57:50 To me, it's just truly gratifying that we've reached a point where solar PV is seen as the comparison standard for cheap energy. A couple of decades ago, it was just taken for granted that PV was green, but just too expensive. Some of us never bought that claim, at the risk of being said to be talking pie in the sky.
I am convinced there's a way to do this in an apparatus the size of a large automobile, like perhaps garage sized. Who knows, perhaps even microwave sized... However ... Is it a great idea for Gigawatts of energy being made available to all people? I barely use a few hundred watts at once, maybe a kilowatt or two if it's really warm or cold outside. With cheap energy at a few megawatts, geeze, I could become very dangerous!
I'm equally convinced that there probably isn't. I strongly suspect that it's a, (fundamental,) physics problem far more than it's an engineering one. Just like anti gravity.
Jonathanhuges dont trust these guys they are laiers they are manufacturing helium 3 for sales in expensive amount so they earn more profit. Especially this helion
@@Eris123451the fundamentals are fine: it has been shown that fusion works. If it's possible to scale the sun down to the size of a microwave? Challenging, but afaik there is no law in the fysics book that forbids it... Who could, in the 1960s suspect that one could carry 10 billion transistors in his pocket? But: my gut feeling is that fusion will never fit in a microwave. A garage? Unlikely. A factory? Maybe. Without proof.
Yes, commercially-viable fusion energy would be a miracle. The phrase, "...put electrons on the grid by 2028", is being spoken in order to sound impressive but in reality that step is trivial. Any individual or company with a working fusor could "put electrons on the grid" today by converting some of the heat to electricity. The tough challenge ahead is to make a fusion plant that can put even a tiny bit more energy on the grid than the energy that is consumed in producing the fuel and in operating the plant. Then the next tough challenge will be to improve the process until it is commercially-viable. Videos such as this one that discuss the dreams and the general approaches to fusion energy have not yet begun to address all the issues and challenges to commercial viability.
The real reason for excitement now is that serious work, likely to work, is being done to remedy the plasma instability problems that have plagued Tokamaks up until now.
I was a teenager in 1957, and I remember the front pages of all the newspapers shouting about the successful operation of the first fusion reactor at Harwell, UK. They claimed unlimited power was about to be generated from the deuterium and hydrogen in sea-water. Unfortunately, there was a decimal point error in the calculations, so the net power gain was not positive. (On the other hand, in the previous year, 1956, Queen Elizabeth had opened the world’s first nuclear (fission) power generation station at Calder Hall.)
Actually, I take that back. That's so interesting and stops at the most interesting part for each company, clearly not deep enough! We need 2 hours long episode of just uncut conversations about each approach.
ITER also uses superconducting magnets. Being superconducting doesn't make the magnets stronger, but it reduces their energy cost enough to make them practical for power plants. CFS uses new magnets that are both superconducting and powerful, which gives ITER's performance in much smaller and cheaper machines that CFS is building. :-)
Being big doesn't make its magnets stronger, but it lets them hold hot plasma longer. Stronger magnets also do this without being large, which is the approach that CFS is taking. :-)
Wow thanks for this video, definetely opened my eyes. I came over here after learning about the use of the old giant laser at the national lab from Decouple Media and wanted to learn more!
What about Thorium reactors based in Denmark? They think about producing 1 reactor a day in a commercial setting. The race is between fusion and Thorium. Thorium might be quicker to market.
Coal in the US has already dropped from 50% to 10% of US power mostly replaced by gas. Most of the gas will be replaced with solar, wind, and storage before either fission or fusion could make a contribution. Distributed generation and microgrids are growing fast. Large, low cost, non-carbon emitting power that can ramp to loads would be great, but after the Vogtle cost overruns, utilities are slow to invest in new SMR's, advanced fission reactors, or unproven fusion reactors. Of course we would all love to see a fusion breakthrough and admire innovative thinking, but so far we don't even have a working prototype.
