NationStates Jolt Archive

Considering the dangers of nuclear fission energy, I have submitted this proposal to stop the construction of all new fission-based plants. The wastes are a hazard for the future, and a meltdown would affect an entire region, so it's not a national sovereignity issue, but an international one.

Here is the text of the proposal:

Of the many sources of energy, the most controversial is the fission of the atom. While supporters claim that it is a clean and reliable source of energy, many studies have shown that it would be a major ecological disaster like none other if such plants were to meltdown, releasing their deadly radiation into the surrounding area. Also, there is no safe and reliable way to dispose of the wastes produced by these plants, which could cause problems for many centuries.

Thus, we propose that:

1. The new construction of such plants be ceased immediately

2. Existing plants shall be retired from use within 40 years.




------------------

peace and love,
Mandie
Princess of Inya

for the futher we need nuclear

I would propose a change to your proposal ;)
Construction stopped until all safety issues are solved and safe storage of the waste has been developed

What is the proper thing to do when the poll does not match the proposal? Whether nuclear fission is safe doesn't necessarily have anything to do with whether it should be banned.

And what will replace nuclear fission? Bituminous coal? Welcome back, ye Dark Satanic Mills! Or we could accelerate our consumption of scarce natural gas, or we could dam every river on the planet.
Nuclear fission, like drain opener, is perfectly safe when treated with caution, and safe long-term storage of nuclear wastes is possible. The difficulties arise because reactors are operated by for-profit companies which have an imperative to minimize costs. What we need are strict penalties to ensure that they comply with standards, like confiscating their reactor if they are caught in a single violation, or requiring them to put up a hundred billion dollar bond against radiation leakage.

its quite simple what you do with radioactive waste... you grind it up and spread it all of the world evenly... the radiation will be incredibly low-level and with be masked by already existing radiation.

As for nuclear fission... it is safe, it is when people take of the safety procedures or use sub-standard construction materials (ie churnoble)

now starting super-critical reactions is another story

I have talked to our Environment Minister, Frogbottom Washington, and this is his reply:

"We in Gurthark attempt, to the extent possible, to use solar energy for power generation. It is, by far, the cleanest, safest, and most sustainable form of energy production.

"However, even in sunny Gurthark, we are unable to rely on solar power for all our energy needs; the cost, in both land and money, is simply too great. For those needs, we use a sensible mix of wind, hydroelectric, and yes, nuclear power.

"Each, admittedly, has its problems. Wind power requires quite a bit of land as well (though not as much as solar), is often unreliable in our climate, and creates noise pollution that is safe in some ecoystems but dangerous in others (and completely rules out generation near human habitations). Hydro power creates no pollution, but it does change the flow of rivers, and we need to be extremely careful in its use if we aren't to damage our aquatic ecosystems.

"Nuclear power does create a small risk of meltdown, and it does regularly produce a small amount of pollution, but overall we have found it to be about equal to the other options (except for solar) in environmental impact. It is *certainly* cleaner and, in the long term, safer than fossil fuels, which are currently what the vast majority of the world uses for the vast majority of its power."

We in Gurthark oppose this proposal.

Sincerely,
Miranda Googleplex
United Nations Ambassador
Community of Gurthark

We oppose this. Current fission tech is feasible and safe. We need this alternative energy source. The sun is fission, and it is the source of life.

Three cheers to nuclear fission! The whole problem with nuclear power is media hype. Its safe and a heck of a lot cleaner than most other effecient energy sources. Besides if we didn't have nuclear power plants, where would poor Homer Simpson be!

Nuclear power, while having very clear and potentially dangerous risks, is also incredibly efficient when compared to most forms of energy production and does generate a fairly minimal amount of waste.

It is true that nuclear power does have inherent dangers. That is why nuclear plants and plant operators have to respectively undergo such incredibly thorough safety checks and training. Also, as to my knowledge, all nuclear plants are government owned (this is true worldwide) because of the necessity to have such thorough checks (would you want some private company to start selling fissile material internationally to raise some extra cash).

