ฝัง
- เผยแพร่เมื่อ 1 พ.ค. 2024
- A bipartisan group of lawmakers has introduced a bill supporting the development of nuclear fusion power. Hank Jenkins-Smith, professor of public policy at the University of Oklahoma, joins CBS News to discuss.
CBS News Streaming Network is the premier 24/7 anchored streaming news service from CBS News and Stations, available free to everyone with access to the Internet. The CBS News Streaming Network is your destination for breaking news, live events and original reporting locally, nationally and around the globe. Launched in November 2014 as CBSN, the CBS News Streaming Network is available live in 91 countries and on 30 digital platforms and apps, as well as on CBSNews.com and Paramount+.
See more at cbsnews.com/prime-time-with-j...
Subscribe to the CBS News TH-cam channel: / cbsnews
Watch CBS News: cbsnews.com/live/
Download the CBS News app: cbsnews.com/mobile/
Follow CBS News on Instagram: / cbsnews
Like CBS News on Facebook: / cbsnews
Follow CBS News on Twitter: / cbsnews
Subscribe to our newsletters: cbsnews.com/newsletters/
Try Paramount+ free: paramountplus.com/home/?ftag=...
For video licensing inquiries, contact: licensing@veritone.com
![[UNCUT]ผนึกกำลังล้างบาง "แก๊งค์เชื่อมจิต" จับโป๊ะ ทั้งครอบครัว จ่อฟ้องเอาผิด I คนดังนั่งเคลียร์](http://i.ytimg.com/vi/ZGCs5aVHRZs/mqdefault.jpg)
Let's break this down, this technology is at least 35 to 100 years away from being deployed in a commercial setting. The only nuclear technology that we have that's viable right now is fission and the amount of nuclear waste is greatly exaggerated.
35 to 100 years assuming we keep hammering at it, otherwise it wd take forever
That’s not true, coming from someone whose career involves 80% physics.
@@Laminar-FlowI don't understand why this is relevant
We are like 5 years away in reality.... Ai will finish the work on fusion...
@@ILoveBluePeoplewe do not know that there is a solution, this technology just may not be economical
We should fund new fission reactors as well and recycle fuel.
Probably so, and I say that as pretty harsh critic of fission. It is far and away the most expensive form of generation on the planet, but at least from a carbon and reliability standpoint, one of the best.
No sh!t. It makes no sense to be wasting so many resources on this hail mary of a technological breakthrough when we still haven't even got an MSR online. SMH.
Fission plants should still be built until Fusion gets off the ground which is still easily 50 years ago for commercial supply.
No Mention of ITER, sadly. It shows the ginormouse size of such an undertaking.
Because that's something that currently the US could not do on its own. Research with laser is much simpler.
I hate how dumbed down this was. . .
Not surprised it was dumbed down tho it’s a news station so they obviously have to explain it in a way to reach the largest audience
Very misleading to talk about the NIF experiment producing a net gain. That's only if you measure the energy absorbed by the plasma and compare it to the energy produced by the reaction. They neglect to mention that the electricity used to power the lasers was 100x more!
Yes, that's very true, but net energy at the reaction level is still a big breakthrough.
We've been trying and failing to do that for 60 years and more.
This needs to happen
Its kinda lol how we have news anchors that pretend to be laymen, throw dump trucks of money at moonshots, and somehow still get there.
Now I know why my citys power grid went down for 5 hours lol, I live really close to nif
Allow me, CBS.
Sometimes people with lots of money want to make the world a better place.
Sometimes those people invest in fusion efforts.
Then they discover the state of the technology. They realize they are not going to be the ones holding the bag when the tech finally pays out.
They arrange a 'breakthrough' - just gotta beat your personal best in one single category.
How's permanent containment coming? We don't talk about permanent containment. We turn these things on for 15 seconds then we have to gut the insides.
"We will have fusion within our lifetimes. I got a buddy in the clinical immortality racket"
Professor of public policy? Why don’t you actually talk to a fusion researcher instead of someone not even in the field?
Research physicists are not generally inclined to do interviews.
@@derekd1510 And if they did, 99% of the people listening wouldn't grasp what they're saying.
@@kenofken9458 Undoubtedly.
Fusion isnt "compression" its slamming two atoms together
Toraeador! Don't you know what it's for!
I wonder if the new anchor asked if there was a recent breakthrough for the sake of the audience, or if he really didn't know. "I have this interview coming up on nuclear fusion. Maybe I should type fusion into google and see what comes up. No, I don't want to over-prepare for the interview."
It's always for the audience
@@drunkdonutboy You're right
The hurdle after actually producing a working fusion reactor is making them cheap enough that the electricity can compete with other sources. If it costs $5 per kwh then it won't happen.
It definitely has to provide some cost advantage ultimately, but there are different ways to do that accounting.
If we look at levelized costs ie how much it costs to generate a kwh over the lifetime of the generating source, that's now measured in tens to hundreds of dollars per kwh. Nuclear fission is now far and away the most expensive generator in that sense.
Ultimately we'll also have to factor other things into the price calculation though. Fossil fuel energy costs us far more than we now account for on paper. The climate change it induces and aggravates is going to costs us trillions. We're feeling that now as property insurance doubles and companies are dropping vast markets altogether. Fine particulate pollution is causing tremendous damage to human health not just in pulmonary disease but also cardiovascular problems, cancers, brain damage etc.
