Fusion power a good investment for future
In “Fusion power a weak option, not cost-effective,” (April 7) Keith Yost’s argument against the development of fusion technology is far from powerful itself.
While he acknowledges valid technological hurdles to its development, Yost bases his dismissal of fusion energy on an unsupported assertion that it would cost two to three times as much as fission power.
Rather than citing specific reasons to avoid fusion power, he attempts to support his claim by associating fusion research with the shortcomings of other energy options, such as solar power, or by hyping the availability of uranium as a fuel for fission energy.
Even assuming that his cost estimate is true, Yost conveniently ignores a vital difference between fusion and fission energy: He fails to mention that the dangerous, long-lived radioactive leftovers from fission reactions would not be found in fusion reactors.
Does Yost’s cost comparison include the expense of disposing and securing such waste?
Yost calls fusion power “a roll of the dice” without explanation, instead declaring its proponents to be “desperate” and “unable to deal with current energy policy,” which implies that researchers should improve current technology rather than pursue replacements.
While fusion energy will be difficult to make viable, how is its development any less feasible or more expensive than making current methods less dangerous, detrimental or limited?
Frankly, for a technology that has as many possible benefits as fusion does compared to the alternatives, “two to three times more” seems like a perfectly reasonable investment in the future.
David Schaffner
Graduate student, physics