Fission vs Fusion: Which is More Economically Feasible?

[Precursor]

Which nuclear process is more economically feasible--fusion or fission? I think it's fusion because it produces more energy than it takes, as compared to fission. Am I right?

 

[mgb_phys]

Which nuclear process is more economically feasible--fusion or fission? I think it's fusion because it produces more energy than it takes, as compared to fission. Am I right?

Right now the only economically feasible one (for power generation) is fission - we are still inventing a fusion reactor that gives more power than it consumes.
Long term - fusion has some advantages (unlimited globally available fuel, less waste).

Of course if you just want a lot of energy delivered - fusion in the form of an H Bomb is economically feasible in terms of power out for energy in!

 

[thomate1]

I cannot definitively state which nuclear process is more economically feasible without considering various factors such as current technology, availability of resources, and government policies. However, it is generally accepted that fusion has the potential to be more economically feasible in the long term.

Fusion has the advantage of producing significantly more energy than fission, as stated in the content. This means that less fuel is needed to generate the same amount of energy, making it more cost-effective in the long run. Additionally, fusion reactors use readily available resources such as hydrogen isotopes, which can be extracted from seawater. In contrast, fission reactors require rare and expensive elements such as uranium.

However, fusion technology is still in its early stages and is currently not commercially viable. Significant research and development are needed to overcome technical challenges and make fusion reactors a reality. On the other hand, fission technology has been in use for decades and is more mature, making it more economically feasible in the short term.

It is also worth considering the potential risks and costs associated with each process. Fission reactors produce radioactive waste that needs to be safely stored for thousands of years, which can be costly. In contrast, fusion reactors do not produce long-lived radioactive waste, making them potentially more cost-effective in terms of waste management.

In conclusion, while fusion has the potential to be more economically feasible in the long term, fission remains the more viable option in the short term. Continued research and development in fusion technology may eventually make it a more economically feasible option for energy production.