top of page

Comparison Between Neutronic and Aneutronic Fusion Reactions in the Kronos SMART Approach

Comparison Between Neutronic and Aneutronic Fusion Reactions in the Kronos SMART Approach

The promise of nuclear fusion as a vast, sustainable energy source has been pursued for decades. In the journey to make fusion power feasible, two primary fusion pathways have been explored: neutronic and aneutronic fusion. While both pathways promise abundant energy, their distinctions in safety, efficiency, and waste production set them apart. The Kronos SMART approach, which emphasizes the Deuterium and Helium-3 reaction, offers insight into the potential of aneutronic fusion. This paper aims to dissect these differences and shed light on why aneutronic fusion might be the preferable choice for the future.

1. Neutronic Fusion: The Conventional Pathway:

Neutronic fusion, the more well-known fusion process, involves reactions that release a substantial number of neutrons. The most common example is the Deuterium-Tritium reaction. These neutrons carry away most of the energy, which then heats up a surrounding medium to produce steam for electricity generation. However, the high-energy neutrons also lead to the irradiation of the reactor walls, which can induce material degradation and create radioactive waste[12].

2. Aneutronic Fusion: The Next Frontier:

Aneutronic fusion, in contrast, primarily produces charged particles instead of neutrons. The signature reaction in this category is the fusion of Deuterium (2D) and Helium-3 (3He), represented as:


This reaction yields Helium and a proton, with a significantly reduced production of neutrons. Consequently, the issues of material degradation and radioactive waste associated with neutronic fusion are largely mitigated[13].

3. Kronos SMART Approach: Emphasizing Efficiency and Safety:

Kronos's SMART (Sustainable Modular Aneutronic Reaction Technology) approach taps into the potential of the Deuterium and 3He reaction, highlighting two primary advantages:

Efficiency: Direct energy conversion becomes possible with aneutronic fusion. Given that most of the energy is carried by charged particles, they can be directly harnessed to produce electricity, bypassing the need for a steam cycle. This boosts the overall energy conversion efficiency and reduces auxiliary infrastructure[15].

Safety: Aneutronic fusion significantly reduces radiation hazards. The minimal production of neutrons means less irradiation of the reactor walls, which not only extends the life of the reactor components but also reduces the challenges related to radioactive waste disposal and management[2].


While both neutronic and aneutronic fusion reactions promise a vast reservoir of energy, the distinctions in efficiency, safety, and waste management highlight the latter's potential as the energy source of the future. The Kronos SMART approach, by emphasizing the Deuterium and 3He reaction, not only underscores the advantages of aneutronic fusion but also paves the path for its practical realization.


[2] S. M. Motevalli and R. Fadaei, "A Comparison Between the Burn Condition of Deuterium-Tritium and Deuterium-Helium-3 Reaction and Stability Limits," Z. Naturforsch. A, 70, 79 (2015).

[12] R. G. Mills, "Lawson Criteria," IEEE Trans. Nucl. Sci. 18, 205 (1971).

[13] B. Nayak, "Reactivities of Neutronic and Aneutronic Fusion Fuels," Ann. Nucl. Energy 60, 73 (2013).

[15] J. D. Lawson, "Some Criteria For a Power Producing Thermonuclear Reactor," Proc. Phys. Soc. B, 70, 6 (1957).

bottom of page