In my understanding, this is because a fusion reactor reacts deuterium to produce helium, which is not radioactive, whereas a fission uses uranium or plutonium, for example, which may react to form various radioactive isotopes.
A fusion reactor may contain small quantities of tritium, in which case a radioactive isotope of hydrogen may be produced, but given that the majority of reactions occurring involve solely the deuterium, there is less radioactive waste produced.
The reactor(s) at Chernobyl are fission reactors, and fission of fuel and fission products following the fire and the overheating of the core melted it down.
Although the name suggests that the bomb solely uses nuclear fusion to create mass destruction, a Hydrogen bomb actually contains both fission and fusion fuels. Since fusion requires such a high energy input to initiate, a fission bomb is required to detonate the fusion component of the Hydrogen bomb, thereby releasing nuclear waste and radiation.
True. If fusion can be made to work in manmade equipment, for power production, (and this is not certain), there should be much less radioactive waste than for fission reactors. The product of the fusion, helium, is harmless. The engineering details of such a plant have not been established, but the energy produced will presumably be extracted from materials surrounding the reaction chamber which absorb the neutrons produced, so these materials will become irradiated and radioactive. Whether the structure will remain for the life of the plant or perhaps neutron absorbing materials have to be replenished from time to time is unknown, but obviously there will be some radioactive waste to be dealt with.
The exact contents of radioactive waste from a nuclear power plant and radioactive fallout from a nuclear weapon can vary widely but are likely to be similar in their primary isotopes.The major difference between the radioactive waste from a nuclear power plant and radioactive fallout from a nuclear weapon is that the waste is normally contained and will not enter the environment (unless an accident happens) while the fallout is dispersed into the environment and is carried by the wind (sometimes all the way around the world multiple times).
fission crest radio active wastes wich are harmeful to life. they create tumors and we are running out of space to store the waste. fission crest radio active wastes wich are harmeful to life. they create tumors and we are running out of space to store the waste.
Fusion reactors produce energy by fusing atoms together, similar to the process that powers the sun, whereas fission reactors split atoms. Fusion reactions in reactors have the potential for abundant fuel supply with deuterium and lithium, low radioactive waste, and enhanced safety due to the inherent characteristics of the fusion process. Additionally, fusion reactions do not generate long-lasting radioactive waste like fission reactions, making them potentially more sustainable in the long term.
Yes, fusion does not produce long-lived radioactive waste like nuclear fission.
explain how a fusion reactor would be similar to a fission reaction
Fusion reactors produce less radioactive waste compared to fission reactors. Fusion reactors use abundant sources such as deuterium and lithium for fuel, while fission reactors use limited sources like uranium. Fusion reactions release more energy per unit mass of fuel compared to fission reactions.
no
Fusion is preferred over fission because it produces more energy with less radioactive waste and is less prone to accidents. Fusion reactions use isotopes of hydrogen, which are abundant and non-radioactive, as fuel. Additionally, fusion does not produce long-lived radioactive waste like fission reactions do.
Yes, nuclear fusion produces some radioactive waste, but it is generally less than what is produced by nuclear fission.
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.
There are fission and fusion reactors. However, at present (2016) there is no commercial fusion reactor which can produce more energy than is required to operate it.
Plenty of cheap fuel, and no radioactive waste.
solar is a billion times better.
Yes, fusion does not create long-lived radioactive waste like fission does.