As Gurthark said, solar power is one of the few alternatives that are arguably cleaner and less waste generating. Unforutnately solar power in its current stage of development is too inefficient for commerical energy production.

New Clarkhall respectfully refuses to endorse any such ban on nuclear power plant construction and urges all responsible members of the international community to do likewise.

This isn't a crazy proposal. It isn't a good idea to continue building more of these distasters-waiting-to-happen. The resolution gives countries forty years to retire existing plants. It's well known that energy can be obtained by another nuclear power, nuclear fusion, without the deadly waste produced by nuclear fission. Solar, biomass, hydroelectric, geothermal, and wind power are cleaner and are good possibilities for replacement of fission-based plants.

For the safety of the world, I ask that you support this proposal.

peace and love,
Mandie
Princess of Inya

It's well known that energy can be obtained by another nuclear power, nuclear fusion, without the deadly waste produced by nuclear fission.

Aubreyad would like to ask, are there any fuctioning, energy-producing fusion plants in existence? To the best of our knowledge fusion is still experimental at best, and theoretical at worst.

"We in Gurthark attempt, to the extent possible, to use solar energy for power generation. It is, by far, the cleanest, safest, and most sustainable form of energy production.

"However, even in sunny Gurthark, we are unable to rely on solar power for all our energy needs; the cost, in both land and money, is simply too great.


Sadly, the Dalradian Ministry of Energy must inform the Gurthark Ministry for the Environment that Solar Poweris not a sustainable form of energy. The cost (in terms of energy, not money) of manufacture far exceeds the energy that will be produced over the lifetime of a solar cell. In other words, you will have to burn more fossil fuel or fission more uranium/plutonium to make the cell than you would have used if you had just made it straight into power for the grid.

If The Community of Gurthark has however discovered a method for the manufacture of cells, we would request, on behalf of the world, that they share said technology with the rest of the world that we may reduce global CO2 emissions for the betterment of all.

We oppose this. Current fission tech is feasible and safe. We need this alternative energy source. The sun is fission, and it is the source of life.

Wrong. Just plain wrong. The Sun is Fusion, the clean version of nuclear power. Fusion combines light elements to heavy ones, releasing far more energy than fission which splits heavy atoms into ickle ones.

Indeed. Nuclear fusion is, in theory, better in every way than Nuclear fission. Its cheaper, safer, more efficient, and does not create radiation or nuclear waste. Howerever, with out current technology, its not quite possible... yet. We rely to heavily to remove nuclear fission, and as for safety issues, I have to bring up the age old point that alcohol and/or tobbaco kills more people in the US alone every year than Chernobyl ever did, or that nuclear fission as a power source ever will.

It's well known that energy can be obtained by another nuclear power, nuclear fusion, without the deadly waste produced by nuclear fission.

Aubreyad would like to ask, are there any fuctioning, energy-producing fusion plants in existence? To the best of our knowledge fusion is still experimental at best, and theoretical at worst.

Agreed.

For your information; there are currently several research fusion reactors in the world. The biggest are The Anglo/French project, (based in France), one in Uzbekistan and another in Brazil.

The US federal government has a department solely for the purpose of researching nuclear fusion and monitoring the private companies also involved.

The world record is held by the Anglo/French project, who have sustained fusion for 210 seconds. That project took billions of Euros and is being expanded, now called International Tokamak Engineering Reacto (ITER) and involves the entire EU, Japan, Canada and Russia. ITER's planners hope to decide on a new site this year; candidates are Japan, France, Spain, and Canada. If all goes to plan, construction will begin in 2005, with operation to start around 2013

Researchers at SRI International, a private laboratory in California, claim to have carried out a cold fusion experiment. Results pending confirmation by peer review.

The US National Fusion Facility in San Diego (the team includes researchers from Columbia and Princeton universities, as well as General Atomics of San Diego and others) have brought us a step closer to a commercial reactor.

Scientists are hopeful that a full scale Fusion reactor will be available within two decades.

