
Nuclear fusion on brink of being realised, say MIT scientists - mpweiher
https://www.theguardian.com/environment/2018/mar/09/nuclear-fusion-on-brink-of-being-realised-say-mit-scientists?CMP=share_btn_tw
======
Veedrac
Meta rant: I would like people to remind themselves that HN's rules explicitly
disallow shallow dismissals. Unfortunately this comment section seems to be
nothing but.

The material science behind high temperature semiconductors has undergone
radical changes in recent years. The techniques being used are largely well
understood science and the downsides of previous approaches like ITER are
explicitly avoided. There has been a visible explosion of commercial activity
in recent years.

People bander around the "always 20 years away" moniker as if we should put
_today 's_ estimates on the same grounds as the guesses from those early 1970s
projects that were never even properly funded. People were not screaming "20
years more" at the turn of the century.

You don't get to discount something as potentially groundbreaking as this just
because it's taken a little while to get here. Either put up or shut up. I
would _love_ to hear genuine substantive conversations here, if people were
willing to have them.

~~~
cctt23
Unsolved problems for fusion as powerplant:

-Sputtering of shielding and every other part of the reactor from fast neutrons. If your reactor is becoming brittle as it’s in operation, and requires constant maintenance, it won’t be operating enough to be cost effective.

-Breeding blankets. If we’re not breeding tritium in the blanket (and no one has been able to sustain a reaction that way yet) then we’re just using fission a _lot_. Expense becomes an issue, as does radiological issues.

-The plasma diverter is very much an unsolved problem. I can get into more detail here, but in short this is the part of the reactor that “skims” some of the hot plasma off to do the work. The dynamics of very hot, magnetically constrained plasmas still escapes us, and when you throw a rock into that stream, the complexity increases. Current divertes wouldn’t last a day in an operating plant. Disassembling your whole plant every day and reassembling it is a non-starter.

-Containment of plasma at sufficient energies is still something measured in seconds, or fractions of seconds. The usual metaphor is trying to uniformly squeeze a balloon; it will just “squirt” out. For s research reactor a second or two of fusion is an achievement. For power generation it’s nothing.

-Neutron activation of otherwise inert materials means you’re going to have serious radioactive waste. It’s unclear just how dirty D-T fusion would be from soup to nuts, but “pretty dirty” seems like a good bet.

-Tritium penetration.

-Most of the energy produced is in the form of neutrons, and we don’t know how to use that as a source of power. Those neutrons, in addition to destroying the reactor itself and activating materials, represent a loss.

-What we really need is aneutronic fusion through alternative cycles to D-T, like p-p, but that’s a much hotter plasma and no one has a clue how to make it work yet.

-Coolant for a constantly running reactor is a boring, but unsolved problem.

There’s more, but these are the ones most poeple on HN probably are aware of
when they dismiss this article.

Some further reading [https://thebulletin.org/fusion-reactors-not-what-
they’re-cra...](https://thebulletin.org/fusion-reactors-not-what-they’re-
cracked-be10699)

~~~
ISL
The waste problem from neutron activation is beginning to get the publicity it
deserves in both articles and in comments like the parent's.

Fusion is advertised as a clean power-generation technology, but it will, in
general, have its own radioactive-waste disposal problems.

~~~
cctt23
And if we’re willing to deal with that waste, then we _already_ have a viable
source of atomic energy from fission! The future is whenever we decide to deal
with the problem instead of leaving it pools or casks to solve itself.

@csallen: Be willing to actually dispose of it. We need to commit the money
and political will to set up a single disposal site. Right now it’s a NIMBY
nightmare so we get the worst outcome.

~~~
csallen
Curious what you mean by "deal with" it. Somehow make it non-radioactive, or
improve our disposal techniques, or what?

~~~
pasabagi
I think the tradition is to dump it off the coast of Somalia.

~~~
arcticbull
My thinking is more around using thorium cycle nuclear reactors which consume
almost all their input material [1].

1T of thorium produces the same amount of energy as 35T of uranium or 4166000T
of coal. 83% of the waste products are inert, and 17% require only 300 years
to reach background levels of radiation. Much safer than uranium cycle too.

This technology is very promising IMO, though given the general attitude
people have towards nuclear, it's not surprising it is underdeveloped, more
research is needed.

