On the Fusion Energy Front.... Key Success...

Perry_3

You are right, definetely several kinds of engineering out there. I very easy could have been a researcher (I also contributed to the UW Astronomy Program when I was a student).

Oh, and playing with explosive metal forming and explosive welding is definetely more fun than Mentos in a Coke bottle.

Now if anyone wants to fund me to the tune of $300,000+ there are several neat things that could be introduced to the market Mfr'd with explosive technology. I even did the market research on one item. The market is there. The other item - People pay preimium prices for a better product - and entire companies exist in that market selling on an order of a million units a year. Easy market to penitrate once the research is done on the precise technique needed to explosively weld a couple metals.


The next big project that I wanted to get involved with after helping fabricate the HSX and the pumping/eddy chamber (like I drew the blueprints for that one) - and intended to tranfer from a contract fabricator to a construction and maintenance engineer (and be on staff) was the planned superconductor magnetic storage ring for electrical storage; to be built about 40 miles north of Madison (and 7 miles north of my home town).

Unfortunately, the project got cancled when some dificulties were found with producing the superconductive coils.

Perhaps someday it will come back.

Perry

Perry_3

On the Fusion Energy Front.... Key Success...

For the first time Mankind has achived a key stepping stone on the way to fusion power production: The ability to contain a high energy plasma field (without it blowing out).

Here is the link....

http://www.madison.com/wsj/mad/top/index.php?ntid=126454

What is really cool is that I helped build this machine. I was part of the team that did the explosive metal forming to fabricate the twisty curvy containment vessel.

So it works; now it needs to be scaled up to create an actual fusion event; and I don't remember if this machine was designed for that or not (or can be modified).

It took them about a decade to get this far with the machine.

The other part of a fusion power plant is how would you remove the heat fast enough to prevent the fusion contaiment vessel from melting. This machine design is the first machine built that is capable of that - in theory; but was not actually built to do that.

I helped build another research vessel to study the pumping characteristics and eddy properties of liquid sodium with the target of it being the coolent for a fusion reactor (and perhaps the next generation HSX machine). They have learned a lot - but have not yet progressed to the stage of desigining a fusion reactor coolant system. Note that was a more conventional shapped item - and we did not use explosive forming (which is a lot of fun).

To give a timeline: From conception of the idea, getting grants, building the machine, to the first concrete results of the HSX machine was about 20 years.

The next generation machine - small laboratory scale fusion reactor with coolant is probably at least another 20 years away.

Then scaleup to a small comercial unit; 20 years, then a medium comercial unit; 15 years, and finally a power plant sized unit; 15 years.

Fusion power is a long way away; but we are working on it.

I note that a multi-billion dollar project is underway in France to build a machine that might be able to achieve and sustain a fusion reaction (but it's design may not be coolable from a power production standpoint).

Perry

Brad White_9

Wow.

Heady stuff, Perry.
There are engineers and ENGINEERS. You are clearly in the latter category.... It feels great to be a part of something big like that. Explosive metal forming.... sounds more fun than stamping metal in a die... :P

Paul Fredricks_3

But...

...not quite as much fun as Mentos in a bottle of Diet Coke, maybe a close 2nd.

On my 120th birthday I'll celebrate the first Fusion power plant. Hopefully, since the technology advancement curve is getting steeper all the time, I might be able to celebrate on my 110th. I'll think of you then Perry, if I can remember anything at that point.

Steve Ebels_3

Perry

I think it's painfully obvious that the timetable you gave is not going to "cut it". What if anything do you see that could accelerate the process? Or are there just too many technical challenges to overcome.

Barbarossa

Investing in the future

Here is another link http://www.llnl.gov/nif/icf/icf.html to a project we worked on for Fusion Energy by Inertial Confinement. Although it has some weapons overtones you might find it of interest on the subject. I agree the time line for any commercial applications is certainly out there in time but we need to do it for our children’s sake.

Weezbo

the reasearch is an ever ongoing expenditure...

a friend of mine has burnt the last ten years of his life at it , at Least. in the 60's The Tokamak experiments were something that i entertained the idea of spending my life and efforts.... i think that many inventions and research is hampered by various entities within just about every corner of the work.

Uni R_2

Fusion and children?

I think that there are enough kids in the world with radiation related birth defects as it is. Unless fusion can completely eliminate nuclear waste, while simutaneously having zero chances of operational radiation leaks, whether accidental or through deliberate acts, I'm opposed to it.