ITER uses superconductors, CFS uses HIGH-FIELD superconductors, which give energy-efficient magnets that are much more powerful, which allows much smaller tokamaks with the same performance as ITER. :-)
If they combine all the current fusion efforts, Imagine A tokomak donut magnet with two rail guns firing deuterium foam frozen pellets into the center of the donut from each side ( the donut on edge). With six lasers at each side, on 45 degree angles, aimed at the center. All controlled by AI. The guns pulse foam pellets, into the center at regular times. The magnetic donut holds them in place, while the lasers add extra heat, and keep the fuel in the center, by AI control. The heat can be removed by liquid lithium, and direct electrical power
Noooooo… pls don’t stop here! There’s still more to cover about energy! You hv brilliantly covered generation, how about the ways we use it and the challenges in how we can decarbonise them, economically, practically, reliably🙏
You should probably have mentioned Tokamak Energy as well as CFS. They don't have as much money, but they did start earlier, and are taking a very similar route to CFS (Spherical tokamak with REBCO magnets so it can be 10x smaller and 100x cheaper than ITER). They are heading for positive Q within a few years as well.
Unfortunately for those that want carbon free energy isn’t going to happen with wind, solar or electric cars. These technologies have a higher impact and carbon emissions than our current technologies. It’s true and unfortunate. Nuclear power is our only current source of green energy that makes sense. It works longer and isn’t nearly as polluting as manufacturing wind and solar for how much climate impact. Fusion should eventually replace all energy production methods. It can truly help bring places like Africa up to the standards the rest of the world has. It sounds as if we are not close yet because all of these can fail to work. So far none of these companies have gotten close yet.
Several fusion startups are looking into that. Realta Fusion is aiming specifically at process heat as a first market. Princeton Satellite Systems and Helicity Space are looking at space propulsion as a main business case. Pulsar is also looking into space propulsion (though I am a bit skeptical of their concept). Zap and some others have potential space propulsion systems in a drawer as a future application of their technology. And of course you can also use electricity as an alternative in various industrial processes. Helion has a contract with Nucor for their steel plants.
Guys , I’m trying to think of something nice to motivate yee and I think your channel will be big if yee stick with it for 3 yrs + (1.5m subs) - great content well researched subject, great documentary journalism and male/female co-hosts is a nice touch! Happy Christmas 🎅 🎉😅
Q 2 to Q8 would fly for fission-suppressed fusion hybrid. A fission-suppressed fusion hybrid is a proposed power source that combines nuclear fusion and fission processes. The idea is to use high-energy neutrons from a fusion reactor to trigger fission in non-fissile fuels, such as uranium-238 or thorium-232. The neutrons capture in the blanket convert the "fertile" material into fissile isotopes, which are then used as fuel in conventional nuclear reactors.
Helion will be lucky to have a kilogram of He3 by 2028. Their best bet is to wait a few decades until He3 from the moon is a standard industrial product, and develop low-neutron fusion reactors that don't need much shielding and can hence be smaller and lighter and used in submarines or fusion rockets. :-)
Fusion produces heat, disorganized energy, not electricity, organized energy, extracting just electricity is pulling order from disorder, which violates the 2nd law of thermodynamics. Making electricity from heat works, but it changes about half the energy in the heat into waste heat. They might as well plan to develop perpetual motion. :-)
I still long for a last lone inventor(s) fun event. I was sad after Pons and Fleischman were exposed. Fusion in a Mason jar was so quaint and charming. Tesla-esque.....
I believe that fusion plasma can be stably confined with a row of superconducting magnetic rings like 45 rpm music records stacked with gaps between them on a long spindle that deploy a high voltage electric field. The center ring is grounded and the rings are increasingly positive both up and down the row. The spindle can be an inner insulative ceramic hollow vacuum chamber housing the plasma not shown on the sketch below. The plasma is confined radially by the magnetic field and axially by the electric field. The nuclei are electrically repelled from the ends inwards axially to the center. Many electrons escape at the ends but that is advantageous because the electrons radiate energy unnecessarily. The rings produce a straght hour glass shaped magnetic field. This constrictive curvature along a straight axis is the most stable shape. The constriction is produced by having the strongest magnetism in the center. This will press the charged particles outwards axially so the vessel may need to be long to support a strong electric field compensating that. The 45 music record like rings are stainless steel with an inlaid spiral superconductor. MIT developed inlaid superconductors. . Key and keyboard sketch: ( = magnetizing current, + = charge: (()++ ((()+ (((()○ ((()+ (()++ Aloha Charles M Brown lll Kilauea Kauai Hawaii 968754
I'm skeptical that conputing power demand is going to increase so much that its equal to current electric demand, we're likely to improve computing efficiency before that (both by improving the relatively dumb AI learning algorithms, and by improving the silicon itself), but replacing fossil in transportation, heating, steelmaking, cement making, etc will get us to 3X current demand and 5X doesn't sound crazy at all. And then there's "carbon capture"... Some of this demand could be met by intermittant renewables, i.e. make synthetic ammonia and jet fuel when it's sunny out and store it, but this depends on capital costs; if your fuel plant equipment is expensive, you don't want to be stuck running it for only that 20% of the time when the solar cells are producing. Intermittants work with low capex automated processes, but not so much when capex is higher or there's a workforce that expects to show up 5 days a week, do their jobs and get paid every week, whether it's sunny or not.