[1]
[https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Liquid_fluoride_thorium_reacto...](https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Liquid_fluoride_thorium_reactor)

------
sergj
Saw this video explaining in a HN comment why stronger magnets and a different
approach might make fusion work. After ca. 22:00 Minutes he is done with the
fusion basics and explains the new approach.
[https://m.youtube.com/watch?v=KkpqA8yG9T4](https://m.youtube.com/watch?v=KkpqA8yG9T4)

~~~
VVyattPrentice
At one point he briefly mentions (almost in an off-handed way) the issue of
scaling the novel semiconductor production approach. Would be interesting to
know how big of an ask that really is. Maybe I'm jaded by current events but
figure it's only a matter of time before the science community has its Bernie
Madoff moment. Especially in light of how renewables seem on the cusp of their
moment to shine.

~~~
inteleng
>semiconductor

Is there a reason everyone in this thread is saying "semiconductor" instead of
'superconductor'?

~~~
godelski
Might be because people here generally work with computers. Not many people
work with superconductors, so might be a priming issue.

------
pfdietz
This is greatly overrated.

The design of the ARC reactor in the 2014 arxiv paper produced 500 MW(th)
fusion power. The FLiBe bath contained some 90 tons of beryllium. The annual
world production of Be is just 220 tons. If the world's entire estimate
resource of mineable Be (100,000 tonnes, according to USGS) were used to make
ARC reactors, they might supply 1% of the world's primary energy demand.

The FLiBe also contains about 1/4 the 6Li produced by the entire US hydrogen
bomb program. The facility that enriched that lithium used 10,000 tons of
mercury and is an environmental problem even to this day because of leaks.
That process is also now illegal in the US due to this pollution, and there is
no facility in the world that could make that much 6Li.

Perhaps those problems could be worked around, but there's a deeper issue. The
power density of the ARC reactor is around 0.5 MW/m^3. This is an order of
magnitude, or more, lower than the power density of a PWR fission reactor
core. The ARC reactor is also much more complex, and will require very
expensive maintenance operations every couple of years (manufacturing a new
pressure vessel and remotely installing it, as the innards of the reactor will
be too hot for hands-on access.)

So, how could this possibly be cost competitive with fission reactors, never
mind the energy sources that are currently beating fission?

It's ironic that the ARC reactor is just demonstrating the fatal flaws with DT
fusion reactors, flaws that were also pointed out at MIT by Lawrence Lidsky
some 35 years ago. ARC is better than ITER, but that's damning with faint
praise.

~~~
bitumen
As you can see from some here, people just want to believe. Fusion is the
power source of sci-fi, and they’re scared of fission. As with self-driving
cars, people just imagine what it could be like and that’s enough for them.
Never mind that decades of R&D on fission has yielded breakthroughs in safety
and efficiency, and by the time a workable fusion design is possible far more
advanced fission will be possible. People want the future to be now, so they
believe their way into it. Scientists want funding for research, so they sex
it up for the media and mass consumption.

The truth is that politics aside, we could be using fission today to solve the
problems people want fusion to solve decades from now. Granted, if aneutronic
fusion becomes possible (no time soon, even experimentally with a surplus of
energy) that will be a miracle. DT fusion though, is only useful for research
purposes.

Most people, including most people here don’t have a working understanding of
nuclear physics or the requisite engineering of a power plant. When you don’t
understand the hurdles, fusion seems kind of magical. If you’re desperate for
advanced space flight, fusion seems kind of magical. Even more, no one has any
negative experiences with fusion, while we’ve been literally burned by
fission.

It’s hard to argue against a fantasy, and hoping for fusion also let’s people
ignore the hard work of using fission. The politics feel intractable in the
US, the waste is manageable, but scary. Fusion isn’t real yet in that sense,
so like an online romance people can project a fantasy onto it.

~~~
pfdietz
"Granted, if aneutronic fusion becomes possible (no time soon, even
experimentally with a surplus of energy) that will be a miracle."

A group at Princeton has a concept for a FRC-based reactor burning D-3He that,
through a combination of quite interesting tricks, reduces the fraction of
power output in neutrons to as little as 0.5%. The design is also very small,
with a power output of 1 MW. At this level of neutron output the reactor
structure are lifetime components, with no replacement needed due to neutron
damage. Power density is still a struggle, although the small size of the
reactor helps there.

The downside (assuming the aggressive plasma physics doesn't disappoint) is
where do you get the 3He.

At this point, my default vision of the future is neither fission nor fusion,
but rather renewables and storage. The engineering and economic issues of
these appear much more tractable. Simply extrapolating solar down its
demonstrated experience curve puts the cost of PV electricity at $0.01/kWh or
less when fully scaled out.

