What are the benefits of using fusion over fission as a source of nuclear energy? Why have fusion reactors not been developed yet?

Video transcript

Hello everyone in this video which we expand on why fusion is more beneficial than fission as a nuclear energy source in terms of availability and hazard. And despite its prospect as an almost inexhaustible energy source explained why fusion reactors have not been developed yet. So let's go and read options A through D and see which one is correct or incorrect. So option aim between deuterium and treaty. Um Only deteriorate is naturally occurring in seawater in sufficient amounts. So treaty um is in trace amounts of nature is usually bred from lithium whose concentration on earth on the earth's crust is large. So often is incorrect. And contrary to what option it actually says uranium is naturally occurring element in the arts crust and fusion products are non polluting. So it is true that fusion reactors have not been developed yet because of the temperature required for the reaction is extremely high and naturally cannot be achieved at normal conditions. So again, option A. Is incorrect. So we go ahead and eliminate this from our potential answer choice for option B. Here. This is also incorrect. So deuterium is naturally occurring in seawater in sufficient amounts. Treaty um is in trace amounts in nature and contrary to what option visas uranium is actually naturally occurring in the earth's crust. As for the hazard, fusion products are both generally non reactive radioactive and not polluting in long term vision products are really active and some are even extremely harmful to the environment. Fusion reactors have not been yet developed. Not because there there are not many countries willing to invest in the tapping of nuclear vision, but because in fact many countries take part in its research at present there is international corporation on this and there are massive investments by private nuclear fusion companies. But option B is still incorrect. Moving onto options seem so in terms of availability, fusion is more beneficial than fission as a nuclear energy source because hydrogen isotopes. So deuterium and trade Ium used as fuel for fusion are cheaper and more available than fissionable uranium field. So you 2 35 deuterium is naturally occurring in seawater and Trade. IEM is naturally occurring only in trace quantities but can be bred from lithium which is in large quantities in the earth's crust. So uranium field must be enriched with this fissionable uranium U 35 for suitable use in terms of Hazzard fusion products are non radioactive and non polluting. And long term vision products are radioactive and some of them. So CCM 1 37 and strontium 90 are very dangerous when exhausted into the environment. Despite his prospects as an almost in exhaust hable energy source fusion reactors have not been yet developed because of the very high temperatures required to cause nuclei to fuse together and overcome strong repulsive electrostatic forces between positively charged nuclei. There is no efficient device yet that can heat the deuterium trainee um fuel to sufficiently high temperature and then can confine can I can confine it into a sufficient period to affect an energy output greater than is required to sustain the reaction. So again, often see is correct. And because we have found the correct answer already, we all need to move on to option D. So again, obviously is going to be my final answer for this problem.