Well, this is what the "fusion lobby" tries to implant to our minds.

Now, this is oversimplification - and ultimately, not true.

The main trouble with contemporary nuclear power stations is not the burnt-out fuels - it has relatively high activity and "shine" for too long, that's true; but its relatively low volume and weight and can be handled and stored relatively easily.

The main trouble is the relatively low-contamination material, which is present at enormously high volumes. Think of the whole reactor vessel, building, primary and secondary water and heat exchangers... It's just too much to move it and to throw it into abandoned mines. The best we can do with it for now is to leave it there as is... (there is also some concern with the waste created when producing the fuel for contemporary nuclear reactors - yet the consequences of mass-producing deuterium and tritium for fusion are to be determined...; another trouble are safety & accidents but that's a much much longer story).

And, fusion produces a considerable amount of high energy neutrons, which in turn makes radioactive all the equipment which is around - in a very same matter as in the "classical" reactor building.

So, at the end of the day, we have again a lot of factors which can make the technology viable, relatively clean etc.etc.; or otherwise.



The idea of "now THIS will solve ALL our problems AT ONCE" is what is ridiculous. Sorry.

It might turn out to be slightly better than "burning fossil fuels", but maybe not. We still don't know. The way to go is very, very long.

JW