Computing power has always scaled with total cost of ownership, the price of electricity is a big part in that. The cheaper power gets, the more computing demand will open up. Bitcoin already shows how fast compute power can grow if there's money to be made, any sufficiently complex algorithm can improve cost reduction elsewhere if you had more computational power. Transportation industry, steelmaking and cementmaking have severe limitations making them difficult even with lower electricity prices.
Indeed, I am pretty sure they can get a lot hotter, but it's designed to operate well below the boiling point of the fuel (or melting point of the containment material). I think lithium fluoride salt boils at crazy high temps, around 1500 °C
Meny think that Helion are scam and not without facts. Most hilarious is that on thier own site still claimed that "planned date to reach fusion are 2023"... Very well choice of guests...
No, Helions goal was and still is the end of 2024 for net electricity(!) from fusion. That has been the stated goal for a while. Dates can slip a bit, but they are still aiming for that.
The main Helion critique video on YT is essentially fact free Compared D-He3 reactivity to D-T at 100 million degrees when the full generator would run at 250 million. Didn't adjust for the high pressure of an FRC, or for the high ion temperature to electron temperature ratio. Fusion is hard, no one needs to be surprised if someone fails or an approach takes decades longer, but I'm quite unconvinced by Helion critiques!
Forget more fission - it's too expensive and dangerous for the average consumer. Emphasis should be on renewables with fusion as a future option, hopefully.
5cents per kwh is not much cheaper than traditional generation. What happens to fusion being so abundant, so cheap, almost free? can we get like 0.05 cent per kwh or lower? if not, might as well do solar, winds....and better energy storage....they key here is cost.
Solar, wind, etc all have indirect costs: intermittency, land use, materials, labor for installation. We can imagine that in world with abundant fusion energy we may prefer to have more land for nature, conservation and just left untouched rather than being laboriously plated with solar panels that require upkeep and maintenance and eventual replacement and block the ground from getting the sunlight.
How much overlap is there in the education and skills of nuclear and fusion, research and engineering? IE, should nuclear and fusion development be pursued simultaneously?
Latest news is that Polaris should finish construction by summer. Helion still hopes to achieve net electricity for the first time before the end of the year. Though that date might slip a little.
I wonder if we run a farnsworth fusor with a DT plasma at a loss to breed helium3? Currently humans make helium3 from neutron bomardment of lithium6 which is stable isotope, but only 4.5% of the typical mix...
54:59 the first guy’s unit econ is a miss. No one on earth is willing to put up with any energy system without considering the safety and environment at the beginning!
This makes me so sad. I graduated in 2011 with a Master's degree in Physics. The Canadian government of the time massively cut the PhD programs in my sub-field and I could not get a funded space anywhere in Canada. And, no, I wouldn't go to the USA. I looked for a job long and hard. I tried to find and interview with private Fusion companies. I didn't get the job because they didn't get VC funding. Now, this report suggests that there is lots of VC funding about. But that was so long ago and I didn't work in a lab or University which means that now my degrees are worthless. So, I wish them all the best but I also wish I had spent the last 10 years working and not sitting on my thumbs unemployed and living on nothing at all.
The main problem is that they completely ignore is the cost and initial availability of tritium. The stock of tritium is quite small, so we can build only very limited amount of facilities. Only the high intensity (power/total tritium content) scheme will be economically viable. It is the reason the best chance for commercialization has First Light and then Hellion Energy.
@@elmarmoelzer2229 So Helion is doomed, because their fuel production is constrained by Tritium to Helium3 decey rate - half life of 12.5 years. This means, that they have to have double fuel stockpile used in 10 years. There is no sufficient amount of tritium in the world. They need very big amount of fuel for bootstrap, and we have no comercial lunar helium3 mines.
