Wasn’t the H-bomb (fusion) supposed to be way more powerful and unpredictable than the A-bomb (fission)? Kinda confused here and I’m certainly mixing bombs with energy production. But if you could give me the essential I’d appreciate it. Thank you.
In: Chemistry
You’re correct both that hydrogen bombs release far more destructive potential than fission bombs, **and** that at least in theory, fusion energy could be a very powerful energy source for power production.
The difficulty there is not in safety, it is in design. To get energy out of nuclear fusion, you have to create conditions of immense temperature and pressure. Essentially we need to re-create here on Earth the conditions in the middle of a star like the sun. At least for now, we do not have any way to create those conditions, make fusion happen, and have power left over at the end of the process to distribute to an electrical grid. So for now, and for the foreseeable future, nuclear fusion power is still at the concept stage.
Having said that, **if** we were able to build a nuclear fusion power station, then you are correct this station would likely be inherently safer than nuclear fission. Nuclear fission requires extensive safety systems to prevent runaway fission leading to a meltdown as well as long-term storage of the radioactive byproducts. A fusion power station would not have to deal with the same risks because it would not be relying on long-lived heavy fuels like uranium and plutonium and, if a fusion reactor were to start failing, the reactions would just stop.
Having said that again, modern nuclear reactor designs are inherently far safer than those at Three Mile Island, at Fukushima, and especially at Chernobyl. No nuclear power system built today — fission or fusion — is as risky as those historical reactors.
Latest Answers