Reply To: Repowering the electric utility industry

[opensource]

Joeviocoe wrote:
I think what opensource may be getting at is this:
Are there any downplayed drawbacks to the DPF shielding requirements that might make DPF a much less attractive solution in the future?

Such as how Nuclear Fission Power was once regarded as silver bullet to energy needs. It produced LOTS of power in a very small reactor (compared to other power plants at the time). And the fuel was VERY abundant too. But dealing with radiation (both in the reactor and the fuel itself) proved to be more problematic than many early claims indicated. Shielding, safety systems, fuel handling, separation of water cycles, waste handling…. were all problems created due to radioactivity. And those problems made Fission power plants MUCH larger and MUCH more expensive. So now, Nuclear power makes up only 20% of the electric power in the U.S.

It is a very pertinent question to ask about the exact requirements for shielding. We have already eliminated most concerns; the fuel (decaborane is toxic but non-radioactive), no radioactive water cycles, and waste is inert helium. The only concerns left are the safety systems of High electrical power (easy) and shielding from possible radiation from side reactions.

Indeed, and I still get a variety of different answers on the main forum focused on the best fusion power DPF out there.
I’m trying to get an exhaustive list of the reactions that cause the theoretically safest DPF (pB11 fuel, etc) to require shielding around humans.