Look at the history of "civilization". We're a bunch of self-serving primates that frequently have complete breakdowns in maintaining any semblence of civility. I'm sure that during every major period of stability and prosperity, the people thought things would stay the same or even improve. We'll be killing each other en masses for various resources in the not too distant future - let's not be na

Weezbo

*~/:)

ALH_4

Nuclear

It's not as if every technology we use for generating heat does not have its side-effects. Though nuclear energy certainly has some fairly scary side-effects. I watched a documentary on Chernobyl a while back that made no statement of whether nuclear energy was good or bad. It simply showed the effects of that disaster. That area is still not safe, probably never will be, and the quick fix they used to contain it is in danger of collapse. Who among us wants to risk their life to properly contain that site if a plane was ready to take us there today?

Fusion would certainly be a major advancement over fission. Though I have very little understanding of the exact processes, I am glad to hear that progress is being made.

Solar energy is not the answer, wind energy is not the answer, hydroelectric energy is not the answer, nuclear energy is not the answer, ethanol is not the answer. But group it all together with conservation, and we might have an answer. Conservation is the foundation upon which all alternative energy solutions stand.

Barbarossa

The sky can't fall

The chicken dance is an eloquent reply from those of us who try to build what we dream to those who would depend on the good will of others for survival. The only ones who believe in world peace have been watching Miss America pageants too long; anyway, fusion processes do not generate long half-life radioactive byproducts. The choice is, war over the remaining oil or progress into energy independence even though it might not have a boiler feed pump on it.

ALH_4

byproducts

What are the byproducts of fusion?

bob_50

Fusion

It seems to me that mother nature gave us a fusion reactor. In her wisdom she located it exactly just far enough away so that it's safe. IMHO we just aren't taking advantage of it.

Barbarossa

End products

The most promising fusion reaction would be the deuterium tritium reaction, which has at its end products helium and a neutron which would be captured on a lithium blanket to make more tritium and the tritium burned again as fuel. There will be some incidental irradiation of the machine itself which would be hot but not like the plutonium in the fuel rods of fission units of today with there half-life’s of 210,000 plus years and potential for other uses.

Perry_3

A few more links for those who want more information:

A bit more information:

First: A good summary article on what the HSX did that no one else has yet done.

http://thefraserdomain.typepad.com/energy/2007/03/helically_symme.html

Note the comments that relate to Cold Fusion: Cold fusion work continues - albet at a slow pace with minimal to modest funding. The reason for that is that no one has really proved it works yet in repeatable experiments.

Several years ago the US DOE gathered a high level group of physisist who had no involvment in Cold Fusion and let the Cold Fusion people present all of their information and current research results in a week long seminar. The panel of physisist concluded that their was no evidence of repeatable experiments with results that make sense (for example - real cold fusion would have a fair amount of radiation that would be apparent); however, there were hints that their might be something there.

Thus, no major increase in US funding - and just enough to let several universities continue research on the area, with a full understanding of what kind of repeatable evidence would be needed for an increase in funding.

Second: The UW Madison's web page on the HSX:

http://www.hsx.wisc.edu/

Page down on it if you don't see the cool picture. The links have lots of information. The support equipment for this machine fills several floors of an entire building wing.

Perry

Perry_3

How to speed up the process...

If we work with techniques that we currently understand the simple theory on ..... The technological challanges are imense and will take a long time to solve and study each step. 50-100 years is not unreasonable for power plant sized fusion units based on the past progress (I think they have been studying contained fusion for at least 40 years).

However, if someone discovers something totally new related to plasma physics or fusion - then those new discoveries could substaintially speed things up. This is one reason that so many experiements are funded in the high temperature high density plasma physics and fusion research. It is hoped that someone will indeed find something new that will shorten the process.

Perry

Perry_3

Hmmmm

You are free to belive in what you want. I do wonder how much you know about this radioactive world we live in:

Here is a simple primer on genearl radiation exposure:

http://www.uic.com.au/ral.htm


Here is also a fairly good Wikepeadia article on Background Radiation. While I admit that Wikepeadia can have some problems at times - everything I see in this article matches a number of papers I have read. Please not the contribution of coal fired power plants. Note that black oil (the residue from refining) power plants have a similar effect.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Background_radiation

Finaly, an area that both sites missed is the radiation from air travel. Frequent Flyers and AirCrew get more radiation on average than nuclear plant workers. Some are proposing that they be clasified as "Radiation Workers" under US regulations.

http://www.ivanhoe.com/science/story/2005/09/54a.html

Google "radiation flying" for a lot more information.

