 9:43 pm
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...
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...