Amazon.com Widgets
  • Nuclear fission is a viable energy source

    In my oppinion, Nuclear fission could be a new cleaner energy source in the future. However, there still some cons for nuclear fission energy like any other current energy sources being used. If nuclear fission is not done correctly, their could be a nuclear meltdown causing damage similar to Chernobyl and Fukashima's nuclear meltdowns causing worst damage than green house gases caused by today's energy sources.

  • Lots of power but possibly dangerous.

    I'm sort of in the middle between Yes or No but I am leaning more towards Yes because it has a stable amount of pros and cons.

    Pros are that it can have a limitless amount of energy, and it can be stable and spread across the world.

    Cons are that it is potentially dangerous if used wrong or something goes wrong, and it can fail and cause damage.

  • Lots of power but possibly dangerous.

    I'm sort of in the middle between Yes or No but I am leaning more towards Yes because it has a stable amount of pros and cons.

    Pros are that it can have a limitless amount of energy, and it can be stable and spread across the world.

    Cons are that it is potentially dangerous if used wrong or something goes wrong, and it can fail and cause damage.

  • Viable, long way away

    Project details:
    Began in 1985 Reagan-Gorbachev initiative with equal support from EU Soviet/Russia US Japan
    Project Members: US, Russia, Japan, China, India, South Korea, Switzerland, EU
    Formed 24 October 2007
    Predicted to cost €15 billion (Now expected to be over $20bn)
    World’s most expensive experiment
    Machine details:
    Twice the size of any current machine in operation, ten times the plasma volume.
    Machine weighs 23000 tons, the plasma chamber alone weighing 8000t, heavier than the eiffel tower.
    Plasma temperature 150million degrees celsius – 10 times the core of the sun
    Outputs 500MW of power
    Magnets are 4Kelvin, -269celsius, colder than pluto

    Originally set deadline for plasma at 2018, not feasible.

  • Yes. There is no Laws of Physics that prohibits fusion from occurring.

    A real problem is that all money goes to gargantuan projects rather than to cheaper and more promising devices. All that financial resources would be better spent on aneutronic reactor. The aneutronic fusion has a formidable potential to solve the worldwide energy crisis. Even the research being so under funded it has the potential to solve so many problems around the world, because it is to be energetically dense, clean and safe, with no neutron emissions, no large land areas, and virtually no radioactive waste.

  • Yes. There is no Laws of Physics that prohibits fusion from occurring.

    A real problem is that all money goes to gargantuan projects rather than to cheaper and more promising devices. All that financial resources would be better spent on Aneutronic reactor. Aneutronic fusion has a formidable potential to solve the worldwide energy crisis. Even the research being so under funded it has the potential to solve so many problems around the world, because it is to be energetically dense, clean and safe, with no neutron emissions, no large land areas, and virtually no radioactive waste.

  • Potentially clean, safe, dense, the most environmentally friendly power source.

    No greenhouse gases, no long-term radioactive waste, low thermal waste, no large land areas, no environmental impact, no interruptions by the weather or time of day, no nuclear meltdowns and no proliferation. It is to be the ultimate energy source, an affordable answer to the world's energy problems; the right path to a more sustainable, peaceful and prosperous future for our planet.
    Http://www.Crossfirefusion.Com/reactor

  • In the Future It Will Be

    Nuclear fusion experiments are currently going on in Europe. Although relatively new, these experiments can usher in a new era of abundant energy with very few drawbacks should the ultimate goal of scientists become realized. Nuclear fusion is a viable energy source for heating water to turn turbines, we just need to find a way to harness and control the fusion reaction which can reach very high temperatures.

  • Yes but needs to be harnessed right

    Nuclear fission is definitely a viable energy source. It could lead to same great improvements in working to save the environment. The issue is it needs to be properly protected so harm is not done, and too many people are also looking to use it as a weapon. We are basically abusing a valueable resource.

  • Nuclear Fusion Viable Energy Source

    Nuclear fusion is a viable energy source in many ways, but it does not come without its own risks. Fusion produces some harmful byproducts that are not easy to dispose of, and problems with reactors can lead to devastation in the surrounding areas. With that in mind, fusion itself is a great energy source.

  • Just No no

    No, I don’t think nuclear fusion is a viable energy source. For now, we can come up with better solutions with technology. There has been no proof of viability. If it really becomes viable sometime in the future, it could somehow be a cheaper way to use energy and electricity, but it could only happen if we invest a little more. A lot of money is being aggressively spent. We should think about these kinds of things a little more and use our money wisely. Even though I disagree I do feel like the idea of nuclear energy is a much better solution only if it was possible. Nuclear reactors have tropical materials, making it exotic. And atoms can easily break apart.

  • Just No no

    No, I don’t think nuclear fusion is a viable energy source. For now, we can come up with better solutions with technology. There has been no proof of viability. If it really becomes viable sometime in the future, it could somehow be a cheaper way to use energy and electricity, but it could only happen if we invest a little more. A lot of money is being aggressively spent. We should think about these kinds of things a little more and use our money wisely. Even though I disagree I do feel like the idea of nuclear energy is a much better solution only if it was possible. Nuclear reactors have tropical materials, making it exotic. And atoms can easily break apart.

  • Fusion is unlikely to become economically competitive.

    Fusion reactors are very complex and are made of exotic materials. The power density of a fusion core will be much lower than a fission reactor. The complexity will make the reactor less reliable, and once the reactor has operated the structure will be too hot for hands-on maintenance. The need to replace the first wall (by remote control) every few years due to neutron damage will make the economics even worse. At the same time, costs of alternatives are falling rapidly.

    Fusion solves minor problems of nuclear energy (fuel availability and waste disposal), while make the real problem, capital cost, much worse.

  • Not right now but maybe in the future.

    Nuclear fusion at the moment is not a viable energy source that can sustain a large amount of people. However, if we invest and support research into the field, nuclear energy can be a very viable source in the future. There are a lost of countries that harness nuclear energy so we should to.

  • Nuclear fusion is not a viable energy source.

    Nuclear fusion is not a viable energy source. We have other technology out there that is less harmful to the environment and not as costly. Nuclear energy is very expensive to use and mining for the products needed to use it is very dangerous. With the technology, we can come up with better solutions.

  • Viability has not been proved.

    There's been lots of boosterism lately about the viability of nuclear fusion as an energy source, but whether or not that is actually true has yet to be proven. Still the head of the United Kingdom's atomic energy commission seems to think the time is now for it to happen, so I guess they'll be first out of the gate with a working version of it. Who knows, maybe this is the start of a new era of cheap energy.

  • No. Pollution control is more important than power.

    Pollution is a problem that comes from nuclear fusion. Ground pollution can harm the land around a nuclear fusion plant for thousands of years. There are plenty of other ways to make power. The same amount of money could be spent by adding wind farms or dams, which does less damage to the environment.


Leave a comment...
(Maximum 900 words)
No comments yet.