~~~
DennisP
I was only aware of Helion doing D-3He, and they're in Washington. Do you have
a link for the Princeton group?

~~~
dkirtley
Sam Cohen’s Rotating Magnetic Field experiments have shown higher temperature
and reasonably long-lived FRCs. His vision is steady operating, 3He systems,
atleast at first targeting propulsion. As you dial up the Helium percentages,
the neutron output goes down, though the required ion temperature goes up.
Princeton Satellite Systems has several NASA programs looking at the
propulsion applications.

~~~
pfdietz
"required ion temperature"

The scheme involves significantly non-maxwellian ion distributions, so
"temperature" isn't really appropriate. In particular, 3He ions get pumped to
higher energy than D ions, which helps suppress DD fusion. They claim the
scheme is consistent with Rider's limits on energy circulation in non-
maxwellian plasmas.

------
dandare
Serious question: what could be the cost of fusion generated electricity if
the reactors go mainstream like fission reactors? Unlike uranium, hydrogen is
for free and there is no cost associated with storing burned fuel. You can
probably also save a lot on safety systems. But you still probably need a
badass reactor with auxiliary power source, huge steam turbine and cooling
towers. Or not? What factors will determine the cost?

~~~
mynegation
Even if we assume for a moment that we got it working, the factors are: scale
and embrittlement. Current thermonuclear technology, theoretically, breaks
even, energywise, on reactors of certain scale. There is a reason to believe
that once we build a reactor of a certain size, the energy output of a
reaction will be bigger than the energy spent on jumpstarting it and magnetic
containtainment. embrittlement of reactor structural materials is caused by
radiation. After a while, reactor has to be rebuilt from totally new
materials.

~~~
DennisP
The MIT design essentially solves those two issues. Scale is smaller with
stronger magnetic fields, and embrittlement is confined to an inner wall which
is easily replaced once a year.

~~~
theothermkn
You are correct! It’s maddening that you had to make the correction, though.
Commenters in here seem incurious about the new developments detailed in the
source material.

------
maxxxxx
Just one thought: I am glad that there are people who are trying to solve
extremely hard problems even if they will never see success themselves. I much
prefer money and intelligence being spent on fusion than on developing new
weapons or technology to create perfect surveillance so more ads can be
served.

As far as I understand fusion is at a point where we know almost 100% it can
be done but there is a long list of hairy problems to solve. Working on these
is money well spent in my view.

------
chiefalchemist
Long to short, a couple years ago, I was out for drinks and bumped into a
friend. She was having drinks with a friend who is a prominent researcher at
Princeton Plasma Labs.

We got to talking. He assured me they were getting closer and it was only a
matter of time (read: money). I'm not a politician or an investor, etc. so he
had no motivation to blow smoke up my arse.

Less than a week later there was this:

[https://www.wired.co.uk/article/china-fusion-
breakthrough](https://www.wired.co.uk/article/china-fusion-breakthrough)

100+ seconds is not a lot of time. But if you double that every few weeks then
it __is__ only a matter of time.

------
DC-3
Maybe I'm naive, but I honestly don't understand why governments and private
foundations alike aren't throwing money at Fusion scientists. It seems far and
away the best possible investment one could make today in humanity's future.

~~~
jcranmer
Throwing money at a problem gets you "more", not "better". If your problem is
that you need more scale, then throwing more money at a problem will get you
that scale. If what you need is a breakthrough, feeding more money tends to
lead to more heartbreak (see, e.g., Alzheimer's--we've spent several billion
dollars on a cure and the only thing to show for it is that reducing amyloid
plaques doesn't seem to do a damn thing). Fusion is still very much in the
latter category: we don't have a working fusion reactor we need to make
feasible, we have a vague sketch of one that might become a feasible reactor,
if we achieve a few breakthroughs (and even then, we have several more issues
to work through to actually make it economical).

~~~
_nalply
I didn't downvote you because I find your assertion about throwing money at a
problem to the point. Others have downvoted you perhaps because your other
assertion that there's no working fusion reactor might be unfounded, in other
words, we might have already working fusion reactors but they are just not yet
profitable. (I am not an expert.)

------
LifeLiverTransp
Only slightly related- but what endevours would become at how much energy
output per $ Helium inserted viable? Has that been studied?

There must be a curve, where it can be estimated at what cost-point fission
and solar are out- and for example growing ressources in vats becomes cheaper
then farming/ chopping down natural grown wood.

What other "uneconomic" endavours become feasible with fusion at what price?

