Should scientists pursue nuclear fusion as a viable technology for power production?

  • Nuclear Fusion Has Much Cleaner Products

    Unlike nuclear fission that has radioactive leftovers that have to be carefully disposed of, nuclear fusion doesn't have such problems. When hydrogen atoms fuse together and release energy, helium is the product. The rare gas can be collected and used for industrial applications. If fusion energy can become viable in the next 50 years, it will produce a new revolution in electrical power consumption because fusion energy is essential a green resource that can use water as a source of hydrogen fuel.

  • Yes all avenues should be considered

    Scientists should definitely pursue nuclear fission as a viable technology for power production. We are going to need to change our power sources in the years to come so we should explore all possible options. We don't know yet if nuclear fission will be successful but it is worth the time and energy to find out.

  • Yes, we should pursue Nuclear fusion

    I Believe Nuclear Fusion produces more energy and when it produces said energy it does not leave behind radiation but instead leaves another element which can be used over or held for other uses. Kenechukwu Agu - student at New Rochelle High School - 9th grade 14 years of age.

  • Fusion over fission

    Our current method of nuclear energy, nuclear fission is flawed. However, nuclear fusion is a possible clean, more efficient alternative. Fusion combines lighter elements such as helium - these elements result in a byproduct harmless in comparison to the nuclear waste produced by fission. In addition to that, fusion produces three to fours times the power of fission and needs constant monitoring in order to prolong the reaction; thus, there is no chance of a runoff nuclear meltdown. As of now scientists do not have an efficient method of triggering a fission reaction, but as our understanding of the subject develops we will discover that nuclear fission is a viable, green source of nearly limitless energy. Imagine, harnessing the power of the sun - I'm not talking solar panels.

  • Yes but not as a centralised GWe power station

    Fusion is proving a tough nut to crack but I believe will ultimately prove its worth in smaller scale power plants and in spinoff technologies (containment solutions, refinement of superconduction, large laser refinement etc) than from trying to create wildly expensive super-power stations.
    There are much easier/cheaper ways to boil water and ultimately we need to get away from needing so much water to get power into the large dry areas of the world.

  • Fusion is the Future - Get Used to It!

    I am an engineer - not a physicist - but understand the main issue which is no longer ignition but confinement. The sun currently provides our planet with more than enough energy and that is a fusion furnace. Confining a mini-sun with readily available fuel and inert waste is a dream well worth pursuing! Logically the planet doesn't have a choice anyway. Hopefully enough commercial electricity can be provided globally before we burn all our fossil fuel or global temps become runaway and irreversible. The detractors opposite really don't know the full picture and don't understand or comprehend the science. Their arguments are flawed.

  • Thorium nuclear powe

    Back in the in the 1940s, correct me on the date, Franklin D. Roosevelt had scientist research nuclear power. Their was thorium and then plutonium & uranium. Thorium had a long use, as long as plutonium or uranium, and was clean. The waste only took a few centuries to decay rather than plutonium or uranium taking several thousand years to decay. Thorium worked as good, and was cleaner and less harmful, but Franklin chose to use plutonium and uranium because the waste could be used in bombs. If, as an example, Chernobyl were a thorium power plant, it would be just as radio active but habitable in the next 10 centuries, rather than being inhabitable for another 15,000 years. I believe scientist should research thorium nuclear power, and use that for nuclear power plants. It is far safer and cleaner.

  • Other power is more promising.

    No, scientists should not pursue nuclear fusion as a viable technology for power production, because they have already shown that it is a more expensive and less promising form of energy than other forms of energy already being developed. Nuclear fusion is not as efficient as other forms of nuclear energy. It is not as green as green energy. We should stick with other forms of power.

  • Scientists should not pursue nuclear fusion as a viable technology for power production.

    Scientists should not pursue nuclear fusion as a viable technology for power production. Nuclear power has a bad rap to its name because it is expensive and it is dangerous to both the atmosphere and the humans. It is too costly and dangerous to produce and to mine for the materials.

  • Scientists should not pursue nuclear fusion as a viable technology for power production.

    Nuclear fusion is not a viable means of power production. Although scientists have been researching nuclear fusion for years, they have had no success. They should stop wasting time trying to develop a technology that might not even be possible and which might pose grave dangers to the environment in the future.

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

By using this site, you agree to our Privacy Policy and our Terms of Use.