Nuclear power, while having very clear and potentially dangerous risks, is also incredibly efficient when compared to most forms of energy production

Wrong, nuclear power is only possible at the expense of the taxpayer. When you pay your electric bill, it oesn't cover the cost of production by nuclear sources.

and does generate a fairly minimal amount of waste.

It is true that nuclear power does have inherent dangers. That is why nuclear plants and plant operators have to respectively undergo such incredibly thorough safety checks and training.

Agreed


Also, as to my knowledge, all nuclear plants are government owned (this is true worldwide) because of the necessity to have such thorough checks (would you want some private company to start selling fissile material internationally to raise some extra cash).

Wrong again I'm afraid. British Nuclear Fuels Limited adn British Energy have both now been privatised. [BNFL was once part of the Atomic Weapons Establishment (AWE)] IO know for a fact that they both own reactors in the United States. I also know of private research institutions in the United States who fund their own nuclear research. these are regulated by the US federal government. I don't know of any such private research bodies in Europe, but that doesn't mean they don't exist.

As Gurthark said, solar power is one of the few alternatives that are arguably cleaner and less waste generating. Unforutnately solar power in its current stage of development is too inefficient for commerical energy production.

New Clarkhall respectfully refuses to endorse any such ban on nuclear power plant construction and urges all responsible members of the international community to do likewise.

Agreed

This isn't a crazy proposal. It isn't a good idea to continue building more of these distasters-waiting-to-happen. The resolution gives countries forty years to retire existing plants. It's well known that energy can be obtained by another nuclear power, nuclear fusion, without the deadly waste produced by nuclear fission.

Surely Fusion is just as unsafe (or as safe) as fission.

Solar,
Ineffecient, cost more to manufacter than will ever be produced in their lifetime
biomass,
Hmm, maybe, it's never been tried on a suitable scale though.
hydroelectric,
Covers huge areas of land when you consider that you must flood an entire valley. Requires suitable river system
geothermal,
Requires appropriate geological source (Iceland is the only country in the world who could possibly use this as there sole source of power)
and wind power
Consumes space and creates noise polution. Disturbs wildlife.
are cleaner and are good possibilities for replacement of fission-based plants.

For the safety of the world, I ask that you support this proposal.

peace and love,
Mandie
Princess of Inya

Okay, think about what your asking

Okay, so I've been doing a great deal of nay-saying.

In Dalradia, we have pretty much followed the sugestions of this proposal. We have not built any new reactors and will not be building any more. this is largely because we have enough power.

We are subsidising the construction of off-shore wind power station; floating platforms with wind turbines on top. We are also constructing hydro plants where appropriate geography permits. We are however plowing the majority of our funding into Nuclear Fusion.

We are following this plan because that is the only one which makes sense. Nuclear fission wasn't getting any cheaper and uranium will run out before oil at the rate we are consuming it. For this reason we stopped building them as soon as our immediate power demands were met.

We are now prioritising the decommissioning of oil and coal (we have no gas fired ones) power plants over the fission plants though, as they pose a more immidiate threat to the environment. The capital cost of the fission plants has ben paid, it is best to let them see out their natural lifespans.

How do I know so much about Nuclear Fusion?: The Holy Emperor used to work in a Nuclear Research Lab.

Nuclear power, while having very clear and potentially dangerous risks, is also incredibly efficient when compared to most forms of energy production and does generate a fairly minimal amount of waste.
Fission power is not economically efficient; it is not even close to competing with fossil fuel generation and only exists because of government subsidies. The main reasons are the enormous cost of plant construction and liability. Long-term waste storage is also an economic issue. The advantages of fission power are low pollution and (for some countries, notably France) independence from imported fuels.

Also, as to my knowledge, all nuclear plants are government owned (this is true worldwide)j...No, many if not most are privately owned, but they are government subsidized.

