Fusion or fission within the Earth?

In summary: It would be interesting to see if there was any way to create a time line of significant fission periods and maybe see if they correlate with major and minor extinction events.
  • #1
Pattonias
197
0
I have been searching online for any credible information about fusion or fission occurring and contributing significantly to the Earth internal temperature. Can anyone explain this to me further?

So far I have heard several media sources discussing how fusion within the Earth is a contributing factor to global warming. I had always believed that pressure was the primary cause of heat within the Earth.

The http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Structure_of_the_Earth" [Broken] mentions nothing of fusion or fission occurring within the Earth.
 
Last edited by a moderator:
Earth sciences news on Phys.org
  • #2
This is crackpot territory (fusion). There have been cases made for fission heat, most likely, the decay of 40K to 40Ar/40Ca but basically everything is speculation.
 
  • #3
It is my understanding that radioactive decay contributes to the internal energy of our planet. Radioactive decay does not imply that either a sustained fussion or fission reaction is occurring.
 
  • #4
Ok, that makes more sense. I figured it was a crackpot statement, but I had heard about it enough to warrant making sure.
 
  • #5
Pattonias said:
I have been searching online for any credible information about fusion or fission occurring and contributing significantly to the Earth internal temperature. Can anyone explain this to me further?

So far I have heard several media sources discussing how fusion within the Earth is a contributing factor to global warming. I had always believed that pressure was the primary cause of heat within the Earth.

The http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Structure_of_the_Earth" [Broken] mentions nothing of fusion or fission occurring within the Earth.
One would not find any 'credible' source that would cite fission or fusion occurring in the earth, and certainly it's not causing global warming. The conditions in the Earth are not favorable for pp-fusion, nor dd fusion. Any tritium would have decayed to He-3 (so no dt fusion, besides the conditions not favorable), and He-3 is pretty rare on earth.

As far as we know the core is Fe or Fe-Ni, so not favorable for fission which would require the right amount of U-235. If there was ongoing fission, we'd be seeing lots of neutrinos from within the earth.

One could ask if there is more geothermal energy/lava flows now than say 4 or 5 or 10 decades ago.
 
Last edited by a moderator:
  • #6
Astronuc said:
One would not find any 'credible' source that would cite fission or fusion occurring in the earth, and certainly it's not causing global warming.

Not so!

While not a source of global warming, there is credible evidence of a natural fission reactor occurring in Africa approximately 1.7 billion years ago.

Here is the fact sheet from the DOE:

http://www.ocrwm.doe.gov/factsheets/doeymp0010.shtml [Broken]
 
Last edited by a moderator:
  • #7
yes, xnn, there was very likely an ancient natural reaction running for a period of time, however being located on the surface, did not contribute energy to heat the Earth's core. That was the original question.
 
  • #8
Xnn said:
Not so!

While not a source of global warming, there is credible evidence of a natural fission reactor occurring in Africa approximately 1.7 billion years ago.

Here is the fact sheet from the DOE:

http://www.ocrwm.doe.gov/factsheets/doeymp0010.shtml [Broken]
1.7 billion years ago is not within the last few decades or centuries - now is it? We're talking about present times - not millions of or a billion years ago. :rolleyes:

The hottest part of the Earth is the core, with some heat coming up through the crust in areas of volcanic activity, e.g. subduction zones. But we see no evidence of fission, and certainly not fusion.
 
Last edited by a moderator:
  • #9
Integral said:
It is my understanding that radioactive decay contributes to the internal energy of our planet. Radioactive decay does not imply that either a sustained fussion or fission reaction is occurring.
I believe that most of the statements one reads about "fission" in the core as a heat source are actually referring to radioactive decay. The term is not entirely inaccurate, as this is a process of atomic nuclei splitting and giving off energy as a by-product. However, the word "fission" normally refers to a sustained chain reaction.
 
  • #10
If Earth is a reactor than fission reaction fuels the energy on Earth .
Refer to this abstract
www(dot)pnas(dot)org/content/98/20/11085(dot)full
 
  • #11
Eric McClean said:
If Earth is a reactor than fission reaction fuels the energy on Earth .
Refer to this abstract
www(dot)pnas(dot)org/content/98/20/11085(dot)full

I wonder if there has been any work done in this area since the paper was written? It was submitted in 2001.

It would be interesting to see if there was any way to create a time line of significant fission periods and maybe see if they correlate with major and minor extinction events.
 
  • #12
http://www.pnas.org/content/98/20/11085.full

Interesting paper...

In summary, if the inner core is formed of crystallized Nickel Silicide instead of Iron, then it would be stable. Over time Uranium, Thorium and other actinides due to their mass would tend to concentrate along the boundary of the inner core where they could reach a critical mass. Such a reactor could be producing about 10% of the heat within the Earth and would vary over time as the actinides were gradually scavenged from the outer core and mantel. This variation over time might explain reversals of the Earth's geomagnetic field.

The reactor would need to be a breeder to have lasted as long as it has and to have only slightly dropped in power over 4.5 billion years. The ratio of 3He/4He found in deep-mantle magma sources (Hawaiian volcanic lavas) are in excess of the current atmospheric ratio by a large factor, and are consistent with those from a Deep-Earth Reactor.

More work is needed to obtain fission yield data for Neon to see if it is consistent with the above assumptions.
 

1. What is the difference between fusion and fission within the Earth?

Fusion and fission are two types of nuclear reactions that can occur within the Earth. Fusion is the process of combining two or more atomic nuclei to form a heavier nucleus, while fission is the process of splitting a heavier nucleus into two or more lighter nuclei. These reactions differ in the amount of energy released and the elements involved.

2. How does fusion occur within the Earth?

Fusion reactions occur within the core of the Earth, where temperatures and pressures are extremely high. These conditions cause hydrogen atoms to fuse together, forming helium and releasing large amounts of energy. This process is what powers the sun and other stars.

3. Why is fission not a common occurrence within the Earth?

Fission reactions are not common within the Earth because the conditions necessary for fission to occur, such as high levels of radioactive elements and a sustained chain reaction, are not present. Fission is more commonly associated with nuclear power plants and nuclear weapons.

4. Can fusion or fission reactions cause earthquakes or other natural disasters?

No, fusion and fission reactions do not cause earthquakes or other natural disasters. These reactions occur deep within the Earth and do not have enough energy to affect the Earth's surface. Earthquakes are typically caused by the movement of tectonic plates or other geological processes.

5. Are there any potential benefits of harnessing fusion or fission reactions within the Earth?

There is ongoing research and development on harnessing fusion reactions for energy production, as they have the potential to provide a nearly limitless source of clean energy. However, there are also concerns about safety and waste management. Fission reactions, on the other hand, are already being used for energy production but also come with concerns about nuclear waste and potential disasters.

Similar threads

  • High Energy, Nuclear, Particle Physics
Replies
5
Views
2K
  • Sci-Fi Writing and World Building
Replies
22
Views
2K
  • Sci-Fi Writing and World Building
Replies
7
Views
1K
  • Earth Sciences
Replies
7
Views
4K
  • Sci-Fi Writing and World Building
Replies
21
Views
853
  • Introductory Physics Homework Help
Replies
1
Views
841
  • Nuclear Engineering
2
Replies
46
Views
12K
  • High Energy, Nuclear, Particle Physics
Replies
19
Views
3K
  • Earth Sciences
Replies
25
Views
7K
Replies
4
Views
7K
Back
Top