Would nuclear fusion be a sustainable energy source?

Answer 1

Seems a few people don't know the difference between fission and fusion.
But as has been said, Fusion is not yet a viable energy option. Unless you use star light. (Stars are giant fusion reactors) The sun is suitably located to supply lots of useful energy without destroying us in the process. Sunlight afterall has been the prime provider of energy for life on this planet for some time now. Most renewable energy sources (but not all) trace back to sunlight.

Humans have not yet found an effective technology to control and contain a fusion reaction sustainably and to harness the energy released. It may be possible some time in the future, but not now and not in time to replace fossil fuels. We need to do that much sooner!

We do not know much about the possible down sides of nuclear fusion energy plants as we do not have even working models. People thought nuclear fission power plants would be wonderful and pollution free, we know better now. Until we actually build some fusion plants and run them for a while we cannot really know how clean and safe they are. In theory there should be no nasty radio active wastes, but I suspect there will be plenty, not from the fuel, but from the containment vessels and other equipment that will be strongly irradiated during the operation of the plant.

Answer 2

It would be a sustainable energy source and the fuel is essentially present all around us and in the oceans at the moment. I'm talking about deuterium which is an isotope of hydrogen which is an element in water. Another great source of fusion fuel is the moon which has a large abundance of helium 3.

The fusion reaction has been successfully carried out here in the UK's special fusion research facility, but although it produced energy more energy was consumed in the process fo containing the reaction.

http://www.jet.efda.org/

This work is being expanaded in the future to try to solve this and other issues. Once overcome fusion will be the way of the future:

http://www.iter.org/

Answer 3

By one estimate Nuclear Fusion is ~$80 billion dollars of research away. The annual US magnetic fusion budget is $400 million. If you do the math than the US will develop fusion in ~200 years. Now $80b is a lot of money, but for comparison electricity generation in a multi-trillion dollar business annually. Also the US government pays $220b dollars in interest each year on its debt. So I disagree with the idea that in the US there is a big push to develop fusion. And that mythical push hasn't really been there since the 50 and 60s. Other countries are not so. China for instance is spending lots of money in fusion research. So are some European countries like Germany.

Answer 4

Our sun produces its energy by fusion of hydrogen to Helium, which has been sustained quite a while. The problem is to get this going at a reasonable temperature in a small enough scale on earth.

Answer 5

It would if it could be achieved in a controlled manner. The problem is that in order to get nuclei to fuse and release the energy, they need to be hit together with a force that would need the energy of a nuclear fission blast. So far no way has been found to put in that energy 'slowly' nor to extract the reultant energy 'slowly'.
In theory fusion is the Holy Grail of energy but it's proving very difficult to achieve it.

Answer 6

According to me its certainly not!all that these fusion reactions leave behind is lots of hazardous fusion wastes that has to be disposed safely, source of radiation to environment only with little energy that can be conservatively used.Moreover the sources of atomic power namely uranium and plutonium are not widely available and easily transportable.I think the bio resources can be sustainable energy source also an eco freindly

Answer 7

you cant use nuclear fusion as a energy source. the fusion will produce to much energy in a short period of time like a
h-bomb

Answer 8

I think Nuclear Fusion would be a good source of power, and its supposed to be alot cleaner than using fossil fuels. But the waste has to be handled extremely carefully to ensure it is kept safe, also doesnt it take 10,000 years for nuclear waste to become safe again? thats a long time to keep things hidden away and to protect people.

Answer 9

it would be sustainable for a lot longer than oil and coal will be + it's much cleaner than oil or coal.

Actually if we can draw from the ultimate source of nuclear fusion we can power ourselves for about another 4 billion years.... of course this paragraph is talking about the sun.

Answer 10

Yes it would be, but there are still some technical problems that need to be overcome first. So don't rely on this energy source to be the immediate answer to our problems.