It's well known that energy can be obtained by another nuclear power, nuclear fusion, without the deadly waste produced by nuclear fission. Solar, biomass, hydroelectric, geothermal, and wind power are cleaner and are good possibilities for replacement of fission-based plants.
Actually, nuclear fusion does (or would) produce some radioactive waste (secondary radiation due to absorption of neutrons in cooling and shielding materials). Fusion, unfortunately, is very far from even the possibility of commercial production, let alone production at a competitive price. Solar, biomass, hydroelectric, geothermal, and wind are all very limited, and none is suitable for the replacement even of fission plants.
Solar and wind require high investment and are low grade sources, needing large land areas; they also are of seasonal and erratic usability in most regions. Both depend heavily on subsidies and neither has any extensive commercial potential even with the subsidies.
Tidal and hydrothermal power generation suffer much the same problems as solar and wind.
Biomass has similar problems. Long distance transportation of biowaste uses more energy than can be recovered, so it is limited mostly to small scale, low efficiency operations, and even these will capture only a small part of the total waste flow. Biomass will never come close to meeting large-scale energy needs.
Hydroelectric and geothermal are sharply restricted by the number of suitable available sites; the former also involves a large environmental impact and the loss of large amounts of land.

Fusion combines light elements to heavy ones, releasing far more energy than fission which splits heavy atoms into ickle ones.
The amount of energy released for a given fuel mass is comparable for fission and fusion. What does "ickle" mean?

Researchers at SRI International, a private laboratory in California, claim to have carried out a cold fusion experiment. Results pending confirmation by peer review.
Would that be Pons and Fleischmann?

Scientists are hopeful that a full scale Fusion reactor will be available within two decades.
They were just as hopeful two decades ago, and four decades ago.

Surely Fusion is just as unsafe (or as safe) as fission.
Surely not. There is no possibility of a meltdown, the fuel itself is not radioactive, and radioactive waste is far less.

"We in Gurthark attempt, to the extent possible, to use solar energy for power generation. It is, by far, the cleanest, safest, and most sustainable form of energy production.

"However, even in sunny Gurthark, we are unable to rely on solar power for all our energy needs; the cost, in both land and money, is simply too great.


Sadly, the Dalradian Ministry of Energy must inform the Gurthark Ministry for the Environment that Solar Poweris not a sustainable form of energy. The cost (in terms of energy, not money) of manufacture far exceeds the energy that will be produced over the lifetime of a solar cell. In other words, you will have to burn more fossil fuel or fission more uranium/plutonium to make the cell than you would have used if you had just made it straight into power for the grid.

If The Community of Gurthark has however discovered a method for the manufacture of cells, we would request, on behalf of the world, that they share said technology with the rest of the world that we may reduce global CO2 emissions for the betterment of all.

No, no, I've checked with Mr. Washington, and we use rather standard photovoltaic cells. But he assures me that said cells produce 20 times the energy over their lifetime, on average, than they consume in their manufacture [OOC: source U.S. Government's National Renewable Energy Laboratory (http://www.nrel.gov/ncpv/pdfs/24617.pdf) ].

Note that this does have something to do with Gurthark's climate and latitude. Less sunny areas will get less efficiency from solar energy, of course.

Sincerely,
Miranda Googleplex
United Nations Ambassador
Community of Gurthark

Fusion combines light elements to heavy ones, releasing far more energy than fission which splits heavy atoms into ickle ones.
The amount of energy released for a given fuel mass is comparable for fission and fusion.
Not so, fusion is far higher. Consider, one atom of Deuterium, GFM 2. One atom of fissionable uranium, GFM 235 or plutonium GFM 239. we are looking at a factor of 120 in terms of atomic mass. Considering then that the fusion requires a deuterium and a tritium, while fission needs only the one atom, we can reduce that to a factor of about 40. Even then, the fission of a deuterium and a tritium to Helium and a neutron still produces more energy than the fission of a single uranium of plutonium atom. You are clearly mistaken.

What does "ickle" mean?
Ickle: small, little, tiny, miniscule, wee, itsy-bitsy etc.

