Fusion Power on the way - at last ?

So, only Fusion is a sensible alternative to fossil fuels? What about our friend nuclear fission, which still has the lowest death toll for all available power sources? Sure, it has waste to deal with that fusion would not, but there are feasible solutions for the waste if we could get countries to work together and focus on a solution in this area. There is Yucca Mountain (which currently sits as the most expensive hole in the ground ever), dropping it in sealed casks near a subduction zone, or boreholes.Of course Fusion, with its lack of dangerous waste products would be ideal, but to say that it is the only sensible option seems a bit premature to me. Personally, if we are aiming for energy independence, I think we should increase the amount of fission reactors we have operating in the United States, especially while we wait for fusion to provide the innovation for the next step. Switching to more nuclear power would allow the scientists time to continue to work through the problems that are being mentioned, while still reducing the reliance on fossil fuels...I'd say that seems pretty sensible. Radioactive Waste ManagementDeaths from Nuclear Energy compared with other causesEdited by Tempe 12ft Chicken, : No reason given.

Yes, Fission has a stigma and the best way to fix that is to educate the public on the actually safety record of nuclear fission. Stop teaching nuclear technology only using images of atom bombs and start educating people on the actual science behind the technology. You then continue to talk about disposal of wastes as a primary concern, but you have yet to deal with all of the proposed solutions that would provide safe storage or disposal of these wastes. I believe I gave you the link in Message 15This shows the several different options that exist when it comes to disposal of nuclear waste, so what is wrong with these ideas? Yes, some of them would require new international agreements, but so would any other massive overhaul of our power infrastructure. How about burial in Yucca Mountain? This area is tectonically inactive and provides for a great storage solution for radioactive materials. I prefer dropping them into subduction zones because it actually allows the radioactive material we already mined from the Earth to be returned to where they came from.You are promoting an idea that has zero applicability at this time, zero because it still has not been shown to even be possible. Yet you are not willing to work toward a solution with a technology we know works, that science has safe means of disposing of waste and that can already work with the current electrical grid. How is this the most logical solution, to just hope that someday Fusion will prove fruitful and we can finally remove fossil fuels, instead of going to fission now and removing the need of fossil fuels immediately? Then, the lower cost that solar has worked toward can help developing countries that cannot afford to build expensive reactors initially. If fusion ever shows the abilities it has been claimed to have, then we can switch and we have scientifically safe methods of disposal for the waste from nuclear reactors as we decommission the reactors to switch to fusion.If I am understanding you correctly, you are saying let's just continue to use fossil fuels and "hope" that at some point fusion can save us from ourselves. I'd prefer to start having action done to stop the release of carbon as quickly as we can and fission is a great middle step.So, please deal with the waste disposal methods, why do you find all of them unfeasible? What is wrong with Yucca Mountain, or subduction zones, salt domes, or boreholes, or rock-melting, or any of the several other options that scientists have already analyzed for safety and efficacy?