I’m somewhat glad that they are thinking about this, but I worry about the cost to the American people. Obama’s constant spending means that he said, and I quote, “We don’t have the money,” and then goes on to applaud his(?) idea about a very expensive healthcare plan.
Which seems to me like saying, “Hey, guess what…you taxpayer people are nearly broke, which means that I have less to spend. We’re going to shake you down for more, mmk?”

In light of the USA being pretty close to broke, this might not be the best time to pour money into nuclear fusion studies. For one thing, it’s doubtful that the scientists would deliver–and for another, I don’t have an issue with the good old normal nuclear power. If it’s good enough for our military, it’s good enough for me–especially since in the case of nuclear subs, those guys are practically living on top of nukey goodness.
If I were in charge, I would start checking to see if we could switch the whole country over to it in the least expensive way possible.

Since I am not an expert on nuclear topics, people will probably point out a lot of holes in my theory, but I hope my meaning comes through.

Other material components of the reactors do become radioactive, but not as strongly as the waste. It’s a manageable issue. Here in Australia, for example, more people die of cancer from natural radiation – the Sun’s UV light – each year than from artificial radioactivity the world over. We live in a naturally radioactive environment – potassium-40 is in our bodies and food, muons continually shower down on us from cosmic rays, UV-light, Uranium and thorium in granite, radon leaking out of the ground… all of these subject our bodies to continual exposure. We’re adapted to the presence of at least some radiation.

What matters is the quantity and the ‘quality’ – some sorts are more damaging than others. Alpha particles are only a hazard if their source material is ingested. Beta particles can be stopped by clothing. Neutrons, x-rays and gamma-rays are the worst, but also the hardest to produce. Lightning is known to produce gamma-rays, for example, but not many (we hope.) Various artificial radioactives emit gamma-rays – but they’re hard to produce and handle. As a rule the nastiest radioactives are also the easiest to detect and to keep out of harm’s way.

Which won’t even be turned on for a year, so really, having these discussions now, before we even know that this technology is capable of working, is kinda silly.

If I’ve learned one thing growing up in this society, it’s that you get over-promised on the sale and under-delivered after you’ve found out you have to pay more than intended on the original sale. :D

Power generation on a large scale can be complex – it takes 600 – 1000 people to run one nuclear unit in the US today and we’ve been at it 40 years. I think we’ll make better decisions about our energy future if we first understand our energy present – and we’re not in good shape there.

Based on my two decades in nuclear I’ve written an insider account for the lay person – a novel – that’s available free to readers at http://RadDecision.blogspot.com . Reviews at the homepage have been very positive, and “Rad Decision” has also been endorsed by Stewart Brand, noted futurist and founder of “The Whole Earth Catalog”. (Sorry for the plug, but it seemed appropriate.)