Researchers at SRI International, a private laboratory in California, claim to have carried out a cold fusion experiment. Results pending confirmation by peer review.
Would that be Pons and Fleischmann?
I thought their process was unsubstantiated after several attempts? I'm not sure, I didn't look at the paper myself, as Fusion isn't my field, I'm only going on what my colleagues tell me.

Scientists are hopeful that a full scale Fusion reactor will be available within two decades.
They were just as hopeful two decades ago, and four decades ago.
Yeah, I know what you mean. There are optimists in every generation; there just seem to be a great many in this one.

Surely Fusion is just as unsafe (or as safe) as fission.
Surely not. There is no possibility of a meltdown, the fuel itself is not radioactive, and radioactive waste is far less.
Hmm, you have a point. Meltdown is just as likely. Arguably more so, as the reactions are harder to control and we understand them less. Your points regarding the fuel and waste are perfectly correct, a factor I had not considered. Thank you for correcting me.

Deleted> repeat post

"We in Gurthark attempt, to the extent possible, to use solar energy for power generation. It is, by far, the cleanest, safest, and most sustainable form of energy production.

"However, even in sunny Gurthark, we are unable to rely on solar power for all our energy needs; the cost, in both land and money, is simply too great.


Sadly, the Dalradian Ministry of Energy must inform the Gurthark Ministry for the Environment that Solar Poweris not a sustainable form of energy. The cost (in terms of energy, not money) of manufacture far exceeds the energy that will be produced over the lifetime of a solar cell. In other words, you will have to burn more fossil fuel or fission more uranium/plutonium to make the cell than you would have used if you had just made it straight into power for the grid.

If The Community of Gurthark has however discovered a method for the manufacture of cells, we would request, on behalf of the world, that they share said technology with the rest of the world that we may reduce global CO2 emissions for the betterment of all.

No, no, I've checked with Mr. Washington, and we use rather standard photovoltaic cells. But he assures me that said cells produce 20 times the energy over their lifetime, on average, than they consume in their manufacture [OOC: source U.S. Government's National Renewable Energy Laboratory (http://www.nrel.gov/ncpv/pdfs/24617.pdf) ].

Note that this does have something to do with Gurthark's climate and latitude. Less sunny areas will get less efficiency from solar energy, of course.

Sincerely,
Miranda Googleplex
United Nations Ambassador
Community of Gurthark

Thank you very much Excellency, it would appear that Dalradia's sources were somewhat out dated :oops: . We hope you do not think any less of the Empire's administration. While we do not forsee any immidiate shift in the current energy policy, we thank you for your contribution and will further iunvestigate the future policies you have opened up to us.

Dalradia, your ickle brain is hopelessly confused on fusion (and maybe on fission as well). Perhaps you would kindly explain to the gallery how a gaseous fuel undergoes a meltdown?

You can find out how much energy is REALLY released in nuclear reactions if you want to look it up, instead of making it up.

the probably with fusion is that they have no way to produce tritium and deutrium which uses less energy then the reactor gives off. Until then, looks like fission is the way to go...

Who wants to start an agreement that radioactive waste should be used/recycled as much as possible then spread around the world for its radiation to never pose a threat

Dalradia, your ickle brain is hopelessly confused on fusion (and maybe on fission as well). Perhaps you would kindly explain to the gallery how a gaseous fuel undergoes a meltdown?

In a nuclear meltdown, the coolant system fails, and the reaction becomes unstable, generating more heat at faster rates. Eventually, the reactor core melts. This could happen with either a fusion or a fission process. The dangers posed to workers and the general public due to radiation would be less, but the immediate danger posed to workers would be higher. Furthermore, even if a nuclear fission plant experienced a meltdown, if the plants were maintained properly, the general public would be largely unaffected by radiation.

the probably with fusion is that they have no way to produce tritium and deutrium which uses less energy then the reactor gives off. Until then, looks like fission is the way to go...

Who wants to start an agreement that radioactive waste should be used/recycled as much as possible then spread around the world for its radiation to never pose a threat

Actually, the problem with fusion is that we currently lack the ability to manage the heat generated by fusion over a sustained period of time, and scientists have failed to find a cold fusion method that can be replicated.