~~~
ianai
Carbon sequestration - not sure on what price point, but at least the current
cost of oil reserves. This factor should include national security 'returns'
(the huge boon from moving away from middle east controlled energy) - so say
trillions of dollars per decade.

Salt water desalination - at some point pumping salt water (possibly long
distances) to desalination plants for agricultural and domestic use becomes
feasible.

Space programs - once oil is disrupted as an energy source for the masses it
will be cheaper to push things into orbit.

~~~
TheSpiceIsLife
Genuine question: What does not using oil for mass transit have to do with
reducing cost to orbit?

~~~
ianai
I didn’t say mass transit.

~~~
TheSpiceIsLife
You wrote:

> once oil is disrupted as an energy source for the masses

I'm confused, what else do _the masses_ use oil for? If I'm not mistaken the
production of fuel for transportation is the lions share of oil use.

But regardless, how does that help us get things to orbit?

~~~
Footkerchief
Mass transit is public transportation, not all transportation. Many rockets
use fuels derived from oil and other fossil fuels, e.g. kerosene and methane.

~~~
TheSpiceIsLife
I meant mass transportation in the general sense, cars, busses, trains,
planes. I just kind of typed the wrong thing.

This article[1] claims Falcon 9 launch _list price_ is _$61.2 million_ and _"
Musk said the fuel used on a Falcon 9 is between $200,000 and $300,000."_

So the fuel cost is 0.5% of the launch price.

It could be argued that if we stop using oil for transportation the price of
oil derived kerosene and methane could go _up_ as production scales down and
fewer refineries sell in to the market.

1\. [http://spacenews.com/spacexs-reusable-falcon-9-what-are-
the-...](http://spacenews.com/spacexs-reusable-falcon-9-what-are-the-real-
cost-savings-for-customers/)

------
jcoffland
> Prof Wilson was also cautious about the timeframe, saying that while the
> project was exciting he couldn’t see how it would achieve its goal of
> putting energy on the grid within 15 years.

So the startup seeking more funding is over promising as usual. As many others
here have said, I'll get excited when someone actually achieves a net positive
fusion burn and it's confirmed by a third party.

------
SCAQTony
I am all for fusion but I am curious, what happens if there is a magnet
failure and the plasma, which is "...hundreds of millions of degrees celsius,"
escapes the containment vessel?

What damage will it do while it's cooling off for whatever period of time.

~~~
dwaltrip
It's actually an incredibly small amount of material that is heated to
millions of degrees. It is a drop in the bucket compared to the amount of
matter in the immediate surrounding environment, so the energy can be soaked
up relativity easily.

I think I remember hearing something like that anyone more than 50 feet away
would be completely unaffected (but don't quote me on that).

~~~
D-Coder
"relativity easily" is my favorite typo of the week.

------
snarfy
[https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/List_of_fusion_experiments](https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/List_of_fusion_experiments)

------
royjacobs
Like other fusion projects all of this is pure speculation, sadly.

However, I truly think it is wonderful that there seems to be a resurgence in
the area of nuclear fusion. After Fukushima any project that had "nuclear" in
its name was put on hold for political reasons and it's good to see that
people don't have cold feet anymore.

~~~
dwaltrip
Can you please elaborate on why it's pure speculation?

------
mratzloff
> The project, a collaboration between scientists at MIT and a private
> company, _will take_ a radically different approach to other efforts to
> transform fusion from an expensive science experiment into a viable
> commercial energy source. The team _intend to_ use a new class of high-
> temperature superconductors _they predict will allow_ them to create the
> world’s first fusion reactor that produces more energy than needs to be put
> in to get the fusion reaction going.

Etc.

~~~
SubiculumCode
The article talks about new, smaller, and more powerful magnets that could
enable real advancement toward positive energy fusion.

