Reply To: turn heat into electricity

[Tulse]

Rezwan wrote:

frankly, I would avoid using “nuclear” in headings and taglines. While focus fusion is indeed technically a nuclear process, it’s not fission, which is all the public is really familiar with, and it has almost none of the properties that the general public associates with nuclear energy (nasty, long-lived radioactive waste; risk of serious accidents; risk of proliferation for atomic weapons; huge expensive powerplants, etc. etc. etc.). In this way, labelling it “nuclear” is actually far more confusing and (unintentionally) deceptive.

That’s deceptive. Also, that will come up when people try to discredit the movement, it will look like we’ve been trying to cover something up.

Then ITER is also “deceptive”, since you would be hard-pressed to find the term “nuclear” anywhere on the non-technical parts of their website. The FFS may choose not to go that route, but I think it is incorrect to call it “deceptive”. And note that I said the term “nuclear” should not be used “in headings and taglines”. I didn’t mean to imply that the term should never be applied to aneutronic fusion, just that that term should not be used in the main marketing message, since that’s really not the main characteristic you want to emphasize.