Fusion, unlike fission, is not a chain reaction. The danger with fission reactions is that if the reaction becomes too rapid, it is self-accelerating. The reaction will continue even if the container is damaged. Melting fuel can also spread and contaminate groundwater.
Fusion is not self-accelerating; the faster it proceeds the more difficult it is to contain, and it can only proceed if it kept contained under enormous pressure. If the container is compromised, the reaction will cease. Workers might, indeed, be vaporized by the initial blast of a containment failure, but there would be no continuing source of heat, as at Chernobyl.
Radioactive emissions would be far less, and would consist mainly of tritium gas, which would rapidly disperse in the atmosphere and which does not cause secondary radiation.

Thank you very much Excellency, it would appear that Dalradia's sources were somewhat out dated :oops: . We hope you do not think any less of the Empire's administration. While we do not forsee any immidiate shift in the current energy policy, we thank you for your contribution and will further iunvestigate the future policies you have opened up to us.

Quite all right. As Mr. Washington said, there are still substantial problems with solar energy--primarily its monetary cost. We're able to use it to the extent we do because we have a fairly strong socialized energy industry; it's rather hard to make it competitive with other energy sources in a heavily market-based economy such as yours.

Sincerely,
Miranda Googleplex
United Nations Ambassador
Community of Gurthark

Dalradia, your ickle brain is hopelessly confused on fusion (and maybe on fission as well). Perhaps you would kindly explain to the gallery how a gaseous fuel undergoes a meltdown?

In a nuclear meltdown, the coolant system fails, and the reaction becomes unstable, generating more heat at faster rates. Eventually, the reactor core melts. This could happen with either a fusion or a fission process. The dangers posed to workers and the general public due to radiation would be less, but the immediate danger posed to workers would be higher.
Furthermore, even if a nuclear fission plant experienced a meltdown, if the plants were maintained properly, the general public would be largely unaffected by radiation.

While I appreciate your support Gearheads, you are more misguided than even RSI. The fission of a 236U nucleus releases two or three neutrons which collide with 235U in the material. This causes mare 236U to form, which in turn undergoes fission releasing two or three neutrons... you get the picture.
In Fusion however this is not the case. Fusion is the joining of 2H (D) and 3H (T) to form 4He plus one neutron, The neutron produced is nothing but a pain in the ass, it escapes the plasma and transfers energy to the containment vessel. The raw material for the reaction is D and T under high pressure and temperature, and does not involve neutron bombardment.
Hence a fission-like reaction is not possible. See my later comment for what is though.

Fusion, unlike fission, is not a chain reaction. The danger with fission reactions is that if the reaction becomes too rapid, it is self-accelerating. The reaction will continue even if the container is damaged. Melting fuel can also spread and contaminate groundwater.
Fusion is not self-accelerating; the faster it proceeds the more difficult it is to contain, and it can only proceed if it kept contained under enormous pressure. If the container is compromised, the reaction will cease. Workers might, indeed, be vaporized by the initial blast of a containment failure, but there would be no continuing source of heat, as at Chernobyl.
Radioactive emissions would be far less, and would consist mainly of tritium gas, which would rapidly disperse in the atmosphere and which does not cause secondary radiation.

Dalradia, your ickle brain is hopelessly confused on fusion (and maybe on fission as well). Perhaps you would kindly explain to the gallery how a gaseous fuel undergoes a meltdown?

The Dalradian ambassador does not like your tone RSI, nor does the Emperor appreciate your comments on the size of his brain, or anything else for that matter.

