Critics of small modular reactors forecast financial risk

[kentauros]

8. I'm not arguing against solar.

Only adding that while the panels can't blow up, the manufacturing process can.

And Fusion isn't fission, the latter of which comprises the entirety of nuclear. Polywell fusion also isn't the same as any of the other types in that there's no boiling of water to make steam. It's an electrostatic process. That is, the fusion is converted directly to electricity. That makes it incredibly efficient, even higher than solar. The fuel proposed is a combination of boron and tritium. As I recall the process of this, the boron ends up in the fusion process longer than merely being "split". I don't understand the physics in order to explain how that works, only that it does work.

I'd love to see all alternatives to burned fuels used, though Polywell fusion offers a higher concentration of energy (fuel) in a smaller package, with no waste (other than the creation of helium), and no fears of explosion or contamination. That's probably why the Navy is putting more funding into developing it. I'm sure they'd like to get rid of their fission reactors, too.

However, I would truly love to see the solar-rectenna technology developed. Imagine getting your solar power at an 80% efficiency rating, and the current not stopping when the sun goes down!