I maintain that chemical polution and unsafe drugs cause far more birth defects (remember thalydimide - which is only one of dozens of such drugs in the world that caused massive problems; but only thalydimide made it to the US by FDA screaning). Japan has seen several order's of magnitude higher birth defects by heavy metal poisining (primarily mercury) than they had by being atom bombed.

To avoid radiation to the best of your ability; avoid modern medicne, avoid stone, concrete, or brick in a house, and move to a low background radiation area of the world - and no flying. Also, we should shut down all coal fired and black oil power plants in the world.

People can point to Chernobyle as a radiological disaster (and not the only one that Russia has had); but it's reactor was not in a containment building - which is why 3 Mile Island was not a similar radiation disaster.

While solar power is available... There is a problem storing it. On average, the normal solar panel has about 8 hours of production a day - with 5 peak hours of production. That is for an area that never sees clouds. Here in the Midwest we have cloud cover about 1/3 of the time. Do we resort to a life where we have minimal electrical use?

Solar is very expensive to build too. Just the solar cells are like 22 times the cost of normal power plant (wiht nuclear plants being cheaper than normal power plants). I have seen two different studies recently that conclude that it would take more concrete and steel to build the foundations and supports for 1 Giga Watt (GW) (1000 MW) of solar than it takes to build a 1 GW nuclear power plant, and a lot more wire to connect them. So, if you are worried about how much resources and the impact of resource use for each technology has on the enviroment -- solar is not so green either (and the chemical waste from the production of solar cells is really quite large as well).

Note that I have heard that there are studies ongoing on how many resources that Wind power takes to build as well - and the initial leaks of data seems to suggest that again it takes more steel, concrete, and wire for 1 GW of wind power than 1 GW of nuclear.

No technology is perfect. In a few places in the US solar makes some since. In a few places Wind power makes some sense as well. However, for concentrated power plant type generation - nuclear is a highly effective technology with little technological risk - compared to many other technologies and processes.

Perry

Perry_3

On a scale of things...

Fusion waste will be much more mild and decay much more rapidely than the worst fision byproducts. Much easier to dispose of from a radiation standpoint.

The reactor and equipment arround it are likely to become radioactive. I suspect on par with the current Boiling Water Power Reactors.

Perry

Mike T., Swampeast MO

Not trying to be a "negative Nancy", but I've been hearing that fusion energy is about 50 years away for all of my life. Many "breakthroughs" have been announced but they ALL conclude that we need a lot more time and a LOT more public money.

Hundreds of millions if not tens of billions of government dollars have already been spent for this "pet" alternative energy project that keeps entire University departments and private research programs alive. "Fusion" seems to suck up nearly ALL of the available $$$ with other "alternative energy" projects almost completely ignored.

The Wire Nut

... but with a major difference...

... the half-life (IIRC) of the fusion-related byproducts can be measure in years, not centuries. That makes disposal a lot cheaper.

Uni R_3

Wind is actually solar powered FYI...

As for the rest of your condescending diatribe... comparing the nuclear industry to the pharmaceutical industry seems fitting.

Just because I prefer not to embrace the risks associated with nuclear power, please don't assume that I'm ignorant about radiation.

Perry_3

The facts are much different than that myth

Oil and natural combustion processes recieve the largest government subsidy since 1950.

From a link below:

"The conventional wisdom that the oil industry has been the major beneficiary of federal financial largess is correct. Oil accounted for nearly half ($302 billion) of all federal support between 1950 and 2003."

As indicated below natural gas got $87 Billion in the same timeframe.

Solar, Geothermal, and wind have recieved the second largest since 1950.

"The perception that the renewable industry has been historically shortchanged is open to debate. Since 1950, renewable energy (solar, hydropower, and geothermal) has received the second largest subsidy—$111 billion (17%), compared to $63 billion for nuclear power, $81 billion for coal, and $87 billion for natural gas."

I would like to point out that nuclear power (LWR) on the chart accounts for about 20% of all US electrical generation. Solar and wind accounts for about 0.02% of all US electrical generation.

I would also like to point out that almost all of the LWR federal support came prior to 1976 as the technology was developed. Since 1976 Wind Power has recieved about the same funding as nuclear power.

