Fusion Energy: Utopian or Practical?: Andrew Zwicker at TEDxSaintPetersUniversity
ฝัง
- เผยแพร่เมื่อ 21 ก.ย. 2024
- Andrew Zwicker is a physicist and science educator. The American Association of Physics Teachers has named him to its list of 75 leading contributors to physics education. For the past three years Zwicker has taken college undergraduates and K-12 teachers aboard the National Aeronautics and Space Administration's "Weightless Wonder" aircraft. He is a Fellow of the American Physical Society, a member of the APS Committee on Education and a past chair of the APS Forum on Physics and Society. He is also a member of the Education and Workforce Development Task Force for the Department of Energy's Energy Efficient Buildings, a lecturer in the Princeton University Writing Program and a faculty advisor for freshmen and sophomores in the university's Rockefeller College. Zwicker and a collaborator won the 2006 Art of Science competition at Princeton University for a photograph entitled "Plasma Table." In 2012 Zwicker and a collaborator won an honorable mention for a video explaining a flame in a contest created by actor Alan Alda and the Center for Communicating Science at SUNY-Stony Brook.
In the spirit of ideas worth spreading, TEDx is a program of local, self-organized events that bring people together to share a TED-like experience. At a TEDx event, TEDTalks video and live speakers combine to spark deep discussion and connection in a small group. These local, self-organized events are branded TEDx, where x = independently organized TED event. The TED Conference provides general guidance for the TEDx program, but individual TEDx events are self-organized.* (*Subject to certain rules and regulations)
In the mean time - before fusion - go look at a Thorium salt reactor. Cheap, mostly safe, and much less waste. Vastly better than what we do now.
exactly
Great talk! Andrew Zwicker was concise, smooth, interesting and very informative. Hugely interesting!
Russia is a major contributor to the ITAR fusion experiment and in listing countries involved in the effort the host neglected that glaring fact. Question: why??
+It is I I notice that too. it was their original invention and are one of the biggest contributors to the project.
Tokamak " is a Russian acronym for toroidal chamber with magnets" which is what todays most successful fusion reactors are. The first tokamak was also made in Russia and they were the ones who purposed the ITER project 40 years ago. At the time fusion reactors that put out more energy then you put in "ITER" were so expensive no one country could afford it.
Russia should be proud that their name wasn't listed on this boondoggle. ITER is the largest disaster that has ever happened to fusion research.
So beautiful, there are many many beautiful amazing impressive soul like you.who believe in act accordingly. Many more may rise n shine to save humanity. Thank you, bless you. All your dreams come true.
slug Face makes a good point. My understanding is that the most efficient reaction that can be used in fusion is the fusion of deuterium (Hydrogen-2) with tritium (hydrogen-3). Unlike deuterium, tritium is not naturally occurring, but it can be bred from lithium. Lithium has of late, however, found a great deal of use in rechargeable batteries, and it is not that common at all. In other words, there would appear to be some question as to how limitless this kind of source of energy might actually be. The solution would be to move to even higher temperatures to be able to fuse deuterium directly without tritium, but that makes all the problems of confinement and efficiency that they have been trying to solve for the last half century of research even more difficult. There is also the slight problem that the building materials used to make the reaction vessel will suffer cumulative damage from exposure to extremely high levels of radiation over runs of possibly months. Their crystal structure will literally be damaged at the atomic level compromising the strength of the materials. I am unaware of anyone having come up with a solution to that problem, other than just rebuilding the reaction vessel periodically - which I would imaging would impact on cost a bit.
There is no reason to say that fusion is a bad idea, but it is beset with some very significant technical hurdles. It's been a joke in physicist circles for years that efficient, energy-producing fusion reactors are only 40 years away - and they always will be.
deuterium tritium still produces radioactive waste, the way to go is with hydrogen boron that produces no radioactive waste and billions of times cheaper energy than any existing energy source today.
From the ITER website: "Lithium from proven, easily extractable land-based resources would provide a stock sufficient to operate fusion power plants for more than 1,000 years. What's more, lithium can be extracted from ocean water, where reserves are practically unlimited (enough to fulfill the world's energy needs for ~ 6 million years)."
I wonder if you can design a thorium reactor to power the magnetic fields needed to hold the plasma within those fields, and then introduce hydrogen into the magnetic "bottle," heating it with powerful lasers also powered by the thorium reactor (or a series of thorium reactors)? If this is possible, then you can devise ways of managing the magnetic bottle in order to control the fusion reaction - and to shut it down if necessary.
The researchers have been promising that fusion energy will be here "real soon" for many decades. We have learned one thing from this:
Don't hold your breath. Don't expect the promises to come true.
I agree with your comment. (Tokamak?). It reminds me of the 'Perpetual Motion Machine', 'A free Lunch', 'Something for Nothing'.
Ever since (circa 1950s), this promise has always been 'Just 10 Years Away'!
Best regards.
From other talks and videos, the ITER in France has now been pushed back to 2025 before completion. (He said it would be 2020.) There still seems to be some HUGE hurdles to clear before this concept is viable for energy production.
For the tin foilers, its pretty difficult to control deuterium and tritium as deuterium for example naturally occurs in the Ocean. Tritium is easy enough to make. It is something radically different and unlike most power we currently use that have expensive extraction methods or limited availability, the fuel for it is available on a massive scale, something that is not really controllable like oil or gas as they occur in specific fields/wells. Seriously, for once can't people go 'yay humanity'? we have found a particular source of energy that is plentiful, environmentally friendly and cheap. Geez, there is always someone pissing on someones chips.
Isotopes of hydrogen.
You will also have to realize that computational physics, design modeling, and simulations have improved over those 30 years with supercomputers and PIC (particle in cell) codes. In addition, the experimental efforts continue with advances in materials, physics, and engineering. The problem with ITER is that governments have placed a majority of the taxpayer's monies on this one concept. The small innovative guys are left out in the cold by governments for funding; thus, private investments are the way for the small companies and researchers.
Isn't liquid fluid thorium a simpler route to 'perfect' energy?
simpler and good, and we should use them, but fusion is more efficient by a massive margin. fusion fuel is much much more abundant and delivers over a thousand times more energy per kg fuel than even fission.
@@katraconnor8451 Not to mention the fact it doesnt generate any radioactive subproducts. Maybe fission should be used for now, while we dont have something better, but fusion is definitely the way to go.
@@katraconnor8451 ... what is keeping fusion energy from becoming reality? Is it too hard to control bc it's so much more powerful?
Unfortunately 2045 as a date when fusion energy starts generating electricity commercially is extremely optimistic, more realistically we are at least 50 years away from commercial fusion power and we are still missing some essential pieces of technology to make it work at all, according to the very scientists who work at ITER.
I've worked doing shutdown maintenance on power plants and oil refineries for a few years. Literally inside vessels working in confined space replacing worn out parts etc. Im just wondering how maintenance gets performed on something like this.
According to Zubrin who was working on fusion, that there was several competing fusion centers, and they were all racing against each other and making loads of progress. Then they were all united under one roof so to speak. And progress slowed to a snail pace. And that happened in Europe too.
Which reminds me of a documentary i seen regarding cracking the human geno. All the forecasts were for 30 years out. 30 years of work before they would understand it. But a private businessman who had a child with a genetic disease didnt like the sound of that. He investigated, got a plan, then sold his business and bought 10 or 20 machines. He then claimed he would do it under 2 years. Well the university didnt like the sound of that. They pulled the finger out and got to work. And they won and got there first. That 30 years of work they claimed was bullshit, and even though that dude is important in the story of cracking the human genio (important enough for the documentary) I think hell be largely forgotten :(
Until they need him again when robots attack, but he won't be there when they do. Reason: That is Descent.
Whoever Zubrin is....
Yea but if there's 7 billion people and one reactor can provide energy to 500,000, than it would take 14,000 machines to provide enough energy for every person on earth.
That's a lot of jobs and we are talking about the early phase of this technology. Things'll be scaled up and real progress will happen.
+doodelay also remember... fusion reactors won't be the only form of reliable and extremely potent reactors out there... we still have the already generated nuclear-waste from current fission models that we absolutely have to burn in LFTR, in order to get rid of it. which in itself will probably be more than enough energy for at least the foreseeable future. Fusion is nice but it's not going to help with the cleanup much.
+Michiel Mitchell no it wont help clean up but it won't contribute either.
+Michiel Mitchell Nuclear waste is not a big deal. The only problem are current laws, so people simply store it (which is not bad if it can be used as fuel). But you could safely deposit nuclear waste on the bottom of the ocean. Very safely.
bakters Sure, lets waste the oceans permanently with hundreds of thousands of tons of highly radioactive material. Its not like we have thrown enough shit in it already.
Who on earth has told you, that this madness would be "very safely"?
If it is successful, and major companies and countries start to pitch in more resources, it can easily be done before 2045.
If it can power a city or location of 500,000 people, the first companies or countries to get a hold of one will most likely have a monopoly or oligopoly. Most likely extremely profitable if less plants and competition. Although I’m just speculating based on what he said.
If we go by the number of 500,000 people can be powered, 12-15 of those fusion plants could power the greater Houston area (where I live lol). Possibly less if output increases or bigger ones are made. That would be crazy.
2045? I think once we figure out how to do it, this could be implemented much faster. Why would it take another 25 years?
Bigbadd Woofe agreed, I think he is underestimating capitalism replacing science as the means of funding these plants. The second it is profitable to build there will be billions more poured into the research and development.
Bigbadd Woofe Fusion to be done affordably requires room temp superconductors, they are still a long way off, if possible at all, supercooling magnets requires a good chunk of resources and helium prices are only getting higher.
Brent Cromwell Fusion can be done in more than one way. I'm certainly not an expert on the subject, but I've never heard mention of a need for room temperature superconductors.
All current experimental power plant designs use superconducting magnets to generate the plasma containment fields, which means they need large amounts of either liquid nitrogen or more commonly liquid helium to keep the magnets at the appropriate temperature.
Brent Cromwell
I see. I think if we funded the research as a top priority we might see big things happen. Though, it may not be possible to create a superconductor that operates at room temperature. Maybe there is another route that can be taken.
where are the clouds in that first pic ?
.......
I do not want to be pessimistic but once they achieve a sustainable fusion reaction they still have to deal with the degradation of the materials that contains the Plasma: I mean... fast neutrons originated in this kind of reaction will degrade the materials very quickly so be prepare with lots of "spare reactors" and at the end, we will still be using heat to create steam as we have done from the beginning. so basically a huge furnace for boiling water!!
Not all fusion reactors use steam, some old require magnets. As to the plasma your right, but it's an extremely small amount. Since there cannot be a meltdown, and the byproduct is not radioactive it's most certainly our best bet.
You're not wrong. The materials aspect is one of the main headline challenges facing the commercialisation of the technology.
If they can find a heat transfer medium that will last they can operate at temperatures where higher efficiency Brayton cycle CO2 and Helium turbines could be used. Such is the case for some of the Gen IV Fission reactor designs (MSR specifically). They produce significantly higher efficiencies than just supercritical steam does.
With aneutronic fusion (hydrogen boron fuel) you will not need any turbines, the heat can be captured directly by the all surrounding device that converts the heat directly into energy. This makes this makes for the far cheaper process of the energy capture. Better yet because anutronic fusion produces no neutrons you will not need to worry about protection from radioactive waste caused by neutrons.
ITER couldn't even power a large city?? That huge machine to provide power for 500,000 people? I'm not impressed. Let's get molten salt reactors.
The major thing is getting more out than you put in. That is the point of ITER. After that it is just a matter of making more and refining the process. It is a big thing for fusion.
How is powering a city of 500,000 people with clean energy not impressive?
Because it's costing what, 20 billion euros?? Lol. The biggest problem I see with tokamaks is (besides the break-even challenge) - that only a small fraction of the available fusion energy will be useable. 99.9% of the energy will be contained in the middle of the tokamak, and only a tiny fraction of energetic particles will reach the containment shielding. This SMALL FRACTION of a percent will be used for heat. With fission it's a million times easier to produce energy AND you can convert more than half of it. You're only limited by thermal transfer efficiency. This is why we need advanced fission - thorium MSRs #thorium
Robert Weekes Fission is nice and I like it. But it is not the future. Fusion is the next step for us to progress into a new technological age. That’s final. For us to progress we need fusion.
Robert Weekes, The "biggest problem" you see with tokamaks is in fact nonexistent. Fast neutrons carry away a lot more than 1% of the energy produced by fusing nuclei (it's 80% for D-T fusion). The remaining energy is carried by the produced alpha-particles, which deposit that energy in the plasma, thus sustaining plasma heating. The actual problem with D-T fusion is plasma-wall damage from the fast neutrons. You'll need to change the plasma chamber's lining every few years. The projected cost of that alone will cause vertigo for sure :-(. So I agree with your that MSR-fission reactors based on Thorium is the way to go (for now at least).
but he didn't tell you that there are radio active byproducts. the fuel is not tap water, it is duterium, a form of hydrogen that is not as abundant and not easy to get.
But there's plenty of it on the moon, and there still plenty of it in the ocean, so not really a serious worry.
duterium is made from tritium that we know how do make now and is not a byproduct it is the fuel helium is the only byproduct
how do we get the heat from the plasma in the doughnut to the steam generator?
+Arthur Leung
We dont. Thats why we cant get it to produce more power than it generates yet. There is a plan to have a water cooling jacket at the back side of the walls. It will get heated to 500 C by neutrons that escape the magnetic confinment after fussion reaction happens and the steam generated will power steam turbines to produce electricity. Hopefully. The issue is that due to neutron bombardment the walls and all of the machinery will be transmuted and need to be replaced wery often so i dont really think it is a feasable cheap power source. I hope they prove me wrong.
+Makis Gkirgkoudis and they become radioactive
Euphorium Inc some material do become radioactive some do not. What happens to all is that their original properties become degraded so they loose functionality and need replacement. Very difficult problem to solve. I am not optimistic anymore.
+Makis Gkirgkoudis Go understand what aneutronic fusion and lawson criterion are then you'll know fusion is more than a century away at least.
The fusion process produces energtic alpha particles and energetic neutrons. The alpha particles are subject to the magnetic fields and stay in the plasma. Their kinetic energy is used for heating the plasma. The neutrons hit the wall and thereby heats the wall. The hot wall powers a steam engine just like a coal plant.
The northern lights are not created by solar flares and sunspots do not increase the northern lights. The northern lights are caused by Treaty violations halogenated vinyl rings. Quantum mechanics explains the light emitted by the molecules of halogenated vinyl. When there is an increase it is an industrial environmental disaster reaches the northern latitudes.
VX pesticide nerve agent and Lontrel herbicide and nerve agent both glow white . These are fluorinated pyridine rings. Agent Orange herbicide glysophate propanolamine glows green. These are Chlorinated pyridine rings. Brominated Dioxin fire retardant used on fabric glows blue. These are Brominated benzene rings. All are photo electric and repeatedly generate electrons from light and heat energy. These electrons destabilized atmospheric gases oxygen and nitrogen gases to salt and water. We see nitrate and ammonium sulphate in precipitation rivers and lakes.
Cool! Except we are 30 years away from it to work. And we were 30 years away 30 years ago too.
That really isn't true anymore. There has been a lot of progress in the last few years, and a positive energy machine is more like 5-10 years, which is very likely to lead quickly to a real pilot power plant.
xxwookey+
Yeah, it will be 10 years away now for many, many decades ahead.
This is the same statement that's been repeated by countless physicists and engineers since the 50s.
You will also have to realize that computational physics, design modeling, and simulations have improved over those 30 years with supercomputers and PIC (particle in cell) codes. In addition, the experimental efforts continue with advances in materials, physics, and engineering.
If you had a steady 6 figure salary to set around and talk all day long, would you admit anything that might interrupt that money stream. I don't think so. You can never trust a Warmer to tell you the truth until we take the money out of it.
Fast forward to 2020, ITER is still halfway to its destination :(
So.... How is this better than Thorium?
The question is Cui Bono? Why is electric power consumption going up? Please present EROI.
As for fusion? Well, dear physics scientists. You are very young in manipulating our systems. Precautionary Principle.
hopefully the new graphene technology being developed will deliver the urgent 'time out' period we need to rethink alternative energy...
The powerplant and also the fusion material Tritium and deuterium will be possible for goverment to get, and probably will they also control the distribution. Same as our nuclear reactors, they are owned and controlled by goverment. The marketplace of energy will be put on the market on a marketplace like stockmarket. Similiar as today.
But one hundred million degrees? It would all vaporize in seconds. Would you think?
If we have to wait to the mid-2040s for this to become a reality, that's too late. We need something that is faster with all the destruction we are doing to the earth.
+Wheelman Josh Advanced nuclear reactors are the way to go until fusion gets viable.
+Wheelman Josh
There are many technological ways to bridge the gap years . . . for starters burning coal + carbon capture would do the trick (that is probably the current cheapest way to produce enough clean electricity) . . . by 2020 solar power + Elon Musks power wall will be as cheap as clean coal now (by 2030 far cheaper) . . . and even better, it costs less and less energy to produce one Euro of economic growth so in the future we might require less and less energy per capita and still have a flourishing economy . . . we can well afford to take 50 to 100 years to get fusion going . . . and even if fusions fails, we perfectly can live with the 2030 version of solar power.
+vilkoos We are already using fusion power in wind and sunlight forms to bridge that gap. Even hydro-electric power and fossil fuels are derived from the fusion of hydrogen in the sun.
You've been horribly brainwashed by your professors and don't know it.
I'm counting more on Lockheed Martin SkunkWorks, and their compact fusion reactor that could be viable in 10 years.
+Wheelman Josh Because lawson's criterion.
Except that Lockheed appear to be basing their design on a magnetic mirror configuration (though it's tricky to say, as they've released virtually no information), which is a type of reactor abandoned in favour of tokamaks in the 50's/60's. Not to mention they haven't released any information as to how they plan to address the main challenges facing the commercialisation of fusion: Tritium breeding, materials degradation, divertor design, remote maintenance (and several others I can't remember right now). Changing reactor configuration doesn't eliminate these problems, and it also serves to create others. As such I'm very skeptical of Lockheed's 10 year claims. It's pretty much only their reputation that doesn't make such claims laughable. Extraordinary claims require extraordinary proof, and so far nobody has seen any.
David Middleton-Gear Skunkworks doesn't ever give specifics on designs until they are released and known to the public. I'm sure this fusion reactor is not for the public first, but actually for military purposes.
+Wheelman Josh
Whilst I agree with you to some extent, and skunkworks has built its reputation in doing things that other people think are too difficult to attempt, I honestly can't see how they are going to live up to their claims. There isn't a single reputable fusion lab in the world that thinks that there's any research plan that could deliver a functional, cost effective fusion reactor within 10 years. Just going through the certification process for the design of a new reactor with a nuclear regulator can take years. And from a military perspective I don't see the application. All a fusion reactor can do effectively is make electricity, which is already done on subs with very well established fission reactors. The advantages presented by fusion: clean, no long lived radioactive waste, no carbon emissions, longevity of supply etc. are not really big sellers for the military. As for skunkworks' concept of building something that fits on the back of a truck, that seems illogical too, as fusion devices do not scale down well. The bigger they are the more efficient they become, as the radiative heat losses from the plasma become less dominant.
I'm not trying to be Mr. Negative, hell I work in fusion research so it's in my interests for it to succeed, it's just there has been a flurry of organisations making sensationalist claims about their fusion devices lately, which in my view are unsubstantiated, and it's really hurts the credibility of the technology...
Anyhoo, sorry for the monologue, it's just an interesting topic to discuss :-)
David Middleton-Gear Since you work in fusion, you get to skip probably most of the propaganda and know exactly where we are in this exciting field. Don't worry about arguing your point at length, that's great and I appreciate it. Let me say, that Lockheed SkunkWorks has not been one to put out sensationalist claims in the past. The SR 71 was thought to be impossible, as well as the Stealth bomber and F-117. I just think these guys are working on a different level and if you look at the structure of how SW does things, they are freely able to work without red tape and bureaucracy, have an incredible amount of funds available, and have a track record of delivering what they say may will and are unquestionably advanced.They even work with DARPA. Their job is to keep the United States ahead and prevent surprise. As far as military applications, just imagine a fusion power plant on aircraft carriers, destroyers, and cruisers? There is a unquestionable need for enormous amounts of energy in these platforms because of the advent of laser weapons, EM rail guns, ablative and EM shields, just to name a few. But I don't think fusion will solve everything immediately, there is still time to make new and innovative reactors like molten salt, and thorium which are much safer and will provide a outlet (thorium) for us to use our waste piles. I think it will be a combination of many different technologies that bring us into a new era of energy, it has to, we have to do it. Just imagine unlimited amounts of fusion energy in the future where you can pretty much do whatever you want within the realm of physics, because of the power contained there. We could build giant fusion air scrubbers for instance. Any other ideas you want to discuss, feel free, I enjoy it. Have a nice day.
Anyone know the satellite he is talking about @0:15 ?
The sooner it done the better. Because when the oil starts to run out and the gas there will be big trouble.
No subtitles on this one?
a gravity harness (underwater wheel) uses no fuel and can generate all the electricity on demand we could ever use for free
Is this a perpetual motion machine or a way to harvest tides and currents?
So what will we do with the helium produced by fusion?
+Emilio Latsy VelascOs Rodriguez Use it as coolant, replacing liquid nitrogen since helium is a better coolant. Balloons too.
Haha love the balloon idea Kappa
I see then it would be really a self sustaining mechanism
+Emilio Latsy VelascOs Rodriguez helium is rare on earth and nonrenewable . actually now we started to have a problem of not having enough helium stocks for serious uses and there is even talk about banning helium sale for entertainment so I think a new source of helium is more than welcome
+Emilio Latsy VelascOs Rodriguez We'll breathe it, and have a laugh.
+bakters That's nitrous oxide. Helium alters vocal cords and raised the pitch. It doesn't make you laugh. Actually, neither does nitrous oxide exactly.
If humanity spent as much on this as they do on underware it would have been done in 15 years.
Hydrogen nuclei not Hydrogen as the Sun is composed of plasma, the fourth state of matter
Awesome good explanation of hot fusion chances!
Only blind spot is the typical plasma physicist's denial of the unexpected LENR reaction. Turns out (Miles, China Lake) you can convert Hydrogen to Helium and get the expected binding energy out, using the tools of electro-chemistry. This is thousands of times cheaper than the gear Zwicker envisions. Breaking the strong-force Coulomb barrier is not needed. Simply a matter of weak force interactions. Putting protons and electrons together only requires 780keV, and forms a ultra-cold neutron. Accumulating neutrons on fast circulating hydrogen nuclei releases several meV each time. When Hydrogen-4 then beta decays to Heilium-4 the remainder of 27meV is released.
The LENR denial movement in physics is a lot like the climate-denial movement you see in free-market true believers. But it doesn't matter. Any good experimental physicist or engineer can verify the reaction performs as advertised. And business is investing. Most big companies such as Airbus, Toyota, Mitsubishi, Nissan, are spending low millions per year on it. And there are hot startups such as BrillouinEnergy and Industrial Heat. Sadly Physicists will learn of it from the business pages of the WSJ instead of the top journals that have a longstanding practice of not reviewing papers on the topic.
+grumpystiltskin LENR is a scam
Why would they need, a power station that is as Hot as the Sun ?. They will have to Design a heat exchanger that will not melt for starters.They will go way beyond the boiling point of water . Even with today's power stations, they use cooling towers to get rid of the heat in the water. A better design is to recycle this water back into the power station, so they can use less fuel to heat it up.
Fusion energy will solve our problems with CO2 emissions, radioactive wastes and fuel source run out. BUT! We need superconductors that work in room temperature...
Now the best superconductor is: Tl2Ba2Ca2Cu3O10. But work on 125 kelvins :(
EDIT: 3:17 - and you need only ONE small truck of Thorium! For 30 years!
we dont need a superconductor at room temperature. we can use super conductors that are cooled, the reactor produces enough energy to offset that extra consumption of cooling
The idea that one type of energy generation will solve our needs is delusional, what is needed is an integrative approach, as different parts of the world have different forms of natural energy available, its no good having wind turbines in a location that has no wind.
The nuclear nonproliferation treaty enforcement says we have enough nuclear technology and nuclear radiation. To survive nuclear technology we have agreed not to build develop or share nuclear technology. The USSR and the USA began the end of nuclear technology in the world 🌎 with the nuclear nonproliferation treaty. We have not enforced this very important Treaty obligation instituted by scientists to initiate survival. Fusion reactors are radioactive and violate the nuclear nonproliferation treaty.
i remember i said to my cousin that one day we will be able to make a machine which will produce more energy than it consume he used to program robots etc he responded to me we are not able to make a machine that produce more power than it consumes
+Stratos Adam
You are confusing the law of energy conservation with the conversion of matter into energy. Theese are 2 totaly different subjects. There is no violation of the energy conservation law by fission or fussion process.
A) Energy conservation says that you can not produce more energy from burning fuel than is contained in said fuel.
B) In nuclear reactions you break up the nucleus into smaller atoms than their previus sum, releasing neutrons. All atoms have a huge amount of energy called strong nuclear force binding the protons and neutrons together. When you have a release of neutrons some of the strong nuclear force binding the atom together is lost and released as heat which we trap with water to power steam turbines.
In fission this process is automatic because the nuclei of heavy atoms that have 200+ protons and neutrons are unstable.
In fussion we need to force the smallest of atoms to bind together so we need to add energy to start the reaction.
If still confused, read a high school physics book, and work your way up from that.
Dont hesitate to ask if you have any questions.
Doesn't even touch the question in the title and everything that is mentioned sounds like reading the first few paragraphs off Wikipedia minus accuracy plus hype.
The sun supplies clean energy through nuclear fusion. There is no need to recreate the sun. We must collect, store and ship solar energy. This is what we do with fossil fuels and all we need do with solar energy.
2020 for ITER? lol, good god you were optimistic. Full experiments will not start on ITER until 2035, and there is absolutely no guarantee it will produce as much energy as we are told. Fusion power from 2070 onward's is not good enough to halt the damage we will have done by that time.
What??? 2035?!?!?! Well, we can safely forget about ever getting power from THAT priesthood.....
please read this
all of these sounds like a sipder-man movie i saw once...
what if all these experiments will damage our earth somehow
like from gravity changes or what if theres a leak in some device
im just afraid that he put safty on the end of the list
i'd like it to be first.
Helium we all be smurfs.
2045? That will be at least 20 years too late. Nice try. We're doomed anyway.
We need to maintain fusion for more than a millisecond - is what we want. In the UK we are researching fusion and when they turn on the containment it uses 20% of the national grid...it's like half time at the world cup final, like every kettle getting switched on at once. Whatever he says, it is gonna take decades so don't expect it any time soon.
How about cold fusion?
That was the scam of the decade when it came out...
Haha at that 'progress outpaces IC processor design' graph.....Just maybe the slope is steeper at one point - I bet it was a device for getting funding? Chalk and cheese anyhow.
If you don t know what you are talking about then don t write comments!!@!!!!!!! Spreading false truths should be a crime
***** no they are both equally intolerable
+wesley scott Misinformation you say?
Just imagine how this reactor will be fueled. A public restroom will be put just outside the power plant and all of the piss will be purified and then the hydrogen gathered through electrolysis. Just imagine your piss providing essential energy to the world.
Fact: We can build tomorrow as many cheap fission reactors we want to give the world abundant clean cheap energy - 65 years after the first nuclear stations were built we can do it cheaply and with little waste and all without any greenhouse emissions. Why don't we? They became unpopular through misconception and poor engineering.
Perpetual energy...?
Hmm.... 2013.... many things have changed since then
By the time fusion is viable, most if not all the youtube commenters will die. They won't be complaining about energy no more.
Why isn't this getting as much hipe as it should!!!
+Jack Sullivan Probably because the word is hype, and you've entered the command wrong.
annoyed707 Yeah realized that a little too late, probably because I was so hyped up.
Utopian. there! see you next time
What about all helium. We all be Smurfs!
the same they said 30 years ago.
I don't like when he says "perfect". Perfection doesn't exist. It isn't a thing that could ever exist in the real world, only in peoples heads. Perfection is a ridiculous concept if you think about it. It means that there could never be anything better than this nor can you improve on it at all. It would be more accurate if he said a vastly better energy source.
There is no such thing as nuclear fusion, Chapter 12.
Chapter 12 of what, a comic book?
so we need a star made from graphene?
Fusion bombs gna be dope
facepalm .... they exist for over half a century dude
we had fusion bombs since 1960s you derp
@@katraconnor8451 1950s.
Pie in the sky is nice, let's keep trying for the pie, but NOBODY has made this work yet. That suggests a long costly development and construction time even AFTER they make it work as an example. Meanwhile, back in the REAL WORLD we are destroying the world and its climate and the time is short. Is it wise? -> To promote such a thing that may convince people they don't have to really install solar, don't really have to build wind turbines, don't really have to conserve and learn to live a more frugal way? People are easily distracted from what they must do when they don't want to do the work required or suffer the loss of their precious ignorance and negligence. This kind of talk is irresponsible. This sort of whiz-bang for the kiddies is a destructive science fiction cartoon when they should be doing their homework. And by the way, for all the Latin buffs out there, "Iter" doesn't mean "the way", it means "the journey" and it's going to be a long one.
rstevewarmorycom What kind of talk is irresponsible, exactly?
encarsiaformosa Any kind in which you encourage people to ignore proven technology which could save the world and offer instead unproven and more expensive technology. Why? Because doing so could be responsible for ending human life and culture.
rstevewarmorycom I don't think anyone's ignoring proven technology, it's just the proven technology so far hasn't delivered, so we're looking for alternatives. The amount of money spent on fusion research is paltry.
+rstevewarmorycom Do you remember the part where he talked about the development timeline?
+encarsiaformosa Agreed it's paltry. But the amount to convert the world to fusion is staggeringly more than to convert the world to solar and wind. And how quick? 50 years to build a reactor for everyone everywhere? We'll have destroyed the planet for good by then irretrievably.
You really honestley don't know what is in the sun can't see where ya say that even with all yer education
he stole my intro :P for the good cause
what a looney... 5:30 we haven't thought about fusion as a powersource until now my ass -.-
TEDx - as much credibility as your mom.
Hydrogen nuclei not Hydrogen as the Sun is composed of plasma, the fourth state of matter