If fusion costs us somewhat more on paper but frees us from these other problems, it will be a bargain.
@@kenofken9458 it doesn't necessarily have to be significant less expensive as long as it adds to the reliability of the electric grid. The first commercial fusion power plant will probably need subsidies but as long as it's reliable energy on the order of magnitude of cost then it's worth the investment.
@@RyanMWilliams It will have to reach some level of commercial feasibility like anything else. Right now that's hard to imagine as tritium alone cost like $30,000 a gram, but in theory it's possible for a fusion reactor to breed the tritium it needs from lithium etc.
Fusion power is a crazy gamble. The technical problems are absurdly complicated. The research costs are massive. The risk of it all coming to nothing are significant. But the potential payoff is limitless.
THIS
We want access to our own nuclear fusion
I have one in the trunk of my car, and it flies, Repo Man!
This is a professor of public policy, not of physics. He has no idea what's going on with fusion.
Neither do you… The people who have done the physics necessary to engineer things like a tokamak or lasers powerful to start a fusion reaction (I work on lithography), we actually do know what’s going on. For us, it’s consensus that we are at most 10 or so years away from it being a reality. There have been a number of breakthroughs recently, and the frequency of breakthroughs has been steadily increasing with time. The biggest thing holding us back is people like you that doubt the efficacy of the underlying physics and whose opinions keep the government from spending the money to build a tokamak that actually is large and powerful enough.
It's ridiculous that some talking head has to explain the difference between fission and fusion today.
Every single person alive that is capable of watching this should know the difference.
are you aware 75 million people voted for trump?
@@DSAK55Fair point.
The energy source of the future...and always will be. But don't let that stop you from wasting money and time.
I look forward to matter-antimatter reactors way more.
how about we just stick with nuclear fission power generation. Fusion power isn't going to happen anytime soon.
For the same reason our ancestors didn't just stick with getting around on horseback until computer controlled fuel injection engines were perfected.
Revolutionary leaps forward never happen anytime soon, but they never happen at all unless someone puts in the time and effort to solve them.
@jackjones4824 The solution for that is to keep working and tell the proponents to stop telling us what they think we want to hear.
Wait it doesn't exist?
Sure, just go outside and look up. You see that bright yellow big orb in the sky? That runs on fusion.
@@Hans-gb4mv You didn't pay attention to the story did you?
How? More Money! Lots more money: we've lost 50 years of research to the hippies, pinkos, and big oil.
A new cold war, a new push for nuclear technology.
Hopefully we might actually get a breakthrough or at least rebuild the nuclear energy industry.
NIF's "breakthrough" was finding a way to retain funding for a dead-end technology.
Wormwood and Portals
Wormwood?
How is drinking absinthe going to help this?
توهم
We need to bring back Oppenheimer!
Fusion was more of Teller's thing.
@@kenofken9458 Isn't that what the nuclear bomb did was fuse lithium into deterium?
@@TheSwanlake2009 Oppenheimer was opposed to the development of the H bomb. His bomb was the nuclear fission bomb.
@@TheSwanlake2009 The heat and x-ray compression of the fission trigger breeds tritium from Lithium Deuteride and then the deuterium and tritium fuse yielding helium, a neutron and a lot of energy.
Starting a fusion reaction in that way has been well known for a long time.
The real trick is getting fusion to happen without setting off a Hiroshima type device and getting the fusion to happen in a controlled way so you can harness it for useful energy rather than vaporizing everything for a dozen miles around.
There are a lot of problems to solve in that, including how to start fusion on such a small scale, how to sustain it and how to contain the high energy plasma that results (and ultimately how to keep the neutron radiation from tearing up your equipment)
We're still a long long way from making it a practical energy source, if it can even be done, but we've also come a long way from the first experiments in the 1950s. It's really been around 100 years since we figured out the theoretical possibilities of fusion.
Two years ago we achieved ignition and net energy meaning we actually got more out of the fusion reaction than we put into the fuel itself through the lasers. Of course we still put way more energy into the lasers than we got out of the overall reaction.
We can't afford to sit around and wait for fusion to save us from all of our energy problems and climate change/pollution. It might not be ready for prime time until the end of the century. It may not even turn out to be practical, but there's some reason to hope.
No, we need to bring back Barbie
Please allow them to be privately and locally owned and operated!
😂😂😂😂
Exactly, just like Digital World Acquisition Corp.
You can't have privately and locally. You either have publicly locally owned by the people who live in an area, or you have privately owned which means owned by shareholders of a corporation listed on the stock exchange.
Rom 3:23
For all have sinned, and come short of the glory of God;
Rom 6:23
For the wages of sin is death;
Psalms 9:17
The wicked shall be turned into hell, and all the nations that forget God.
Acts 8:37
And Philip said, If thou believest with all thine heart, thou mayest. And he answered and said, I believe that Jesus Christ is the Son of God.
Rom 10:9
That if thou shalt confess with thy mouth the Lord Jesus, and shalt believe in thine heart that God hath raised him from the dead, thou shalt be saved.
Corinthians 15:3-4
For I delivered unto you first of all that which I also received, how that Christ died for our sins according to the scriptures; And that he was buried, and that he rose again the third day according to the scriptures:
Ephesians 2:8-9
For by grace are ye saved through faith; and that not of yourselves: it is the gift of God: Not of works, lest any man should boast.
.
.
.
''''😮