Here is the link to the full article:

http://www.issues.org/22.3/realnumbers.html

Eddited to add: Note that fusion falls under "ANS" on the energy subsidy by technology chart from the report. However, so does the research money spent on aircraft reactors, gas cooled reactors, and breader reactors (and a few other things). So it is hard to tell how much has been spent on Fusion.

I have also attached another chart showing total subsides from another source. Not sure why they did not include wind. But it gives a good breakdown as to the type of subsidy.

Perry

Perry_3

You are correct

Wind power - infact our moderate climates are all solar powered. Unfortuantely, we do not have a lot of control over when the wind blows and what the seasonal or daily climate will be.

Remember the California energy crises a number of years ago. All the valuted California wind power (the most in the nation at the time) sunk to 4% of its capacity because the wind doesn't blow much in the hottest weather. Peak energy demads - almost no wind power.

The utilities have concluded that they need 100% backup generation for wind power becasue of that event and several others. That does not bode well for the economic benifits of wind power if it does not replace other constructed generation.

The other problem is that if there is to much wind power on the grid the instability of how fast the wind changes - which directly changes how much generation is produced can cause the grid to trip offline in an area because the other power generation cannot adjust fast enough. Canada and Germany have seen such regional trips.

Unless people are willing to accept an unstable grid with blackouts there is a limit to how much wind power can be used on the grid. Now people are working on that and hope to improve it - but for now the number seems about 10% maximum of total grid load. Which leaves other forms of generation for the other 90%, plus of course backup generation for when the wind is not blowing much.

Now I'm not saying that wind power does not have a place. It does; but I don't see it as a really major solution.

As far as my comparing the pharmacuitcal industry. Actually I was comparing the entire chemical and manufacturing industry. Many of our modern products are made possible by dumping of all kinds of chemicals into the environment. While the US has fairly good polution standards now (not claiming they are perfect) - the rest of the world generally does not.

The nuclear weapons program was also a disaster on what it has released to the environment (in allmost all countries). I will not say that nuclear power plants are squeky clean - but they are a lot cleaner than an awful lot of other things out there.

You are of course free to not partake of nuclear power; however, if you are going to blame radiation for birth defects you should at least assign about the right level of affect the nuclear industry has on radiation exposure level (about 1% including the weapons programs).

Also, for every nuclear radiation disaster you can name (and there have been in the range of a half dozen worldwide I think - excluding the two atom bombs). I can name a lot more industrial or chemical industry issues that casued a similar or a lot more birth defects (or deaths).

Not a problem if you want to focus on the 1%; me, I'm focusing on the 20+ percent.

Perry

Mike T., Swampeast MO

Looks to me like "nuclear" has received the lion's share of research and development tax dollars. Surely fusion is part of "nuclear". I kind of thought energy generation via fission was quite mature technology with the only real problem being waste disposal. Of course we've pumped billions upon billions upon billions into a disposal site that the state containing it NEVER wants to declare to be finished and actually capable of receiving the waste. Keep spending more billions for construction to meet ever-changing standards.

Oil certainly receives the greatest subsidies by far--but such comes from "regulation" and "taxes". Those who have the money and control the status quo are those who benefit the most--such is the capitalist way...

Fission-based nuclear power doesn't bother me and I'd have no problem if such a plant were next door to me. The waste is not inconsequential, but I suspect it can be managed with reasonable safety.

Fusion-based nuclear power is [supposed] to be the answer to all of the problems, but I also suspect that there are other possible answers. "Solar" and "wind" are mere drops in the bucket that still have the severe problem of typically requiring more conventional energy to manufacture than they'll produce in their service life.

Mike T., Swampeast MO

While I won't say it would work, isn't it worth a few billion of R&D dollars to find out just what Tesla wanted to do with Wardyncliffe? Perhaps the Tesla bladeless turbine engine as well?

The man was genious enough to single-handedly develop our ENTIRE system of A/C electric generation and utilization with designs so perfect that only improvements in materials increase their efficiency and so inegmatic that many life-long electrical engineers don't really understand how they work...

I won't hold my breath because it ain't gonna happen. Now, as then, it would utterly revolutionize our concept of energy, the entrenched industries would loose their GIGANTIC subsidies and who knows--it might actually be able to "crack the earth like an apple".

The Wire Nut

To be fair...

... it is my understanding that the CA energy crisis was in good part caused by the deregulation of the market. PG&E, and SoCal Edison allegedly wrote the legislation, which then prohibited T&D operators from securing long-term supply contracts.