@@peceed Nope. D+D => He3 + n OR D+D => T +p Both have a 50% chance of happening. Their machines run just at about break even with D-D but with even every 3rd reaction being D-He3, they will have a good amount of extra energy for selling. | There is more to it though: They can sell the Tritium. In fact, at current market prices, they can make more money from selling Tritium than they would from burning the He3 from T- decay. And T currently costs more than He3 on the open market. Most users of T have He3 because of the T to He3 decay. So they can trade and still make a small profit. And there is more even, because their machines are also pretty decent for burning D-T, they can theoretically make electricity in special versions that burn D-T. And they could even make dedicated breeders that do D-D-T as a reaction. So those breeders would make some energy for selling and produce He3 for dedicated D-He3 machines. And then there is even more, because they can more than double the Tritium production by using a Lithium blanket. So, lots of options there.
If SMRs are quickest to come online, then they may well be more affordable than fusion. Are there any avenues to smaller-scale to fusion reactors? Simply put, what are the strong and weak points?
Helion's and Zap's machines will be quite small (50 MWe). Should also be relatively cheap to build and maintain. SMRs are cool, but the fission industry is still struggling with regulation among other things. Nuscale is in big trouble, I hear.
Small, low output fusion and fission reactors should be feasible for small-sized towns and cities in that they do not need expensive, HV grid wiring and huge transformers to step up/down power to local homes and businesses. The resulting grid should be more distributed and disaster-resistant.@@elmarmoelzer2229
When your plan is to use a fusion fuel only found in usable quantities on the moon, you shouldn't predict working fusion power by 2028. Making He3 for D/He3 fusion from D/D fusion is a "Let them eat cake" plan. D/D fusion is 100 times rarer than D/He3 fusion, which is itself rare enough to be difficult to use. :-) You also can't produce D/He fusion without also producing a significant amount of D/D fusion, which means a significant amount of the neutrons that they claim to avoid. I don't care how much money Helion has raised, it's a terrible idea. 😞
Back in 1980 there was great interest in renewable energy. But, then with a change in Presidents things changed. Granted solar and wind technology were not advanced enough. I am not against nuclear fusion or fission and they have a place. However, the question is decentralized energy verses centralized energy. Sunlight, wind and hydro-thermal are decentralized and free. It is the centralized political power of fission and fusion that concerns me.
Helion Energy's CEO David Kirkley is a master sales pitchman for the series of projects that many investors have supported because they rely exclusively upon critical assessments created by nuclear fusion energy fans. Those, in this esoteric field, tend to immerse themselves in echo chamber information sources in order to reinforce their preexisting views. Few have any incentives to search for critical assessment of these projects that they have come to love. Kirkley has made progress claims that have later proven wrong. Helion withholds many key details, claiming that they are proprietary information. One detail is quantitive parameters of the number of fusion reactions their multitude of experiments have produced. Most fusion advocates have learned to capitalize on the public fear of global warming to gain public and private support for the technological projects that give them joy. I urge readers to search for the following critical assessment title on TH-cam. The problems with Helion Energy - a response to Real Engineering --- Virtually all nuclear energy promoters, are in line with the vast majority of Earth's other 8.0+ billion humans, who continue to assume that we still have at least 20 years left to turn this 'Titanic' around using their favorite nuclear technology. They have become masterful in excluding the following warnings from their consciousness. I urge readers to search for the following two article titles. IPCC report: ‘now or never’ if world is to stave off climate disaster (TheGuardian) UN chief: World has less than 2 years to avoid 'runaway climate change' (TheHill) * This statement was made 5.6 years ago.
Remember the words President John F. Kennedy said over sixty years ago: "We do these things and many more not because they are easy but because they are hard".
Helion Energy CEO is a master pitchman. Almost all fusion energy presentations tend to be greatly overhyped. The research began during the late 1950s. Few of today's fans have any interest in critically looking back at the failure history, and the overblown claims. Helion itself made earlier claims that suggested it would be providing electrical power by 2025. Most Helion energy fans have never encountered the following critique and if they do they tend to reject the analysis because it clashes with what they prefer to believe in. I urge reader to search for the following title on TH-cam. The problems with Helion Energy - a response to Real Engineering
Deuterium-Tritium reactions convert 0.376% of the mass of the reactants into energy. Thus, with 100 kg of d-t fuel, 0.376kg turns into energy via E=mc². ~80% of that energy goes to a neutron. Neutron energy can't be collected by magnetic fields, practically, so heat is the only option. Deuterium-deuterium reactions convert 0.0949% of the fuel mass into energy. ~33% of that goes to a neutron. Much less energy per kg is released however, there's an argument to be made that direct conversion of 66% of the released energy might get more total energy out of the system than using heat conversion. Most of the fusion projects intend to use one if the above. I didn't know Helion is attempting what is known is some circles as a catalyzed deuterium reaction. Basically, an incomplete fusing of d-d leaves enough deuterium to fuse with the ash; tritium and helium-3. This reaction has a 0.348% mass conversion, on par with d-t fusion but only 38% goes to neutrons. There's much more energy per reaction and just as much impetus to use direct conversion as d-d.