What exactly do you wish me to explain? I doubt you would understand the majority of my argument, but I'll try to keep it simple.
Of course a gas can't melt, I am well aware of that. The majority of people who refer to a "meltdown" have no idea what they mean by that (many think of a blast similar to a nuclear weapon). When I referred to a "meltdown" I was speaking of a Chernobyl-like disaster.
Chernobyl was caused by a fire in the uncontrolled reactor leading to the release of radioactive gasses, not a fission blast. Neither nuclear fission reactors nor fusion energy research have any potential to produce blasts similar to nuclear weapons; the fission reactors simply do not have above-critical mass.
Contrary to your earlier statement, Fusion reactions fail to continue if the Plasma pressure is too HIGH.
An uncontrolled increase in fusion fuel (D and T) would lead to the plasma being extinguished as it cannot be sustained when the plasma density is too high. Equally, a cut off of D or T would also lead to a natural termination of the plasma reaction.
When I mentioned a meltdown it was exactly an emission of gas that I was talking about, as that is what people talk about with regards to the "meltdown" at Chernobyl. You seem unconcerned at the emission of vast quantities of ionised Tritium; I am amazed by your blasé attitude. Yes tritium would disperse quickly, that was the problem with the gas from Chernobyl, it dispersed all over Europe! Whole agricultural regions became unusable as the radioactive content of their produce went through the roof.
Tritium is a very light nucleon, but it is too heavy to escape the earth’s gravity (as hydrogen does and Deuterium can do). Being such a light gas (being about 12 times lighter than chlorine) it behaves as you said, and disperses very quickly. That means it will spread around the world in a matter of days. The tritium is chemically equivalent to Hydrogen and so will substitute into water molecules, giving us nasty radioactive water for the next hundred years. Lithium, also a by product is not very nice, you can look that up for yourself though, I've written enough about my "meltdown".
The main concerns of reactor designers are:
Through our understanding of instability processes, and development of new methods for controlling the plasmas, means can be found to control a wide range of instabilities, thus allowing operation above stability limits. This include techniques to drive localised currents in the plasma to stabilise particular flux tearing instabilities, or use active walls - that simulate a superconducting surface - to oppose flux changes from other 'ideal' instabilities.

In addition further techniques can be used to mitigate the effects of plasma termination, which can lead to large forces and localised heating on the vessel structure. Here techniques include the application of magnetic perturbations and use of 'killer' pellets.

Finally it is critical to ensure the large quantities of heat from a burning plasma are dealt with without serious erosion of the device. This involves a wide range of technologies including development of new materials and structures, improved magnetic geometries, use of gas injection, as well as control of instabilities that can eject significant fractions of stored energy over short time scales.

Then as for your comment:
You can find out how much energy is REALLY released in nuclear reactions if you want to look it up, instead of making it up.
Many readers will recognise the tone of that one. You sound like a teenager (which you quite possibly are. That "I know it all attitude", said with utter confidence.
Let me walk you through the calculation then.

Fusion:
D + T -> He + n + 17.6MeV,
mass of D + T = 5amu
Energy per mass unit, 3.52MeV.

Fission:
235U + n -> various, average of 200MeV per fission.
mass of 235U + n = 236amu
Energy per mass unit, 0.85MeV

Even rounding Fission up, just in case every atom breaks in the most exothermic manner, Fusion still produces three and a half times more energy for equal mass.

For someone "hopelessly confused" I seem to know a great deal more than you. Now pull your neck back in before I take your shoulders as well. In future some deference would not go a-miss.

We realize that we misrepresented what happens in the fusion and fission process earlier, albeit unintentionally. Being mechanical engineers, we knew that either way, we were concerned with making sure that none of the vessel that contained the reaction melted. We tried to do a little research, and the only reputable site we found that concerned both fusion and fission seemed to discuss the same meltdown process.

Tritium doesn't grow on trees, Jack. You've left out the volume of deuterium used in low-yield reactions to produce the tritium.
Fusion does still yield higher theoretically energy per fuel mass, which I never contested. What I said was that the amount was comparable, which is true. For either fission or fusion, fuel volume is a minor issue, and is orders of magnitude less than that required for chemical power. Energy densities obtainable from fusion are not "far higher" than those obtainable from fission; they're not enough higher to care about.
Tritium wouldn't in fact disperse - it would oxidize and condense in a limited area, so I was wrong about it being dangerous. If it did disperse, it wouldn't be a problem.