~~~
gus_massa
Until they have a working prototype, this is the equivalent of vaporware.

Moreover, it's not clear if they will have a working reactor in less or more
than 15 years, it's not clear if they are building a research reactor or a
production reactor, it's not clear if they are going to collect the heat and
use it to produce electricity, ...

Also, the article say that:

> _A newly available superconducting material – a steel tape coated with a
> compound called yttrium-barium-copper oxide, or YBCO – has allowed
> scientists to produce smaller, more powerful magnets._

but if I understand correctly the new material is just a new type of
superconductor wire that is more efficient than the current wires, it is not a
superconductor magnet. If they have better wires, they can make better
electromagnets, but it is confusing. Also is not clear if they have tested the
new kind of magnets or it is just a theoretical application.

Also, 15 years is a lot of time, usually it means they don't have a clear idea
of how to solve all the technical details.
[https://xkcd.com/678/](https://xkcd.com/678/)

~~~
jasonwatkinspdx
> but if I understand correctly the new material is just a new type of
> superconductor wire that is more efficient than the current wires, it is not
> a superconductor magnet. If they have better wires, they can make better
> electromagnets, but it is confusing. Also is not clear if they have tested
> the new kind of magnets or it is just a theoretical application.

Both:
[https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=KkpqA8yG9T4&t=32m35s](https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=KkpqA8yG9T4&t=32m35s)

This work is being done by the head of MIT's Nuclear Science department, in
collaboration with most of the top grad students there. You can go look
through all the publications that have resulted. They're going into great
detail with practical engineering concerns, not just vague concept.

It's _really_ disappointing and frustrating to me to see all the shallow
dismissals here. The original article/press release didn't have much concrete
information. But instead of making the reasonable assumption that some of the
best people in the field actually know what they're talking about, and the
article is poor, instead HN commenters are deciding their zero content, zero
knowledge, shallow dismissals are more likely than what the experts are
saying.

Nearly all the information about the ARC project is out there in the
literature. If you don't want to read it that's fine, just try to have some
awareness that you can't dismiss things without actually knowing what they
are.

~~~
gus_massa
I've read too many papers published in peer review journals where a tiny
advance is sold like a groundbreaking game changing advance, so I'm very
difficult to impress.

The most popular cases of overstatement are the improvement of the batteries
life and the cure of cancer. but there are similar bad reporting in less
popular fields.

In this case it's easy to decide. We can just wait until April 1st 2033 and
see if there is a tokamak fusion reactor that can break even without creative
accounting.

------
labster
Another April Fool's headline?

------
throwaway84742
At this point I’ll believe it when I see an independently confirmed
measurement of a working prototype. This stuff seems to be perpetually 20
years out.

~~~
royjacobs
It's the "year of Linux on the desktop" of alternative power.

~~~
throwaway84742
It’s worse. At least Linux _can_ be viable on the desktop. The challenges
surrounding fusion are so staggering that putting any definite timeline around
solving them is pure bovine manure.

~~~
digi_owl
Yeah, there is nothing technical that stops Linux.

It is mental and political/financial.

~~~
jimmaswell
Has Linux desktop caught up technically to Windows yet? The last time I used
it there were still problems like double clicking a jpg from the Firefox
downloads list opening an "open with" dialog pointed to /usr/bin or something.
And it seems like where Windows will put things in places that might not
technically be a perfect categorization but are convenient and make some
sense, like monitor/video/screensaver properties from right clicking the
desktop, this seemed to happen a lot less in Linux DEs. Aside from them
seeming somewhat less responsive in general and lacking equivalent GUI system
utilities to things like "Computer Management" or the device manager.

~~~
OrganicMSG
I'm not sure that the Windows desktop has caught up technically compared to
many of the graphical shells available for linux desktops, it just depends on
which list of things you value in particular.

~~~
crowbahr
It's not there yet but the Bash for Ubuntu on Windows system is very very
good.

------
cup-of-tea
Whether this is likely or not, I hate articles like this. People refuse to
give up even a little of their current lifestyles to make their lives
sustainable and this article makes them think that is OK because technology is
going to save them in the future.