Heck, the minute you put everything on the spot market, a CA-like meltdown could have happened in just about any state. The tapes of the Enron energy traders setting up ficticious trade schemes with names like "death star", etc. simply prove the point. Several electricity providers were allegedly also caught scheduling emergency plant maintenance in order to cause spot-market squeezes.

So, while I agree that renewable energies are not the only answer to the energy supply problem, I also submit that market distortions have to be addressed. The minute you give the market perverted incentives, it will respond by behaving pevertedly.

Now, to address the other point, i.e. the need to have multiple forms of electrical power generation. I agree that renewables are not 100% dependable, the wind may not blow, the sun may not shine. That said, it's not as if multiple redundancy is not a staple of the current electrical grid already. There is a reason we have a wide variety of power plants to choose from, from nukes and coal plants that excel at providing baseline power at very low generation cost to gas-fired peaker turbines that can respond more quickly to shifts in power demand.

Interestingly, I read that solar power plants in CA that face towards the west may have a slightly lower energy yield than the south-facing types, but that the yield curve almost perfectly matches the load curve. So, while wind power may not be ideal for CA, PV may, as it becomes more efficient and less expensive, start to compete successfully with the grid power w/o having to resort to incentives.

In the NE and other colder states, the advent of micro-chp may be a really interesting way to increase the overall efficiency of the electrical grid without having to resort to new power plants, etc. Distributed generation may have a lot of promise, and increasingly inexpensive communication technology makes it much simpler to control the output from a central command center. Few power plants can make use of the waste heat the way residences in cold areas can.

Looking ahead, if utility prices continue to climb, more homeowners may see the economic benefit of insulating, weatherizing, and by reviewing the life-cycle cost of appliances that they're considering to puchase... energy savings are a tax-free... Even more interesting are rebates to installers like the ones in MA that reward a installer for right-sizing replacement AC equipment ($150 for every 1/2 ton reduction).

Another interesting coming factor I'm predicting at the moment is the advent of peak demand pricing for residential customers. Why else would the local utility here go through the trouble of replacing all the old reliable electrical meters with electronic ones?

Perry_3

Mike:

You are correct - that in 2003 dollars the investment made to invent the fission industry in the 50's, 60's and early 70's looks big (back then it was only probably 5 Billion dollars). The govenement literally funded the developement of entirely new technologies to make it work. The funded the construction of about a dozen or so smaller plants (working up in size), the operation cost, repairs, and even most of the retirement cost. Most of the work was pure R&D on one of a kind technologies - which was very expensive - and there were failures.

However, since then that early investment has produced baseload power plants with minimal federal subsidies since that acounts for 20% of the US electrical generation, about 70% of Frances (they worked from US licensed technology) and overall about 400+ nuclear reactors worldwide.

On a cost per KWHr generated - it is the absolutley cheapest energy development subsidy for a specific technology in the world (I posted a chart with that information in a previous thread - perhaps several previous threads).

I suspect that Fusion will be the same thing. A huge investment up front to develop the technology; but once developed the power generated will quickly overcome the initial investment within several decades (just like Light Water Reactor Nuclear Power).

Why has windpower not gotten as much. Windmills and wind generators were already a developed technology when the federal subsidies started, and there are no huge safety issues to handle. We already knew basically how to do it. All that was needed was spending to scale up the technology. I believe that Europe has spent a lot more than the US on it. The combined investment in wind power per KWHr generated is staggering (Photovoltaics takes the cake though on that).

Yet, even today after several decades of improvements to an existing technology its contribution is miniscule. No one yet knows if a the current 3rd generation wind turbine will even last 20 years yet. Baseload power plants (and nuclear power plants) are typically good for 50 - 60 years with modest maintenance.

Anyway, have a nice day. Good questions.

Perry

Uni R_3

Clarification

I didn't say that the nuclear industry was responsible for even one birth defect - I merely stated that there are enough in the world. The effects of radiation leakages on this planet are cumulative and its not healthy for anything. I was a bit dismayed to see the previous poster saying how nuclear fusion will benefit our children and that was where my comment was targeted. That comment caused me to reply. If there is nuclear waste and radiation risks, I can't see how it will benefit our children.

We've been playing with nukes for less than 100 years and already their effects are going to last for thousands and thousands of years - even if we stopped now. Do we really understand enough about the multi-generational impacts of this technology? In which African nation would you feel comfortable installing a new reactor today? Surely, there isn't a place on Earth more in need of a better standard of living - millions of people there slowly starve to death each year.

