# Nuclear-fusion power plants **URL:** \ **Category:** Great Debates\ **Tags:** science-math\ **Created:** [February 20, 2021, 10:58pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/nuclear-fusion-power-plants/933368 "2021-02-20T22:58:36Z")\ **Posts on this page:** 1\ **Showing post:** 58
**Author:** ![Ruken](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/r/f475e1/32.png) [@Ruken](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Ruken)\ **Post date:** [May 12, 2023, 11:35am UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/nuclear-fusion-power-plants/933368/58 "2023-05-12T11:35:50Z")
> [@Stranger\_On\_A\_Train](#): > > For a fusion reactor, the same is true Not for the “they” in the post you responded to; they’re not making a thermal power station. > [@](#): > > I’m not sure what that means It means they can get by with materials licenses, which are vastly simpler. > [@](#): > > any foreseeable system of nuclear fusion is going to have radioactive or proliferation-sensitive material inputs (tritium, lithium-7, boron-10, thorium-232, depleted uranium, et cetera) as well as radioactive intermediate and waste materials including elements of the reactor itself that will be transmuted by neutron bombardment. Bringing up irrelevant source materials constitutes fear-mongering. They’ll need a license for their tritium inventory. There’s already a framework for byproduct materials. --- _[View the full topic](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/nuclear-fusion-power-plants/933368)._