Fusion vs Breeder Reactors  

Yet another post from TreeHugger (news elsewhere seems to be a bit slow lately with everyone apparently away on Northern summer holidays) - this one looking at an article in the Observer recently about the ITER fusion reactor.

I thought the snippet about Russian breeder reactors was interesting (although the "100 times as much plutonium" phrase seems particularly ominous). I still haven't worked out if breeder reactors are just an unworkable and dangerous fantasy or if someone will actually come up with a design that is safe and actually works over an extended time-frame eventually.

I did do some searching for more information about the Russian program but the results were confusing and mostly negative - at this stage their only existing breeder reactor is apparently due to close in 2010 and they are struggling to fund development of a new one (as well as dealing with environmental concerns).

Leading scientists, including the government's chief scientific adviser, David King, believe that within 30 or 40 years Iter could unlock a carbon-free energy future. If successful,it will deliver what could be the world's most important energy source over the next millennium.

Nuclear fusion works by heating a large volume of gas, containing deuterium, found in sea water, and tritium, derived from lithium, to 100 million degrees centigrade, 10 times the temperature of the sun. This causes the atoms to collide and fuse, releasing enormous amounts of energy and leaving only helium as waste. King says that the 'the lithium from one laptop battery and deuterium from a bath of water would generate enough energy to cover the needs of a UK citizen for seven years.

There is a danger it [fusion reactor technology] could be overtaken by a new generation of breeder reactors the Russians have been developing that use uranium 60 times more efficiently than thermonuclear reactors - though with 100 times the plutonium.