If it's not safe enough for there, how can we assume that it's good enough for here? The USA just had a very un-civil war 140 years ago, the USA more or less threatened Canada with war only about 100 years ago over the Alaskan Boundary Dispute - Pearl Harbor was hammered 65 years ago - the World Trade Center towers were unimaginably leveled just a few years ago. The long term stability here in North America (which escaped the many centuries of war that Europe has faced) for reactors and storage sites should never be assumed to last forever.

I don't think the world is responsible enough to use this kind of technology. Things always devolve at some point - again look at history. Remember, this stuff has to be stored safely for as long as civilization has existed so far.

My stab on the pharmaceutical front stems from my personal belief that we don't fully understand (or perhaps care enough about) the ramifications and implications of what we can do to this planet within the fields of chemistry or biology.

The Monsantos of the world are changing the future of many plant and possibly animal species far older than man. There are chemical blobs of unknown composition sitting on the bottom of Lake St. Clair from irresponsible chemical operations in Sarnia, Ontario. Untold gallons of creosote leaked into Lake Superior in the Thunder Bay, Ontario region. Nobody cared at the time.

Nobody ever seems to be responsible for any of this. I used to work across the street from AECL, and seeing their trucks always driving around the research park taking readings never sat well with me. It's nice that they were monitoring, but what were the readings? Would they say anything if they were high? What's the maximum safe exposure? How many times has that maximum safe number been changed? Anyway, if there was a high reading and they told us the PR would be bad. AECL is a business - worse yet, one with government ties. They would never want bad publicity - after all, they claim that they are selling the safest reactors in the world. Are profit-driven companies and politically-led nations considering the extremely long term impacts of what we are doing now?

We're pissing in our own drinking fountain and as I stated, unless fusion can completely eliminate radioactive waste and risk of leaks I'm not excited about it.

In India, the nuclear industry used to hire untouchable caste members to manually change fuel rods - I'm not sure if and when this practice stopped but it was shocking. These poor people would get the equivalent of a few hundred dollars for a few days work - a fortune to some of these people - and quickly succumb to ARS not long after - just like many of the heroes of Chernobyl did. Those poor Chernobyl firefighters that had to go out to fight the blaze in the middle of the night in street clothes and the poor military conscripts that had to rush in and push exposed fuel rods back into the core - luckily these heroes kept the other 3 reactors safe and saved untold numbers of lives and kept the radiation levels far lower than what they could have been.

With nuclear power, I just can't accept the long term risks and I'm surprised many do. Who knows? Smokers used to have all the rights - right now it appears the nuclear supporters do. I hope that changes. It might, it might not.

I'm not free to "not" partake in nuclear power. A good chunk of the grid is fed by the Bruce and Darlington reactors on either side of me. I have friends that work in these nuclear reactors. Their jobs pay very well but they all know that part of their pay is because there is a risk. They'll joke about about their exit plans if a 48" diameter ultra high pressure steam pipe were to ever fail. It wouldn't even need to be anywhere near the core to be a major catastrophe. I'm sure you've seen safety movies showing you the devastating power of a high pressure steam explosions.

BTW, nearly everything, that I've ever read says the California crisis was caused by corruption and resolved through conservation.

Weezbo

Perry, can you describe \"plasma vaporisation\"

in a nonce.?

The Wire Nut

Hmmm...

I think some further review of fusion reactors is in order. I agree that fission reactors inherently carry risks but in our neck of the world, the industry, regulators, etc. go a long way towards mitigating the risk.

On the fusion side of things, you have great difficulty maintaining any kind of reaction. Unlike fission reactors where the removal of cooling water, etc. could cause the core to overheat and melt, fusion reactors are very hard to keep going. The plasma is always looking for a way out, even with the latest advances in superconductors it is very difficult to get the atoms close enough to fuse in the first place.

Unlike a fusion bomb, a fusion reactor never contains enough fuel to create an explosion. The vessel would burst... and unlike fission, the half-life of the isotopes that the process generates is quite short (measured in years or less). That makes disposal much less burdensome since a "hot" plant can become completely innocuous in a few years.

What also makes fusion attractive is the relative abundance of the fuel in the oceans of the world. Between the inherent safety of the process, etc. I doubt I would have no issues with a fusion reactor in my neighborhood. In fact, I'd probably welcome one if they could retrofit it into the old power plant on the charles river, for example. All the grid inter-ties are already in place, it would be plug and play.

As for my neighbors.... I do live in the PRC, so I doubt it would fly.