Our current atomic energy technology uses the process of nuclear fission. Here, the nuclei of heavy atoms (such as uranium) are bombarded with neutrons and broken apart, releasing lighter nuclei and large amounts of energy.
The problem with fission energy is that the waste products are usually much more radioactive than the fuel and remain so for a very long time. Also, being able to control the rate of the fission reaction is crucial to its safety.
Failure can be – and has been – catastrophic.
An alternative to fission energy is fusion energy, in that light elements (isotopes of hydrogen) are combined to make heavier nuclei, which also releases large amounts of energy.
This is the process that fuels stars, like the Sun.
The products of fusion reactions are generally safe. The main product is inert helium, although some minor and short-lived radioactivity is also generated. The problem with fusion energy lies in creating the necessary conditions to start the reaction.
Temperatures of many millions of degrees are needed, and containing the super-hot fuel (usually with magnetic fields) is a technological challenge.
As with any industrial process, there are always risks involved, but a failure of a fusion reactor will, by its very nature, stop the energy generation immediately.
So, a fusion energy ‘disaster’ is unlikely to be more dangerous than a typical industrial accident, and certainly doesn’t have the potential for the kinds of environmental and ecological catastrophes we’ve seen possible with fission energy meltdowns.
This article is an answer to the question (asked by Brandon Harris, via email) 'What would a fusion energy disaster look like?'
To submit your questions, email us at questions@sciencefocus.com, or message our Facebook, X, or Instagram pages (don't forget to include your name and location).
Check out our ultimate fun facts page for more mind-blowing science
Read more:
