Nuclear fusion seems to me to be a pipe dream. Whilst I do think research should continue, it is at the moment a distraction. We need to rapidly switch to a carbon neutral economy asap. Geothermal energy*, solar panels**, wind turbines, and back up battery technology are more than sufficient to meet all our energy needs. *With the development of laser drilling it will be possible to build geothermal energy plants almost anywhere. **Solar panels are rapidly increasing in their electric output.
You heard it from them. Tritium is very limited so it's not fit for wide scale energy production. Nuclear energy and less urban sprawl is our best chance against climate change. There's no shortcut to it
I agree with working on techs that already work! For instance, restarting coal plants in Europe to save natural gas.... oh wait. Fission already works but it's not available to countries without the budget since richer countries won't fund it for proliferation concerns. Renewables already work to a point. Yet Germany has spent $500 billion on their wind and solar push and they still need lots of coal with 40% of production from renewables There are two technologies that don't already work here. One is nuclear fusion and the other is long term energy storage that could effectively scale up wind and solar to breakthrough reliable levels. We should try both! Or deep geothermal as Quaise Energy is trying by pointing a fusion plasma heating microwave at the ground - it could beat everything else
I’m currently working on a video about climate delay tactics and Nuclear Fusion is a topic often used to to get people to put off taking action. Basically, it falls under the category of “technological optimism” which is when companies tell you “this great tech is right around the corner, and it will be so groundbreaking that we might as well wait for it before we start taking action!” This sounds good, but if we’re being honest, nuclear fusion has been “just around the corner” for some 20 years now. So what do scientists recommend doing? They think that we should deploy current solar and wind tech like crazy immediately while keeping R&D on Fusion going. When many of those turbines and panels need replaced in 20-30 years then we can see if fusion is ready yet. If it is, maybe we shift to deploying fusion. If it isn’t ready, then we continue on with solar and wind energy. Thanks for putting out a video which actually takes a balanced view to what fusion is and is not capable of!
Agreed 🙋🏼♀️ fusion is distraction. We should invest in geothermal energy plants. With the development of laser drilling it is now possible to build geothermal energy plants almost anywhere. It's still in its development stage, but it's a technology we know works.
@@ladyselenafelicitywhite1596 yea geothermal is super amazing as well. It’ll be a crucial way to provide “Baseload capacity” without burning fossil fuels. Which will make it even easier to implement 100% renewable across the board!
@@SaveMoneySavethePlanet precisely 🙋🏼♀️ I wish they had invested the billions in developing geothermal energy over nuclear fission. Nuclear fission looks great on paper, but they've been trying to develop it for decades. I remember it being discussed back in the 1960s.
@@wondledonkey yes they have. They are well past the testing stages and are currently in the process of building the first laser drilled geothermal energy plant. Hopefully, the first laser drilled geothermal energy plant will be online by 2024. With more in the pipeline.
What everyone seems to forget about these projects is the biggest advantage of pursuing it which is the technology that comes out of it can be used for solving other problems. Like the magnets are getting more efficient and thus means other industries that use magnets (everything that moves using electricity uses them) will also benefit.
@Asanda No, the research into fusion will not benefit the permanent magnets we use for building motors for example. The research into fusion deals with super high power electromagnets which are *not* used in everyday industry.
@@acmefixer1 There's a lot of things that were not used in everyday industry that are now used in everyday industry thanks to research. Many things we have today are the results of people taking knowledge from one field and applying on others.
Oh absolutely, which is why I don't mind "big science" projects like this. There will be spinoffs. But fusion as a source of electrical energy will always be more expensive than the alternative.
@@asandax6 you're right about basic research benefitting everyday life. However there is absolutely no use in everyday industry for nuclear fusion technology. Your analogy isn't valid.
Scientists just want a job, like anyone else, should we trust them " maybe " but its not like the govt hasn't spent billions on other ridiculous projects
The problem with fusion is that the more we learn, the more we realize we won't be able to make it work. We will spend more decades and more resources that could be spent on something useful , but when did humans ever think of doing useful things ?
@@jonathanodude6660 There are hundreds of videos on TH-cam on this subject. I followed fusion progress intensely in the last years, but things are looking bad. That's why the focus is now back on fission energy.
Adapting to changing climate is one thing. Reaching viable fusion is like ancestor obtaining fire but for second time. Why you wouldn't do both with delicate budgeting?
It irritates me when people say fusion will save us from climate change or say that it's a waste of time and money. Relying on it saving us probably isn't smart. However, funding it isn't harming anything and it could have a huge pay-off. It's worth investing in it, just not to excess. Edit - clarity
@@thegreataynrand7210 its already here. every year basically every country sets a new climate record in some aspects, whether its most wet, most dry, most hot or most cold, months, seasons or years, and some countries even set all 4 of those records in a single year. whats worse is that the pace of these records is increasing, not decreasing, which doesnt make sense if theres no additional factors involved. people are beginning to wonder if the current weather cycles weve become used to will slow down and put us in favourable or unfavourable conditions for extended periods of time, rather than the 1-2 year time spans for these weve seen for the last 30 decades.
@@jonathanodude6660 You need to look closer at the data because there is lots of politics and political correctness mixed with hysteria in much of climate science. I suggest an excellent TH-cam channel to watch is called Climate Discussion Nexus. Also a warmer world is a better one.
Putting this money into subsidies for home solar and wind could help slow climate change now. However, cutting reliance on grid energy is very threatening to the huge profits of big energy companies.
I believe in fusion. We should try, test, apply. Outcome for now is unknown, but we shouldn’t throw out the idea of sustainability of fusion power because some of experts are skeptical.
It is generally unknown that the stellar exothermic nuclear fusion requires both the density and temperature unreachable except by stellar gravity. When I as a graduate student "believed in fusion" I was under the popular delusion that the production of a neutron and a helium nucleus was better than the radioactive products of fission. I did not notice that an alpha particle is an energetic helium nucleus, and that the most dangerous radiation of all is a super-energetic neutron, the only atomic radiation that can create radioactivity.
This video has the greatest variety and quality of video clips I've seen for a fusion video and many good quotes. One I particularly disagree with is Jassby's quip that every private company is a fantasy, and ironically with the pro-fusion side's statements about operating power plants coming out in 2060 - 70 Using the same tokamak power parameters that are used for ITER the private company CFS projects that they can build a >200MWe pilot plant before ITER reaches full power tests in 2035. They have demonstrated a superconductor magnet twice as powerful as ITER's. It's actually limited by the structural strength of steel and their full scale tokamak should be 10x more powerful than ITER for a given size. With a JET size tokamak they can match ITER's thermal output along with much lower input energy to run. For a pilot plant not necessarily optimized commercially they project $260 MWh - very high but also very close to commercially relevant with how quickly parameters can change fusion output For instance a much cheaper or much stronger structural material to reduce their cost or increase their allowable magnetic power would launch them into commercial territory. There has also been a simulation prediction that high power tokamaks will be more tolerant of higher plasma density, potentially quadrupling the power of an ARC or ITER power tokamak For other private companies the rubber is hitting the road quickly and we'll soon see if it's a launch or spinning tires. Zap is finishing a reactor that could produce Q = 1 this year that is far more scalable and engineering friendly than laser or tokamak designs. They say their power scaling is to the 11th power of the current applied to the plasma. I believe this means that they could run into physics problems and simply overcome it with a more powerful machine without sacrificing much in commercial competitiveness. Helion is building a machine for 2024 intended to produce bursts of net electricity that is one step before a full scale generator, as is General Fusion with a 70% scale test reactor in 2025. I don't know about Helion but it appears General Fusion has the same ability to scale up to overcome physics problems, as has happened with both lasers and tokamaks who suffer from far more instabilities than predicted requiring far larger and more powerful machines than thought the last time fusion was said to be 20 years away. With General Fusion their 70% size reactor is aiming for Q = .1 while their full size is intended to produce Q = 50. If they hit an instability problem there may be an option to build something like a 120% size reactor that costs somewhat more per MWh but potentially overcomes stability problems with rapid power scaling Overall I have a feeling energy storage will beat out fusion but I think both are real possibilities. Fusion also has the feature of directly producing heat which could be applied to decarbonizing industrial processes using a lot of heat with a relatively higher efficiency than converting wind to electric to heat for the same purpose (though not necessarily an absolutely higher efficiency). It would also have advantages for powering container ships which don't have a grid they can draw from if their onboard wind power source is offline on a quiet day
@@antonimalachowski5262 In one of his public lectures the General Fusion founder mentioned he thinks they have a 70% chance of success. There's a rule of thumb some use to rate likelihood of success where they divide a promoter's opinion by 10. So in GF's case we could go with a 7% chance of success. If there are several companies with about these chances that's a pretty good bet overall for something that could be comparable to fission without its downsides, and maybe a lot cheaper in some cases
Orano SA produces Tritium thankfully & its available from other sources. My view is that an intermediate energy production phase is required before/if Fusion becomes available. This would involve Thorium reactors to reduce problem waste and to consolidate Uranium. Due to plasma instabilities I don't see fusion available within the next 50-70 years unless some new ideas come forward. Maybe night billboard lighting should be shut down.
We already have a fusion reactor avail to anyone with power of 0.6kW/sqm which is no joke. We can't even tap on that energy, and now we want to create fusion here on earth.. that's stupid. If money goes to photo/ thermal solar, that would be more beneficial. Agree on fission reactors improvements and next usage, aswell as the unnecessary lighting.
Why not show some of the alternative fusion projects? HB11 aneutronic fusion, General Fusion, Commonwealth Fusion Systems (CFS), and Helion Energy are a few promising examples. Solar and wind are quite obviously making a huge impact and will continue to do so for at least the next few decades. Perhaps small modular reactors have a better chance than fusion in the short term. I'm glad to see the skeptics framing fusion power realistically being potentially impossible.
Dunno if it was filmed so intentionally, but the Greenpeace guy sounded the most unconvincing among the others lol. I bet on fusion, because it is a bold idea, and because it sounds like really something from the future. The question of should we keep researching vs rely on what we have sound silly if we apply it for instance to horse power and steam engines, or anything else from our past. So yes, please keep researching, this is what humans do naturally and should keep doing.
Investments in this field have been dramatically low, when you look at what we spend for space missions, for example. Only now is this starting to see some real money.
Output energy divided by input energy plus energy for maintain power. If equal to 1 which means we got hope. If equal to 100, next generation kids will ask“what is climate challenge?”
Research needs to keep on going, as we must count with a worst-case scenario where, in 50 years time, renewables alone can't cover all energy needs. Better not to put all eggs on the same basket.
Worst case you gain some technology out of manipulation of plasma. This already improved understanding of Magnetic Fields and produced a stronger electro-magnet. Possible improvement in energy collection and usage. If it does work possible space travel engine interplanetary, Not planetary atmosphere to ground though.
Even the idea is so tantalizing! Who knows research in this field - nuclear fusion, could lead us to an improved kind of reactors which might even need different raw material and eventually lead us to perfect fusion process which will indeed power our planet and satisfy our ever-growing energy needs. WE SHOULD GO FOR IT!
Unlimited energy would be the last mistake of humanity. With unlimited energy we would just do unlimited damage. It is not only the CO2 emissions that are a problem, the abundance of energy is a problem by itself.
Nuclear fusion releases 4,000,000X the amount of energy you get from fossil fuels, that is when we're finally able to do it continuously in an economic fashion. However, magnetic confined fusion requires you poor a large portion of that energy right back into the reactor so as to maintain the reactor, so you're likely only going to get 25% of the energy out to make electricity with, but even in the most optimistic case, you'll get 50% or 75% of that energy out to make electricity with, that is WHENEVER we can do this in an economic & commercial way, which isn't likely to happen for many decades. Nuclear fission, which we can ALREADY do right now, releases 1,000,000X the amount of energy you get from fossil fuels, and it doesn't require you put any portion of that back into the reactor to maintain fission, so you get all of that to make electricity with. That means, fusion, this wild-eyed dream of "infinite" power which we're not likely to commercialize for many decades at the earliest, at best only produces between 2X and 3X the power we can ALREADY get from an existing potential power source. And given the complexity of the physics involved, the incredible precision of the sensors involved in fusion, the rarity and cost of producing all the rare materials required like exotic super conductors, the likely size of the facilities, fusion plants aren't going to be ANY cheaper or quick to build than fission plants, but are instead likely to cost a lot more and take a lot longer to build.
Exactly. We can already use fast neutron reactors , that have a seemingly infinite amount of fissile material and produce far less dangerous waste. Why don’t we use them? Because they are far too expensive and complexe in comparaison of the the cost of the uranium they spare. If fast neutron reactor are too expensive to be competitive, there Is no way nuclear fusion reactors will be cheaper and easier to build and maintain.
I think you'd be interested in reading about Zap and Helion Energy. Zap plans on proving scientific breakeven within a year, and Helion plans on reaching net electricity by 2024. Each reactor design will be cheap to produce and operate, assuming they work.
@@Batmangutten I'm familiar with Helion, and I'm familiar with lots of company's, like SPARC, which are promising fusion by XXX date. Believe me, I support nuclear fusion research, so I don't mean to poopoo on it's parade, but the likelyhood of us commercializing fusion anytime soon, at least soon enough that we could leverage its vast energies, are remote. While you might find it a little disheartening, I'd suggest you check out the TH-cam video: Former fusion scientist on why we won't have fusion power by 2040 Video is specifically on a tokomak reactor, but the guy walks through the whole process in terms of energy requirements and production so that you can see how far we really are from something that would be even marginally commercial. The point of my original comment is that we need something to replace fossil fuels now, and fission reactors are ALREADY almost comparable with the energy output you're going to get out of a fusion reactor, under an optimal scenario, and fission reactors are likely to cost as much or less than any fusion reactor. We need movement NOW, and the only thing we have which can really address our need for plentiful CO2 free energy is fission.
@@williamsmith1741 I've seen that video, and it seems overly pessimistic. Zap energy, for example, has found a way to stabilize a Z-Pinch. The main problem with Z-Pinch has been kink instabilities, and if you solve them, it's likely going to work. They're aiming for scientific breakeven within a year from now and just got 160 million in funding to do so. Anyways, we'll find out in the next 2-3 years whether Zap and Helion will deliver. Within the next 8 years we'll figure out whether most of the other will too. As for fission, it just isn't profitable. At this point, it would be cheaper to build overcapacity solar and wind with batteries to cover a couple of days of energy storage. This would also face less opposition than nuclear energy. Solar will also get cheaper as we figure out novel ways to surpass the Shockley-Queisser limit. You're probably right that something like a tokamak wouldn't be profitable, but that isn't because it would be that much more expensive than fission but rather that solar and wind are dirt cheap. At this point, the only energy source which will be able to compete with solar and wind, specifically solar, is either Zap and Helion's approach to fusion, if successful, or geothermal (Quaise) using millimeter-wave drilling.
@@Batmangutten Yes, the collapsing plasma field has been one of the main issues, and more powerful superconductors might be able to help fix that, but we'll see. It's always nice to see that people factor a "scientific breakthrough" into their schedule. It's great how predictable they are. Exactly though, we'll see in the next 2 to 5 years for Helion and Zap and 8 or more years for the rest... This is besides point that fusion, under an optimistic scenario, is only likely to deliver at best between 2X to 3X of the power that fission already can yield, and the fusion plants, with all high precision equipment they'll need to monitor the fusion reaction, all of the exotic materials and careful processing going into those new super conductors, and the control processes needed to contain & utilize the tritium they're going to have to produce, there's no way they're going to be any cheaper to build than fission reactors. Per the International Energy Agency (IEA) report "Projected Costs of Generating Electricity 2020", nuclear fission has the 5th lowest median LCOE of any power source, with a median LCOE of 69 USD/MWh. The only power sources with lower levelized cost of electricity are: Hydro (run of river): 68 USD/MWh Solar PV (Utility Scale): 56 USD/MWh Wind (Onshore): 50 USD/MWh Nuclear (LTO/Long-Term Operating): 32 USD/MWh - These represent nuclear plants which have had their operational lives increased beyond the initial 40 year operating life You also realize that cheap energy storage would have as big an impact on nuclear as it would on solar and wind right, maybe even more so? Nuclear has the same but opposite problem as wind and solar, neither can follow load. However, cheap storage can only help wind and solar spread out the the limited energy they produce over a span of time, but it won't do anything to address scenarios like northern Europe went through last year when you had a wind drought for most of the year, including the winter when there's also a noticeable lack of sun. That couple of days of storage would amount to d$#k. And solar hasn't gotten cheaper due to any technical improvements with the cells or with fabricating them. They've gotten cheaper because the vast majority of production has been shifted to China where they were mass produced by literal slave labor in massively cheap/massively dirty production facilities. However, I'm wondering what new solar prices are going to look like since solar panel fabrication facilities have gone from operating 3 shifts 7 days a week to 2 shifts 3 days a week (as many of them had to reduce operations as a result of China's coal shortage).
Yes we need to keep investing in fusion, if I look back at history at all the inventions and current technologies that experts claimed were 100 of years away I say we keep fusion alive !
It is a big mistake to think that civilian nuclear fusion would have the same advantage over fission that thermonuclear bombs have over simple fission weapons. Kiloton weapons against Japan were enough to defeat, in the Emperor's mind, the beliefs of the suicidal extreme war parties. But megaton weapons by the hundred have apparently convinced the Great Powers (which don't include Britain and France) that the difference between "victory" and defeat in nuclear WW III would be negligible. We have had only local skirmishes for 78 years. In Vietnam, the USA was defeated. In Korea, the difference between the South and the North assures me that we were on the proper side, even if it looks like a stalemate.
9:42 what's the point of evenmentioning this... ITER is a prototype, of course other reactors would be needed should its design prove successfull. My god, Greenpeace is really doing its best appearing as complete strangers to progress & applied research.
Glass lasers can only be fired infrequenly or they overheat and self- destruct. LANL's KrF (248nm) Aurora Fusion Laser reached breakeven in July 1991 - LANL's Laser Fusion funding evaporated exactly one month later - or we would be using it by now !
What if this reaction performed in space? There is a vacuum as well as a sink to eject plasma directly into space providing thrust and energy to spacecraft at the same time. A sustained thrust for a long period is possible which will reduce travel time to Mars as well as will also provide pseudogravitational effect eliminating health hazards caused by zero gravity in space!
After becoming a minimalist and trying to make all my decisions consciously, I have reduced my energy consumption overall. Especially by buying second-hand things. My plan is to grow most of my food permaculuturally, which will in turn lower my consumption even further. All this is achievable, without any decrease my standard of living, happiness and health, quite the opposite in fact. I wish people would try solving problems by subtraction not only addition...
If you're interested in permaculture, you would probably like our video on that exact topic! Check it out - th-cam.com/video/I0rQNYMwzfY/w-d-xo.html - and let us know what you think in the comments 🌾🌱🌎
Basically if you invested in fusion today, then maybe you would get it working in 50 years. That would be great, if only we didn’t need to phase out from fossil fuels right now while increasing global electricity production. Please invest in renewables now so that future generations have the possibility to deal which such non threatening challenges, like nuclear fusion
Hi Roger! One of our reporters investigated the topic and you might be surpised by what she found out. Give it a watch and let us know what you think in the comments - "Is overpopulation really a problem for the planet?" 👉 th-cam.com/video/kUL-q7ptDW4/w-d-xo.html
The scientist have to rethink the shape of the reactor..! (1) the Plasma should flow in a "8" pattern around the 2 magnets situated in the middle of the "8" shape...! Then the reactor must be able to spin in its axis with the outer wall aligned with magnetic forces...! Remember, you 1st heard it from me..! 🙏 ❤️
Este video me pareció muy interesante ya que el crear tecnología para tener energía basada en los fenómenos que ocurren en las estrellas podría conyevar a tener una energía inagotable y limpia favoreciendo al mundo poco a poco eliminando las demás fuentes de energías que causan daños a nuestro planeta y ser cada vez mas sustentable
Sadly renewable are not that renewables. i mean today, since the recycling industry is none existant. So the renewables aspect only exists in the idea that recycling will improve in the future. it's not earned. And it will obviously be very uneven everywhere.
Battery recycling certainly is a challenge. 🔋 We have a whole video on the topic: th-cam.com/video/PbOBmnZRpZ4/w-d-xo.html Check it out and let us know what you think in the comments ✍️
I think we'll be surprised how advanced additive manufacturing will become in the decades to come. What, for example happens when somebody can have their 3D printer/assembler print a very nice couch over the course of a week or two? And I mean with material that looks and feels like wood, fabric, everything. No more factories making couches. No more shipping of couches. Couch retail. Last mile transport of couches. And that's just couches of course. As an example. Par for the course for a wide variety of home essentials. Altogether the sheer amount of large scale industry, along with its energy demand that will become redundant is difficult to even contemplate. What if can print and assemble... A small efficient wind turbine. Some solar panels. Some basic processors and microcircuit devices. Another printer/assembler as capable. Extraordinary self-sufficiency and efficiency will be possible. I don't think we'll ever reach the point where we achieve fusion power AND need fusion power - On Earth. Maybe as part of space exploration and colonisation.
We need to use an all the above energy strategy, meaning use every type of energy production we have access to. We also need to develop fusion, then we can use it to replace fission. The key to the carbon issue has nothing to do with what types of energy we use, so much as building atmospheric carbon mining facilities to pull it out of the air and process it into useful products. Anything else is a bad strategy that will destroy the quality of life we live and limit are development. Though I know there are plenty of Luddites out there who would love nothing more than to send us back to the horrible lifestyle of the 1700s.
I think that all of my neighbour's three trash bins are stuffed every week with waste and that we are far too much of a consumptive global culture, consuming for the sake of it. If we could learn to sit still, then we'd have far lower needs for energy and the raw materials which we exploit. A simple example: Humans need to drink water in order to survive; the economy makes us dependent of drinking bottled products in order to support a pillar of our economy. Coca-Cola is the world's largest producer of plastics. Society has been conditioned into consuming this stuff which isn't necessary for life but has taken a place in being essential to our economic existence, over our ecological health. So, what's more important to us all? Because we don't need as much energy as we think that we do.
We already have unlimited energy with wind and solar. You can install this at your own house and you don't need a grid. These billions of euros are being spent to keep the grid going and increase profits for big energy companies. It would be nice if the money were spent on medical care for regular people instead.
Let´s be honest here, we need to think about priorities, and our problem is an existential one: there will be no generation to enjoy the benefits of a possible nuclear fusion technology sucess if we don´t act now to solve this climate crisis. We need to prioritize what is urgent, investing just the necessary in these longterm technologies. Resources are scarce and we should use them wisely and efficiently.
So is this our energy plan for the next hundred years: go space mining and look for more tritium, while both technologies get more effective over time, while simultaneously work on an even better energy source? Sounds pretty cool
We don't have that many precedent cases for a technology that was theorized and seriously attempted but fell short by several orders of magnitude, which is where Fusion is at right now. The only precedent I can think about is aviation. When Da Vinci built his attempts at aviation machines, he wasn't quite able to invent the plane and it took another roughly 400 years. So my best estimate for when Fusion will be viable is 400 years. It might never happen, it might only take 80 years, but anything below 50 just sounds ridiculous to me.
lets not forget how much energy we produce now, that is wasted by inefficiency for the sake of convenience! heating and cooling of indoor spaces and water for example can be accomplished with passive solar and high efficiency insulation. how about indoor skiing in Dubai? is that really necessary?? come on folks, lets focus on the essentials, and put the planet first for once!
Fusion already works as a fast neutron source. That is exactly what is needed to burn the long-lasting radioactive waste from fission reactors. Energetic neutrons split these large nuclei into small nuclei with much shorter lifetimes.
In my opinion we need any scintefic promises like this one or going to mars or other planets but why dont we now focus on solving the problems that we know the solutions for with our existing knowlege? We 'could' prevent most of the problem on this planet if we really 'want' to. But I think a lot of us don't want.
I think we should keep funding fusion research, however, that funding should be separate from funding allocated to renewable energy research or other climate mitigation strategies. A fraction of defense/war budgets would would be enough to keep the research going.
Fusion research gets a fraction of the resources allocated to other renewables. If we approached with the same vigor I think it would be reflected in the results. The plasma community is pretty small
invest in them all , we must not exclude solar or wind or nuclear .. or .... work on all , because no one knows the first innovation who makes the difference in which type it will be .
i mean like we use solar panels that collect the energy from our sun that uses fusion so probably yes but i am not sure if that's what you meant by the title. :p
Well, the wonderful scientists make it quite clear that my phone will be charging through windmill juice (Dane here) for probably all of my life. Fusion in my backyard? a pipedream? Probably for this century.
Invest in EVERYTHING, because you don't really know what will be a hit. That even includes a bonfire of old tires, which sounds ridiculous, but if you can mitigate the pollutants (including CO2) and you still come out ahead, then you have a winner !
A nuclear expert that works for Greenpiss who thinks that nuclear energy won't play any part in the future of the world's energy sources. It's amazing what money can get some people to say, ain't it.
It is already effective 😃 but the effectiveness is very, very small😲😞😞 Gravitational confinement of a Sun must be replaced with another one, and some universal constants are against it...well maybe some astute configuration will make a better spin LoL 😁
I wonder why the whole ting don´t just melt away if its 6 times the temperature of the sun. Is the heat contained with magnetism somehow or how does it work?
It's that whole "vacuum" thing. In a vacuum nothing can actually transfer that heat around. Basically the reason you feel heat when close to something(unless it's emitting radiation) is because the air molecules around it heat up and spread to you. They use the magnets to make sure none of the gases actually approach the walls.
We'ill need to decarbonise power to limit climate change well before fusion power becomes a viable option. Renewables and conventional nuclear will power us through this century. If we're still around by the 22nd century then we may see fusion power deployed at scale. One for the grandkids really.
Climate change is a manageable problem it's not doomsday. Also higher carbon means a wetter and more tropical world which is best because we are a tropical species.
If you're interested in learning more about food security, you might like our video on permaculture 👉 th-cam.com/video/I0rQNYMwzfY/w-d-xo.html Check it out and let us know what you think in the comments 🤔
The ground is not the same everywhere. And putting holes everywhere will cause massive subsidence. specialy where habitation/city that have been built on an swamp. not to mention the type of ground, if there is too much clay. it's dead. I have friends who wanted to take this option for their house. The company straight refused them the 25k of my friend because their land is absolutely not viable for geothermal.
most likely increase it. rich people rely less en less en people, people lost job, people dont get money, people get poorer. unless they tax the rich more because they no longer need the population for the majority of their property. and implementation of the universal/lifetime wage, and again it will just allow to survive. the scenario of mass massacre of the poor is more plausible than the end of poverty... cause that already happened in ur history.
@@user-Cata7sti7ma7 If the cost of energy declines 99% the manufacturers will lower the price they charge or lose business to those underpricing them. When the cost of manufacturing and transporting goods declines dramatically then things will cost much less. Turning sea water to fresh will cost pennies. Transporting it to farm land will cost pennies. Heating and cooling will cost pennies.
@@jakemoseley1811 that not how thing work since pretty much everything is regulated and all the topic you speak are actually a monopoly pretty much everywhere in the world. There are always people to fix the prices. That how capitalism work. There is no competition on most thing. The prices are always fixed by arrangements with the other producer. and Specialy for Fusion, its a technology reserved for the 1% of the oligarch of the world, and they are clearly not going to do charity. Even if he has the reactor, they will take possession of the batteries, and the infrastructure to deliver this energy, and they will always raise the prices. Because it is mandatory to have a growth rate every year.
@@user-Cata7sti7ma7 Monopolies find that selling at lower costs, when their costs are low, increases sales volume, increasing profits. When the cost of production gets low prices also get low, even without competition.
@@jakemoseley1811 that alway false, price never drop. on anything. these nothing that is getting cheaper. because anyway no matter the price. people pay, because this is vital to them. people are always living above their means. indebted to consumption. And it's even more profit for these companies than being able to increase the rates of bad payers. If the prices of certain things remain low today, it is only because they are regulated and cannot be increased without government authorization. ( essential product) What you say is theory, which for over 30 years has been proven wrong. There is nothing that has reduced in price, from my 30 years of existence. that the reality. I always pay more. no matter the product. Sadly my salary is not increasing that fast. >_> all types of food are more expensive, gas, car, insurance, all types of entertainment are more expensive, clothes are more expensive,,PC hardware more expensive, my internet plan increases every year, there is only the cost of electricity is government fixed here so I don't get screwed over it.( a few cent). the theory is beautiful. But its is totally disconnected from reality. companies will never sacrifice revenue potential. People will not consume less energy if it becomes more expensive. it is on something else that they are going to cut spending. the quaffle of money is infinite, prices must always increase over time.that how the reality of this world work. that how every marketing people thing, that every CEO think, more money, always more. we use a lot of bait, manipulation techniques for lets think that people pay less.. but thier actually never pay less.
I find very worrying that in all these videos renewables are mentioned like a heaven sent solution that is able to power humanity for all eternity. You guys know that these resource-intensive power sources won't last forever, right? It's not like we have an indefinite amount of rare earths to dig them from, nor their mining and production are carbon-free, so we do need other power sources to build an efficient energy mix. And last, it is imperative that a long-lasting carbon neutral society has dispatchable power sources, which isn't the case for wind and solar. So I really don't see this paradox some people try to create between investing in renewables or nuclear energy. We need them both. They are certainly not competing against one another. While nuclear is good for baseload production, competing essentially against coal, renewables + storage are much more fit for intermediate and peak demand times, replacing gas and oil. So, once and for all, STOP THIS BULLSHIT OF TRYING TO PICTURE NUCLEAR POWER AS OPPOSED TO INVESTMENT IN RENEWABLES!
What do you think? Should we keep researching nuclear fusion - or rely on technologies that already work?
We don't need fusion as we don't have a shortage of green ways of creating and storing energy we have a shortage of political will.
We should focus on nuclear fusion only after we have prevented the impending climate change disaster.
Nuclear fusion seems to me to be a pipe dream. Whilst I do think research should continue, it is at the moment a distraction.
We need to rapidly switch to a carbon neutral economy asap. Geothermal energy*, solar panels**, wind turbines, and back up battery technology are more than sufficient to meet all our energy needs.
*With the development of laser drilling it will be possible to build geothermal energy plants almost anywhere.
**Solar panels are rapidly increasing in their electric output.
You heard it from them. Tritium is very limited so it's not fit for wide scale energy production. Nuclear energy and less urban sprawl is our best chance against climate change. There's no shortcut to it
I agree with working on techs that already work! For instance, restarting coal plants in Europe to save natural gas.... oh wait. Fission already works but it's not available to countries without the budget since richer countries won't fund it for proliferation concerns. Renewables already work to a point. Yet Germany has spent $500 billion on their wind and solar push and they still need lots of coal with 40% of production from renewables
There are two technologies that don't already work here. One is nuclear fusion and the other is long term energy storage that could effectively scale up wind and solar to breakthrough reliable levels. We should try both! Or deep geothermal as Quaise Energy is trying by pointing a fusion plasma heating microwave at the ground - it could beat everything else
I’m currently working on a video about climate delay tactics and Nuclear Fusion is a topic often used to to get people to put off taking action.
Basically, it falls under the category of “technological optimism” which is when companies tell you “this great tech is right around the corner, and it will be so groundbreaking that we might as well wait for it before we start taking action!” This sounds good, but if we’re being honest, nuclear fusion has been “just around the corner” for some 20 years now.
So what do scientists recommend doing? They think that we should deploy current solar and wind tech like crazy immediately while keeping R&D on Fusion going. When many of those turbines and panels need replaced in 20-30 years then we can see if fusion is ready yet. If it is, maybe we shift to deploying fusion. If it isn’t ready, then we continue on with solar and wind energy.
Thanks for putting out a video which actually takes a balanced view to what fusion is and is not capable of!
Agreed 🙋🏼♀️ fusion is distraction. We should invest in geothermal energy plants. With the development of laser drilling it is now possible to build geothermal energy plants almost anywhere. It's still in its development stage, but it's a technology we know works.
@@ladyselenafelicitywhite1596 yea geothermal is super amazing as well. It’ll be a crucial way to provide “Baseload capacity” without burning fossil fuels. Which will make it even easier to implement 100% renewable across the board!
@@SaveMoneySavethePlanet precisely 🙋🏼♀️ I wish they had invested the billions in developing geothermal energy over nuclear fission.
Nuclear fission looks great on paper, but they've been trying to develop it for decades. I remember it being discussed back in the 1960s.
@@ladyselenafelicitywhite1596 You mean drilling through rock? With lasers? Nobody's even come close to doing this on the scale you're talking about
@@wondledonkey yes they have. They are well past the testing stages and are currently in the process of building the first laser drilled geothermal energy plant. Hopefully, the first laser drilled geothermal energy plant will be online by 2024. With more in the pipeline.
What everyone seems to forget about these projects is the biggest advantage of pursuing it which is the technology that comes out of it can be used for solving other problems. Like the magnets are getting more efficient and thus means other industries that use magnets (everything that moves using electricity uses them) will also benefit.
@Asanda
No, the research into fusion will not benefit the permanent magnets we use for building motors for example. The research into fusion deals with super high power electromagnets which are *not* used in everyday industry.
@@acmefixer1 There's a lot of things that were not used in everyday industry that are now used in everyday industry thanks to research. Many things we have today are the results of people taking knowledge from one field and applying on others.
Oh absolutely, which is why I don't mind "big science" projects like this. There will be spinoffs. But fusion as a source of electrical energy will always be more expensive than the alternative.
@@asandax6 you're right about basic research benefitting everyday life.
However there is absolutely no use in everyday industry for nuclear fusion technology. Your analogy isn't valid.
Scientists just want a job, like anyone else, should we trust them " maybe " but its not like the govt hasn't spent billions on other ridiculous projects
Never have I been so motivated for this technology but also demotivated simultaneously.
its a question. we should aim to answer it as quickly and as completely as we can.
Be sure to subscribe to our channel! We publish videos explaining the nuance of climate solutions every Friday 🙃
The problem with fusion is that the more we learn, the more we realize we won't be able to make it work.
We will spend more decades and more resources that could be spent on something useful , but when did humans ever think of doing useful things ?
@@scratchy996 source?
@@jonathanodude6660 There are hundreds of videos on TH-cam on this subject.
I followed fusion progress intensely in the last years, but things are looking bad.
That's why the focus is now back on fission energy.
Adapting to changing climate is one thing. Reaching viable fusion is like ancestor obtaining fire but for second time. Why you wouldn't do both with delicate budgeting?
It irritates me when people say fusion will save us from climate change or say that it's a waste of time and money.
Relying on it saving us probably isn't smart. However, funding it isn't harming anything and it could have a huge pay-off. It's worth investing in it, just not to excess.
Edit - clarity
Save us from what? Doomsday ain't coming
@@thegreataynrand7210 its already here. every year basically every country sets a new climate record in some aspects, whether its most wet, most dry, most hot or most cold, months, seasons or years, and some countries even set all 4 of those records in a single year. whats worse is that the pace of these records is increasing, not decreasing, which doesnt make sense if theres no additional factors involved. people are beginning to wonder if the current weather cycles weve become used to will slow down and put us in favourable or unfavourable conditions for extended periods of time, rather than the 1-2 year time spans for these weve seen for the last 30 decades.
@@jonathanodude6660 You need to look closer at the data because there is lots of politics and political correctness mixed with hysteria in much of climate science. I suggest an excellent TH-cam channel to watch is called Climate Discussion Nexus. Also a warmer world is a better one.
yeah bro and im sure you and everyone else here is an expert chemist/physicist, if you really care you wouldnt comment this 🤡🤡🤡
Putting this money into subsidies for home solar and wind could help slow climate change now. However, cutting reliance on grid energy is very threatening to the huge profits of big energy companies.
I believe in fusion. We should try, test, apply. Outcome for now is unknown, but we shouldn’t throw out the idea of sustainability of fusion power because some of experts are skeptical.
It is generally unknown that the stellar exothermic nuclear fusion requires both the density and temperature unreachable except by stellar gravity. When I as a graduate student "believed in fusion" I was under the popular delusion that the production of a neutron and a helium nucleus was better than the radioactive products of fission.
I did not notice that an alpha particle is an energetic helium nucleus, and that the most dangerous radiation of all is a super-energetic neutron, the only atomic radiation that can create radioactivity.
This video has the greatest variety and quality of video clips I've seen for a fusion video and many good quotes. One I particularly disagree with is Jassby's quip that every private company is a fantasy, and ironically with the pro-fusion side's statements about operating power plants coming out in 2060 - 70
Using the same tokamak power parameters that are used for ITER the private company CFS projects that they can build a >200MWe pilot plant before ITER reaches full power tests in 2035. They have demonstrated a superconductor magnet twice as powerful as ITER's. It's actually limited by the structural strength of steel and their full scale tokamak should be 10x more powerful than ITER for a given size. With a JET size tokamak they can match ITER's thermal output along with much lower input energy to run. For a pilot plant not necessarily optimized commercially they project $260 MWh - very high but also very close to commercially relevant with how quickly parameters can change fusion output
For instance a much cheaper or much stronger structural material to reduce their cost or increase their allowable magnetic power would launch them into commercial territory. There has also been a simulation prediction that high power tokamaks will be more tolerant of higher plasma density, potentially quadrupling the power of an ARC or ITER power tokamak
For other private companies the rubber is hitting the road quickly and we'll soon see if it's a launch or spinning tires. Zap is finishing a reactor that could produce Q = 1 this year that is far more scalable and engineering friendly than laser or tokamak designs. They say their power scaling is to the 11th power of the current applied to the plasma. I believe this means that they could run into physics problems and simply overcome it with a more powerful machine without sacrificing much in commercial competitiveness. Helion is building a machine for 2024 intended to produce bursts of net electricity that is one step before a full scale generator, as is General Fusion with a 70% scale test reactor in 2025. I don't know about Helion but it appears General Fusion has the same ability to scale up to overcome physics problems, as has happened with both lasers and tokamaks who suffer from far more instabilities than predicted requiring far larger and more powerful machines than thought the last time fusion was said to be 20 years away. With General Fusion their 70% size reactor is aiming for Q = .1 while their full size is intended to produce Q = 50. If they hit an instability problem there may be an option to build something like a 120% size reactor that costs somewhat more per MWh but potentially overcomes stability problems with rapid power scaling
Overall I have a feeling energy storage will beat out fusion but I think both are real possibilities. Fusion also has the feature of directly producing heat which could be applied to decarbonizing industrial processes using a lot of heat with a relatively higher efficiency than converting wind to electric to heat for the same purpose (though not necessarily an absolutely higher efficiency). It would also have advantages for powering container ships which don't have a grid they can draw from if their onboard wind power source is offline on a quiet day
So you believe the informational brochures these companies put out?
@@antonimalachowski5262 In one of his public lectures the General Fusion founder mentioned he thinks they have a 70% chance of success. There's a rule of thumb some use to rate likelihood of success where they divide a promoter's opinion by 10. So in GF's case we could go with a 7% chance of success. If there are several companies with about these chances that's a pretty good bet overall for something that could be comparable to fission without its downsides, and maybe a lot cheaper in some cases
Is that Q plasma or Q total? Big difference!
@@zen1647 Yeah, Q plasma... like for the General Fusion proposal if they had a Q of 50 the Q total of the plant would be 6
@@Canucklug What if promoter has already considered this division of 10 and told us 70 percent chance instead of 0.7percent.
Always a delight to watch your videos!
Why not all solutions?
One does not rule out the other...
Orano SA produces Tritium thankfully & its available from other sources. My view is that an intermediate energy production phase is required before/if Fusion becomes available. This would involve Thorium reactors to reduce problem waste and to consolidate Uranium. Due to plasma instabilities I don't see fusion available within the next 50-70 years unless some new ideas come forward. Maybe night billboard lighting should be shut down.
We already have a fusion reactor avail to anyone with power of 0.6kW/sqm which is no joke. We can't even tap on that energy, and now we want to create fusion here on earth.. that's stupid. If money goes to photo/ thermal solar, that would be more beneficial.
Agree on fission reactors improvements and next usage, aswell as the unnecessary lighting.
Why not show some of the alternative fusion projects? HB11 aneutronic fusion, General Fusion, Commonwealth Fusion Systems (CFS), and Helion Energy are a few promising examples. Solar and wind are quite obviously making a huge impact and will continue to do so for at least the next few decades. Perhaps small modular reactors have a better chance than fusion in the short term. I'm glad to see the skeptics framing fusion power realistically being potentially impossible.
100 years from now people would be laughing at these ancient videos of people saying it won't work.
Dunno if it was filmed so intentionally, but the Greenpeace guy sounded the most unconvincing among the others lol.
I bet on fusion, because it is a bold idea, and because it sounds like really something from the future.
The question of should we keep researching vs rely on what we have sound silly if we apply it for instance to horse power and steam engines, or anything else from our past. So yes, please keep researching, this is what humans do naturally and should keep doing.
electromagnetic too
I think we will be eating potatos in the dark
Investments in this field have been dramatically low, when you look at what we spend for space missions, for example. Only now is this starting to see some real money.
Output energy divided by input energy plus energy for maintain power.
If equal to 1 which means we got hope.
If equal to 100, next generation kids will ask“what is climate challenge?”
Research needs to keep on going, as we must count with a worst-case scenario where, in 50 years time, renewables alone can't cover all energy needs. Better not to put all eggs on the same basket.
Long term-Fusion energy + Renewable .
You realize you showed a Stellarator at 6:09, yet you only talks about Tokamak.. 🤔
Worst case you gain some technology out of manipulation of plasma. This already improved understanding of Magnetic Fields and produced a stronger electro-magnet. Possible improvement in energy collection and usage. If it does work possible space travel engine interplanetary, Not planetary atmosphere to ground though.
Even the idea is so tantalizing! Who knows research in this field - nuclear fusion, could lead us to an improved kind of reactors which might even need different raw material and eventually lead us to perfect fusion process which will indeed power our planet and satisfy our ever-growing energy needs. WE SHOULD GO FOR IT!
Unlimited energy would be the last mistake of humanity. With unlimited energy we would just do unlimited damage. It is not only the CO2 emissions that are a problem, the abundance of energy is a problem by itself.
Could be. With unlimited energy some crazy leader would manufacture unlimited weapons.
It’s not unlimited energy though lol
Nuclear fusion releases 4,000,000X the amount of energy you get from fossil fuels, that is when we're finally able to do it continuously in an economic fashion. However, magnetic confined fusion requires you poor a large portion of that energy right back into the reactor so as to maintain the reactor, so you're likely only going to get 25% of the energy out to make electricity with, but even in the most optimistic case, you'll get 50% or 75% of that energy out to make electricity with, that is WHENEVER we can do this in an economic & commercial way, which isn't likely to happen for many decades.
Nuclear fission, which we can ALREADY do right now, releases 1,000,000X the amount of energy you get from fossil fuels, and it doesn't require you put any portion of that back into the reactor to maintain fission, so you get all of that to make electricity with. That means, fusion, this wild-eyed dream of "infinite" power which we're not likely to commercialize for many decades at the earliest, at best only produces between 2X and 3X the power we can ALREADY get from an existing potential power source. And given the complexity of the physics involved, the incredible precision of the sensors involved in fusion, the rarity and cost of producing all the rare materials required like exotic super conductors, the likely size of the facilities, fusion plants aren't going to be ANY cheaper or quick to build than fission plants, but are instead likely to cost a lot more and take a lot longer to build.
Exactly. We can already use fast neutron reactors , that have a seemingly infinite amount of fissile material and produce far less dangerous waste. Why don’t we use them? Because they are far too expensive and complexe in comparaison of the the cost of the uranium they spare. If fast neutron reactor are too expensive to be competitive, there Is no way nuclear fusion reactors will be cheaper and easier to build and maintain.
I think you'd be interested in reading about Zap and Helion Energy. Zap plans on proving scientific breakeven within a year, and Helion plans on reaching net electricity by 2024. Each reactor design will be cheap to produce and operate, assuming they work.
@@Batmangutten I'm familiar with Helion, and I'm familiar with lots of company's, like SPARC, which are promising fusion by XXX date. Believe me, I support nuclear fusion research, so I don't mean to poopoo on it's parade, but the likelyhood of us commercializing fusion anytime soon, at least soon enough that we could leverage its vast energies, are remote.
While you might find it a little disheartening, I'd suggest you check out the TH-cam video: Former fusion scientist on why we won't have fusion power by 2040
Video is specifically on a tokomak reactor, but the guy walks through the whole process in terms of energy requirements and production so that you can see how far we really are from something that would be even marginally commercial.
The point of my original comment is that we need something to replace fossil fuels now, and fission reactors are ALREADY almost comparable with the energy output you're going to get out of a fusion reactor, under an optimal scenario, and fission reactors are likely to cost as much or less than any fusion reactor. We need movement NOW, and the only thing we have which can really address our need for plentiful CO2 free energy is fission.
@@williamsmith1741 I've seen that video, and it seems overly pessimistic. Zap energy, for example, has found a way to stabilize a Z-Pinch. The main problem with Z-Pinch has been kink instabilities, and if you solve them, it's likely going to work. They're aiming for scientific breakeven within a year from now and just got 160 million in funding to do so. Anyways, we'll find out in the next 2-3 years whether Zap and Helion will deliver. Within the next 8 years we'll figure out whether most of the other will too.
As for fission, it just isn't profitable. At this point, it would be cheaper to build overcapacity solar and wind with batteries to cover a couple of days of energy storage. This would also face less opposition than nuclear energy. Solar will also get cheaper as we figure out novel ways to surpass the Shockley-Queisser limit. You're probably right that something like a tokamak wouldn't be profitable, but that isn't because it would be that much more expensive than fission but rather that solar and wind are dirt cheap. At this point, the only energy source which will be able to compete with solar and wind, specifically solar, is either Zap and Helion's approach to fusion, if successful, or geothermal (Quaise) using millimeter-wave drilling.
@@Batmangutten Yes, the collapsing plasma field has been one of the main issues, and more powerful superconductors might be able to help fix that, but we'll see. It's always nice to see that people factor a "scientific breakthrough" into their schedule. It's great how predictable they are. Exactly though, we'll see in the next 2 to 5 years for Helion and Zap and 8 or more years for the rest... This is besides point that fusion, under an optimistic scenario, is only likely to deliver at best between 2X to 3X of the power that fission already can yield, and the fusion plants, with all high precision equipment they'll need to monitor the fusion reaction, all of the exotic materials and careful processing going into those new super conductors, and the control processes needed to contain & utilize the tritium they're going to have to produce, there's no way they're going to be any cheaper to build than fission reactors.
Per the International Energy Agency (IEA) report "Projected Costs of Generating Electricity 2020", nuclear fission has the 5th lowest median LCOE of any power source, with a median LCOE of 69 USD/MWh. The only power sources with lower levelized cost of electricity are:
Hydro (run of river): 68 USD/MWh
Solar PV (Utility Scale): 56 USD/MWh
Wind (Onshore): 50 USD/MWh
Nuclear (LTO/Long-Term Operating): 32 USD/MWh - These represent nuclear plants which have had their operational lives increased beyond the initial 40 year operating life
You also realize that cheap energy storage would have as big an impact on nuclear as it would on solar and wind right, maybe even more so? Nuclear has the same but opposite problem as wind and solar, neither can follow load. However, cheap storage can only help wind and solar spread out the the limited energy they produce over a span of time, but it won't do anything to address scenarios like northern Europe went through last year when you had a wind drought for most of the year, including the winter when there's also a noticeable lack of sun. That couple of days of storage would amount to d$#k. And solar hasn't gotten cheaper due to any technical improvements with the cells or with fabricating them. They've gotten cheaper because the vast majority of production has been shifted to China where they were mass produced by literal slave labor in massively cheap/massively dirty production facilities. However, I'm wondering what new solar prices are going to look like since solar panel fabrication facilities have gone from operating 3 shifts 7 days a week to 2 shifts 3 days a week (as many of them had to reduce operations as a result of China's coal shortage).
Yes we need to keep investing in fusion, if I look back at history at all the inventions and current technologies that experts claimed were 100 of years away I say we keep fusion alive !
God stop using greenpeace as a source.
It is a big mistake to think that civilian nuclear fusion would have the same advantage over fission that thermonuclear bombs have over simple fission weapons. Kiloton weapons against Japan were enough to defeat, in the Emperor's mind, the beliefs of the suicidal extreme war parties.
But megaton weapons by the hundred have apparently convinced the Great Powers (which don't include Britain and France) that the difference between "victory" and defeat in nuclear WW III would be negligible. We have had only local skirmishes for 78 years. In Vietnam, the USA was defeated. In Korea, the difference between the South and the North assures me that we were on the proper side, even if it looks like a stalemate.
Outstanding nuclear fusion science experiment story .
9:42 what's the point of evenmentioning this... ITER is a prototype, of course other reactors would be needed should its design prove successfull. My god, Greenpeace is really doing its best appearing as complete strangers to progress & applied research.
Glass lasers can only be fired infrequenly or they overheat and self- destruct. LANL's KrF (248nm) Aurora Fusion Laser reached breakeven in July 1991 - LANL's Laser Fusion funding evaporated exactly one month later - or we would be using it by now !
What if this reaction performed in space?
There is a vacuum as well as a sink to eject plasma directly into space providing thrust and energy to spacecraft at the same time. A sustained thrust for a long period is possible which will reduce travel time to Mars as well as will also provide pseudogravitational effect eliminating health hazards caused by zero gravity in space!
After becoming a minimalist and trying to make all my decisions consciously, I have reduced my energy consumption overall. Especially by buying second-hand things. My plan is to grow most of my food permaculuturally, which will in turn lower my consumption even further. All this is achievable, without any decrease my standard of living, happiness and health, quite the opposite in fact.
I wish people would try solving problems by subtraction not only addition...
If you're interested in permaculture, you would probably like our video on that exact topic! Check it out - th-cam.com/video/I0rQNYMwzfY/w-d-xo.html - and let us know what you think in the comments 🌾🌱🌎
Basically if you invested in fusion today, then maybe you would get it working in 50 years.
That would be great, if only we didn’t need to phase out from fossil fuels right now while increasing global electricity production.
Please invest in renewables now so that future generations have the possibility to deal which such non threatening challenges, like nuclear fusion
Are you saying if they become successful, it would be like investing in Google and Apple in 1990s?
Having a Fission reactor in the backyard sound scary but having a Fusion rector seems manageable and I not even talking about terrorist.
Renewable energy sources is obviously vital to our survival, but we also need to look at maintaining a sustainable population.
Why are you lefties so anti human?
Hi Roger! One of our reporters investigated the topic and you might be surpised by what she found out.
Give it a watch and let us know what you think in the comments - "Is overpopulation really a problem for the planet?" 👉 th-cam.com/video/kUL-q7ptDW4/w-d-xo.html
Beautiful. I can't wait.
The scientist have to rethink the shape of the reactor..!
(1) the Plasma should flow in a "8" pattern around the 2 magnets situated in the middle of the "8" shape...!
Then the reactor must be able to spin in its axis with the outer wall aligned with magnetic forces...!
Remember, you 1st heard it from me..! 🙏 ❤️
Este video me pareció muy interesante ya que el crear tecnología para tener energía basada en los fenómenos que ocurren en las estrellas podría conyevar a tener una energía inagotable y limpia favoreciendo al mundo poco a poco eliminando las demás fuentes de energías que causan daños a nuestro planeta y ser cada vez mas sustentable
How about now.....
At this point of time, nothing is better than the renewables.
Sadly renewable are not that renewables. i mean today, since the recycling industry is none existant.
So the renewables aspect only exists in the idea that recycling will improve in the future.
it's not earned. And it will obviously be very uneven everywhere.
Battery recycling certainly is a challenge. 🔋
We have a whole video on the topic: th-cam.com/video/PbOBmnZRpZ4/w-d-xo.html
Check it out and let us know what you think in the comments ✍️
Fascinating
hmm. Nobody told me before the fusion reactor horizon is more than five decade away.
I think we'll be surprised how advanced additive manufacturing will become in the decades to come.
What, for example happens when somebody can have their 3D printer/assembler print a very nice couch over the course of a week or two? And I mean with material that looks and feels like wood, fabric, everything. No more factories making couches. No more shipping of couches. Couch retail. Last mile transport of couches. And that's just couches of course. As an example. Par for the course for a wide variety of home essentials. Altogether the sheer amount of large scale industry, along with its energy demand that will become redundant is difficult to even contemplate.
What if can print and assemble... A small efficient wind turbine. Some solar panels. Some basic processors and microcircuit devices. Another printer/assembler as capable.
Extraordinary self-sufficiency and efficiency will be possible.
I don't think we'll ever reach the point where we achieve fusion power AND need fusion power - On Earth. Maybe as part of space exploration and colonisation.
We need to use an all the above energy strategy, meaning use every type of energy production we have access to. We also need to develop fusion, then we can use it to replace fission. The key to the carbon issue has nothing to do with what types of energy we use, so much as building atmospheric carbon mining facilities to pull it out of the air and process it into useful products. Anything else is a bad strategy that will destroy the quality of life we live and limit are development. Though I know there are plenty of Luddites out there who would love nothing more than to send us back to the horrible lifestyle of the 1700s.
fission produces tritium for fusion reactors, where would you get tritium if we replace them
I think that all of my neighbour's three trash bins are stuffed every week with waste and that we are far too much of a consumptive global culture, consuming for the sake of it. If we could learn to sit still, then we'd have far lower needs for energy and the raw materials which we exploit. A simple example: Humans need to drink water in order to survive; the economy makes us dependent of drinking bottled products in order to support a pillar of our economy. Coca-Cola is the world's largest producer of plastics. Society has been conditioned into consuming this stuff which isn't necessary for life but has taken a place in being essential to our economic existence, over our ecological health. So, what's more important to us all? Because we don't need as much energy as we think that we do.
The views on this video is about to shoot up now.
We already have unlimited energy with wind and solar. You can install this at your own house and you don't need a grid.
These billions of euros are being spent to keep the grid going and increase profits for big energy companies.
It would be nice if the money were spent on medical care for regular people instead.
4billions dollars to boil a kettle ?...wow
We could build geothermal enough for the whole planet before fusion will be ready for a grid trial.
Let´s be honest here, we need to think about priorities, and our problem is an existential one: there will be no generation to enjoy the benefits of a possible nuclear fusion technology sucess if we don´t act now to solve this climate crisis. We need to prioritize what is urgent, investing just the necessary in these longterm technologies. Resources are scarce and we should use them wisely and efficiently.
Lol, you doomers are always hilariously wrong. Climate change is a manageable problem. Stop peddling your extinction rebellion nonsense
short answer "no". More -in depth answer: "yes, 50 years from now. The now depends on when you'll be asking this"
if the sky falls on our heads we're all astronauts
Since the past 60 years
Shh no one tell greenpeace or bernie bros they hate nuclear
So where is Dr.Octopus?
The German narrator makes the video amazing I love it
Nuclear Fission is the key, because fusion is many years away from being ready for commercial use.
So is this our energy plan for the next hundred years: go space mining and look for more tritium, while both technologies get more effective over time, while simultaneously work on an even better energy source? Sounds pretty cool
The oil industry will be so mad
We don't have that many precedent cases for a technology that was theorized and seriously attempted but fell short by several orders of magnitude, which is where Fusion is at right now.
The only precedent I can think about is aviation. When Da Vinci built his attempts at aviation machines, he wasn't quite able to invent the plane and it took another roughly 400 years. So my best estimate for when Fusion will be viable is 400 years. It might never happen, it might only take 80 years, but anything below 50 just sounds ridiculous to me.
First world has to make proper battery technology then talk about nuclear fusion. Only giving lectures 😌
Doc Ock likes this.
lets not forget how much energy we produce now, that is wasted by inefficiency for the sake of convenience! heating and cooling of indoor spaces and water for example can be accomplished with passive solar and high efficiency insulation. how about indoor skiing in Dubai? is that really necessary?? come on folks, lets focus on the essentials, and put the planet first for once!
Fusion already works as a fast neutron source. That is exactly what is needed to burn the long-lasting radioactive waste from fission reactors.
Energetic neutrons split these large nuclei into small nuclei with much shorter lifetimes.
yes
In my opinion we need any scintefic promises like this one or going to mars or other planets but why dont we now focus on solving the problems that we know the solutions for with our existing knowlege?
We 'could' prevent most of the problem on this planet if we really 'want' to.
But I think a lot of us don't want.
I think we should keep funding fusion research, however, that funding should be separate from funding allocated to renewable energy research or other climate mitigation strategies. A fraction of defense/war budgets would would be enough to keep the research going.
Fusion research gets a fraction of the resources allocated to other renewables. If we approached with the same vigor I think it would be reflected in the results. The plasma community is pretty small
our greatest source of tritium is from fission reactors
It's not 100% safe and clean.I prefer renewables .I think they will be the future energy source.
How is it not safe and clean?
when will we replace hydrocarbons with better alternative energy.
invest in them all , we must not exclude solar or wind or nuclear .. or .... work on all , because no one knows the first innovation who makes the difference in which type it will be .
New frontier of energy
i mean like we use solar panels that collect the energy from our sun that uses fusion so probably yes but i am not sure if that's what you meant by the title. :p
Dw Plantet A needs to talk about Ecosia they are a search engine that plants trees
*Genesis 8:22*
While the earth remaineth, seedtime and harvest,
and cold and heat, and summer and winter, and day
and night shall not cease.
Finally we need this over fossil fuels!
I like the voice of the commentator
Better use money for practical purposes i think
10,000 years from Mars and Venus will habitable planets. A time lord told me
Well, the wonderful scientists make it quite clear that my phone will be charging through windmill juice (Dane here) for probably all of my life.
Fusion in my backyard? a pipedream? Probably for this century.
Depending too much on that wind mill is one of the reasons why Europe is in the dilemma it is now
@@thegreataynrand7210 Uhm... no. Depending too much on Russian gas is why.
Scientist working on the project
Thanks for the money
Most Gen 3 and Gen 4 reactors are passively safe, and thus can't melt down either.
Fusion might not suitable for Earth but for space exploration is a must especially in we want to colonize MARS
We cannot do fusion on mars, or anywhere in space. It’s too hard. Better off with fission.
Invest in EVERYTHING, because you don't really know what will be a hit. That even includes a bonfire of old tires, which sounds ridiculous, but if you can mitigate the pollutants (including CO2) and you still come out ahead, then you have a winner !
Eh, no. A friend to all, is a friend to none. An effort for all, is a fail for all.
Prioritisation is important.
🍻Cheers!
A nuclear expert that works for Greenpiss who thinks that nuclear energy won't play any part in the future of the world's energy sources. It's amazing what money can get some people to say, ain't it.
Cue the 40 years in the future jokes
Fully operational by 2070? So the old motto stands
Always 40 years away.
Controlling our GREED is the solution to all human created problems!
eoectromagnedtic
It is already effective 😃 but the effectiveness is very, very small😲😞😞
Gravitational confinement of a Sun must be replaced with another one, and some universal constants are against it...well maybe some astute configuration will make a better spin LoL 😁
I wonder why the whole ting don´t just melt away if its 6 times the temperature of the sun. Is the heat contained with magnetism somehow or how does it work?
It's that whole "vacuum" thing. In a vacuum nothing can actually transfer that heat around. Basically the reason you feel heat when close to something(unless it's emitting radiation) is because the air molecules around it heat up and spread to you. They use the magnets to make sure none of the gases actually approach the walls.
We'ill need to decarbonise power to limit climate change well before fusion power becomes a viable option. Renewables and conventional nuclear will power us through this century. If we're still around by the 22nd century then we may see fusion power deployed at scale. One for the grandkids really.
Climate change is a manageable problem it's not doomsday. Also higher carbon means a wetter and more tropical world which is best because we are a tropical species.
Worried about electricity? You should instead worry about eating since the #1 crisis facing the Earth is going to be famine.
If you're interested in learning more about food security, you might like our video on permaculture 👉 th-cam.com/video/I0rQNYMwzfY/w-d-xo.html
Check it out and let us know what you think in the comments 🤔
Go Geothermal, energy 24/ 7, now anywhere in the world.
The ground is not the same everywhere. And putting holes everywhere will cause massive subsidence. specialy where habitation/city that have been built on an swamp. not to mention the type of ground, if there is too much clay. it's dead. I have friends who wanted to take this option for their house. The company straight refused them the 25k of my friend because their land is absolutely not viable for geothermal.
Except that’s not remotely how it works lol. It cannot be used in the vast majority of places
60 kettles
It might eliminate poverty.
most likely increase it. rich people rely less en less en people, people lost job, people dont get money, people get poorer.
unless they tax the rich more because they no longer need the population for the majority of their property. and implementation of the universal/lifetime wage, and again it will just allow to survive.
the scenario of mass massacre of the poor is more plausible than the end of poverty... cause that already happened in ur history.
@@user-Cata7sti7ma7
If the cost of energy declines 99% the manufacturers will lower the price they charge or lose business to those underpricing them. When the cost of manufacturing and transporting goods declines dramatically then things will cost much less. Turning sea water to fresh will cost pennies. Transporting it to farm land will cost pennies. Heating and cooling will cost pennies.
@@jakemoseley1811 that not how thing work since pretty much everything is regulated and all the topic you speak are actually a monopoly pretty much everywhere in the world. There are always people to fix the prices. That how capitalism work.
There is no competition on most thing. The prices are always fixed by arrangements with the other producer.
and Specialy for Fusion, its a technology reserved for the 1% of the oligarch of the world, and they are clearly not going to do charity.
Even if he has the reactor, they will take possession of the batteries, and the infrastructure to deliver this energy, and they will always raise the prices. Because it is mandatory to have a growth rate every year.
@@user-Cata7sti7ma7
Monopolies find that selling at lower costs, when their costs are low, increases sales volume, increasing profits. When the cost of production gets low prices also get low, even without competition.
@@jakemoseley1811 that alway false, price never drop. on anything. these nothing that is getting cheaper. because anyway no matter the price. people pay, because this is vital to them. people are always living above their means. indebted to consumption.
And it's even more profit for these companies than being able to increase the rates of bad payers. If the prices of certain things remain low today, it is only because they are regulated and cannot be increased without government authorization. ( essential product)
What you say is theory, which for over 30 years has been proven wrong. There is nothing that has reduced in price, from my 30 years of existence. that the reality.
I always pay more. no matter the product.
Sadly my salary is not increasing that fast. >_>
all types of food are more expensive, gas, car, insurance, all types of entertainment are more expensive, clothes are more expensive,,PC hardware more expensive, my internet plan increases every year, there is only the cost of electricity is government fixed here so I don't get screwed over it.( a few cent).
the theory is beautiful. But its is totally disconnected from reality. companies will never sacrifice revenue potential. People will not consume less energy if it becomes more expensive. it is on something else that they are going to cut spending.
the quaffle of money is infinite, prices must always increase over time.that how the reality of this world work. that how every marketing people thing, that every CEO think, more money, always more. we use a lot of bait, manipulation techniques for lets think that people pay less.. but thier actually never pay less.
kontra ng kontra yung matatanda 😆
I find very worrying that in all these videos renewables are mentioned like a heaven sent solution that is able to power humanity for all eternity. You guys know that these resource-intensive power sources won't last forever, right? It's not like we have an indefinite amount of rare earths to dig them from, nor their mining and production are carbon-free, so we do need other power sources to build an efficient energy mix. And last, it is imperative that a long-lasting carbon neutral society has dispatchable power sources, which isn't the case for wind and solar. So I really don't see this paradox some people try to create between investing in renewables or nuclear energy. We need them both. They are certainly not competing against one another. While nuclear is good for baseload production, competing essentially against coal, renewables + storage are much more fit for intermediate and peak demand times, replacing gas and oil. So, once and for all, STOP THIS BULLSHIT OF TRYING TO PICTURE NUCLEAR POWER AS OPPOSED TO INVESTMENT IN RENEWABLES!
Nothing in the video said that. Calm down.
Chasing fusion while not taking advantage of the proven benefits more fission energy in the mean time was a really bad idea.
Yes nuclear fission will have to be bumped up again. We can’t afford to leave any energy source out.