0
Want this question answered?
Be notified when an answer is posted
Add your answer:
Earn +20 pts
Why is it difficult to develop a fusion reactor for power generation?
Fusion reaction requires very high temperature to take place .(approx. the temperature at the surface of the sun).This is practically impossible.
Why do you use fission reactors not fusion reactors?
No way has yet been found to reach break-even in a controlled fusion reaction and get as much energy out as was needed to put in to start the reaction. To make a reactor you need to go past break-even and release extra energy.
Why are magnets used to confine plasmas in some fusion experiments?
Because the plasma is ionised it can be controlled by a magnetic field, and so confined in a toroidal chamber in which it can be heated to a very high temperature.
What are the advantages of a fusion reactor compared to a fission reactor?
You must realise that any claimed advantages are based on scientists predictions, and to some extent wishful thinking, as it is not even determined in engineering terms how a nuclear fusion plant could be built, what materials could be used, and how the heat would be extracted. However ever since fusion was proposed, scientists have been pointing out that it would produce much less radioactivity than fission does, and this is true, there would not be the spent fuel containing very highly active fission products that fission produces. There would be activation of structures in the plant due to the neutron irradiation coming from the plasma undergoing fusion. There are also consequences from needing to produce the tritium fuel, which is a dangerous substance to human health. So it all depends on future progress with ITER and further test rigs, but at the moment it is academic since it is very unlikely to happen within this century.
How are nuclear reactions that take place in the sun different from the nuclear reactions that take place in a nuclear reactor?
sun, fusion of hydrogen nuclei making helium nuclei (not radioactive)nuclear reactor, fission of uranium nuclei making a wide variety of different fission product isotopes having mass numbers from 72 to 161 (all very radioactive)
Can you make a real ark reactor?
An Ark reactor as currently describe in comic is very much like a Nuclear Fuel Cell. Possibly convert energy from Nuclear reaction to power. Possibly a plasma nuclear fusion reactor. I believe in the future it could be made. See the link and compare the similarity of fusion reactor and Ark reactor.
How expensive is nuclear fusion?
At this time:in a bomb, very cheapin a reactor, not yet possible
Why is it difficult to develop a fusion reactor for power generation?
Fusion reaction requires very high temperature to take place .(approx. the temperature at the surface of the sun).This is practically impossible.
What are the technical problems related to nuclear fusion?
Nuclear fusion requires very high temperatures and immense pressures to start and continue. The problems with a nuclear fusion reactor would be:- 1) the high temperatures would melt the container: therefore, the reaction would have to be stored in a vacuum suspended by a magnetic field and the reactor would have to be continually cooled. 2) nuclear fusion occurs naturally in stars such as our sun: unless the fusion reaction was limited in size in some way, it would be likely that our planet is vapourised by the reaction.
What is plasma and how does it happen?
Referred to as a 4th state of matter, plasma is a very hot condition that occurs in stars in which electrons are no longer orbiting individual nuclei, this allows collisions of nuclei which may lead to nuclear fusion.
What gases are burning in are sun?
In the Sun hydrogen is converted to helium. Both are PLASMA. It's a very common misconception that the fusion in the sun happens with gas. However, the heat created by this fusion heats up the gasses so much that the individual electrons become loose from the atom. We call this state plasma.
Why isn't fusion used in the production of nuclear power?
Fusion is not used in the production of nuclear power, other than in the Sun and stars, due to technological problems, primarily in containment. The Sun has it easy, so to speak, because its large gravity and mass causes the temperature and pressure necessary to initiate and sustain fusion, while its gravity also eliminates the need for containment. Attempting to do this on the Earth would not work because the size of the reactor would vastly exceed the size of the Earth. The alternative, building a containment vessel, is not working because the many millions of degrees of heat required for the plasma would destroy any vessel we have. Building a magnetic containment vessel, such as the tokamak (ITER) shows promise, but the technical problems of having supercold magnets in close proximity to superhot plasma are very overwhelming. First fusion for this project is set for 2019, and my guess is that commercial power from fusion is at least 50 to 100 years away.
What limits scientists from downsizing the tokamak reactor?
Downsizing is not going to help, the largest yet, JET, has only given a very short pulse of fusion. The requirement is to upsize it, and this will be ITER. You can find this in Wikipedia.
Why is nuclear fusion not curently used as an energy source on earth?
We do not currently have the technical knowledge to produce controlled fusion reactors on a scale large enough to produce power. Right now, the only two viable uses of fusion are in the Sun, and in hydrogen bombs, but the latter is an uncontrolled reaction, not suited for use in a power plant. The problem is that, in order to produce a fusion reaction, you need extremely high temperatures and pressures. That's easy for the Sun to do, because of its enormous mass and gravity, but on Earth it is a problem. Once you have that fusion reaction going, then you need a way to contain it. Unfortunately, there is nothing that can hold the plasma needed for the fusion reaction, because it will burn through anything. Since plasma is a charged stream, we can use magnetic fields to bottle it, so to speak, but in order to produce a strong enough magnetic field, we often need to use super-conducting magnets, which means very, very cold temperatures. The conflict is that we need to maintain pressure and ultra high temperature in close proximity to super-cold temperatures. We just have not been able to accomplish that other than in very, very tiny experiments, with monstrously large machines. Work is ongoing in various labs to attempt this, but I am going to guess that, without the benefit of some stupendous discovery, we are at least 50 or 100 years away from being able to sustain a controlled fusion reaction in a size sufficient to generate commercial power.
Why do you use fission reactors not fusion reactors?
No way has yet been found to reach break-even in a controlled fusion reaction and get as much energy out as was needed to put in to start the reaction. To make a reactor you need to go past break-even and release extra energy.
What would be the advantages in using nuclear fusion to supply your energy needs in the future?
Tho only waste products would be Helium and a very small volume of the reactor that had become radioactive from neutron activation.
Scientists hope to build a nuclear fusion reactor fueled by?
Ocean Water