------
bitumen
The title is the worst kind of deceptive, clickbaity, untrue crap. As usual,
MIT is the hub of both exciting science/engineering, and horrid press
releases.

~~~
rdruxn
The first paragraph and the sub header is an outright lie:

“Carbon-free fusion power could be ‘on the grid in 15 years’”

And then later:

“Prof Wilson was also cautious about the timeframe, saying that while the
project was exciting he couldn’t see how it would achieve its goal of putting
energy on the grid within 15 years.”

~~~
DennisP
The MIT team thinks they might be able to do it in 15 years. Wilson isn't on
their team.

------
zde
“The aspiration is to have a working power plant in time to combat climate
change."

Let's combat global warming by producing even more heat, converting 40% of it
to electricity.

~~~
asfasgasg
> Let's combat global warming by producing even more heat, converting 40% of
> it to electricity.

All the wattage produced by humanity is utterly insignificant in the face of
the energy we receive from the sun. It will still be insignificant if we
double it.

(We receive about 2 × 10^18 watt hours per day from the sun at the ground.
Daily human energy production is about 5 × 10^15 watt hours.)

~~~
wcoenen
On the other hand, at a fixed doubling period of 35 years (i.e. assuming 2%
yearly growth) we'll get at that "one extra sun" level in only 500 years.

Or if we take "5% of an extra sun" as the problematic power output, it will
take only 150 years.

(Now consider that in the golden age of oil before the oil shocks in the
seventies, oil consumption was growing more like 8% per year.)

~~~
asfasgasg
> (Now consider that in the golden age of oil before the oil shocks in the
> seventies, oil consumption was growing more like 8% per year.)

At that time, per capita energy use in the US was growing by 3% per year while
population would grow by 1.5% per year. Today, per capita energy consumption
in the United States is falling, and the population is growing more slowly.
The story is much the same elsewhere. Even China has leveled off in per capita
energy consumption. India's is still growing, but it will take many years
considering their baseline of 1/10 of the United States per capita before
they're the biggest problem, and I guess they'll probably turn that trend
around before they actually get to that point.

------
John_KZ
>15 years

Stopped reading.

------
bb88
This is old news.

------
newnewpdro
Nuclear fusion substantially eliminates the "meltdown" risk associated with
contemporary fission-based nuclear energy sources.

But it's no panacea [1], there's still substantial radioactive waste produced
and radiation hazards to those working near the reactor.

If you operate under the assumption that we should pursue nuclear energy, then
this is great. But if you operate under the assumption that between solar wind
and storage, we have everything we need without any radioactive waste or
radiation hazards to workers, this is pretty uninteresting beyond academic
purposes.

[https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Fusion_power#Safety_and_the_en...](https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Fusion_power#Safety_and_the_environment)

~~~
TillE
> In general terms, fusion reactors would create far less radioactive material
> than a fission reactor, the material it would create is less damaging
> biologically, and the radioactivity "burns off" within a time period that is
> well within existing engineering capabilities for safe long-term waste
> storage.

There's really no comparison; fusion is vastly cleaner and safer.

~~~
LifeLiverTransp
I think the problem here, is that all those environement protection groups
fighting fission, would cease to be after they "won" and thus are desperat in
search of a new "evil".

Has there ever been a activist group that stated loudly: "Yes, we pulled it
off"\- and then peacefully disolved, with the promise to reunite the day the
defeated cause should return?

~~~
yodon
As a freshman at MIT in the 1980’s, I was impressed to hear the announcement
that the MIT Group Against Smoking had just disbanded. They had accomplished
everything they set out to do and felt their were better places for them to
invest their time.

And yes, I vividly recall the only time in my tenure at MIT I saw a student
light a cigarette. It was in 10-250, the person was sitting audience right
side of the lecture hall, about 1/3 of the way back in the room. She did so
once, on her first day of class as a transfer student.

So yes, change can happen, and be recognized, and the activists move on.

~~~
LifeLiverTransp
Well my hat off to that.

I just have a very negative counter-example here though: It was a radio-
interview with a green-peace activist on ITER. And they would go to great
length, to put the nuclear waste problem of fusion into the same category as
the nuclear waste dilema of fission- although the fusion byproducts decay down
to zero in 300 years- which is near nothing next to fission.

I really rooted for greenpeace once, but such intellectual dishonesty- with a
fundamentalistic approach, expecting humanity to give up civilisation as we
know it, instead of working with the humanity they got- lead to a deep
distrust to everything they publish.