They are extracting the fusion products (ash) between pulses. So they can separate the Tritium (the D-D fusion product in the other D-D branch) and He3 and remaining Deuterium and then fuel the He3 and Deuterium back into the machine. Mind you, the separation does not have to happen in real time. It can be done off site too. The Tritium will eventually decay into more He3 or it can be sold and/or traded for more He3 (since people who have and need Tritium will inevitably end up with He3 from the T- decay). But selling the Tritium could make them more money than they would make from electricity at 1 cent/kWh. A 50 MWe plant would consume about 20 kg of Deuterium/year and produce about 6 kg of Tritium. At current market prices that is 150 million/a. That can work at least as much as the market can handle. So, they probably have a really good business with that for at least the first few years when they will need the most money.
@elmarmoelzer2229 Interesting. I would have assumed a double fusion event. IE, first the plasma ball crushes to and through d-d fusion territory, and then into deuerium-helium3 fusion territory. That's pure speculation on my part: it's how I would approach the problem. Or, at least, I think I would. Do you have a source for the separation approach?
@@bmobert The fusion products have 0.82 MeV and more when they are produced. That is too hot and they are non- collisional on the time scale of the 1ms pulse. They just leave the plasmoid for the divertor. Helion's patents talk about that to some extent. Otherwise, you will just have to believe me ;)
@elmarmoelzer2229 Yeah. That makes sense. That begs the question, tho, can their energy conversion tech collect enough energy from the tritons, protons and helions of a d-d fusion event to make their power back; or do they rely on getting energy from the d-he3 reaction? I suspect they're not getting a return better than one for d-d, as that would be groundbreaking in its own right. Which makes me wonder why they think the d-he3 reaction will make it better. And what's the real-time delay between production and use of he3 fuel? And do they use two reactors or one? Are they making he3 in one reactor and using it in a second? Or is it all happening at the same time? I am very curious bit this data point makes me very skeptical.
@@bmobert - The key is that the magnetic energy of the fusion products is transferred to the plasmoid and that drives its expansion which in turn induces a current in the magnetic coils. This works for all charged fusion products (so not for neutrons). D-D fusion alone would be just about breaking even. The D-He3 reactions is where the money is. - I am not sure. it does not really matter. They can run the machine for a year on just D-D and get a year supply of He3. Then they have a year to process the next load of fusion products for fuel. - This can be done in the same machine or with a dedicated machine. Helion is still considering the option of dedicated breeders. There are some advantages with that route. E.g. it is easier to get siting licenses for dedicated D-He3 machines because of the lower neutron production and less Tritium on site. Dedicated D-D machines for breeding He3 could be sited together in some place where getting a license is easy. The first machines will do both, though.
So mankind is going to replace fossil fuels with fusion power. Meanwhile, mankind doesn't replace fossil fuels with fission power. Does that seem logically reasonable to everyone? Because it make zero sense to me. Meanwhile, fission is absurdly over-regulated due to safety and cleanliness concerns, while simultaneously being the safest and cleanest source of power available. And all the alternatives prosper, including fossil fuels, the unregulated assault weapon of energy sources. Beyond absurd.
I agree with that, but that is the reality we unfortunately live in. Mind you, the western fission industry is also hurting itself by missing deadlines and cost overruns. The Chinese show how it can and should be done. The west missed the mark, unfortunately.
Fission, and any energy source that has huge associated risks, need to go. I get the challenge of replacement… let’s be a bit more aggressive than patient.
For Helion, regulation is a minor problem, needing fuel from the moon and planning to produce electricity by violating the 2nd law of thermodynamics are its big problems. Your video discredits itself by letting them talk about minor problems and then make outrageous claims -- like saying that they'll make water flow uphill after they fix a leaky faucet. :-(
Of course not. It is not a problem now because NRC treats fusion reactor now as particle accelerator not nuclear reactor. It is fine now because there is no fusion done. No fusion and thus there is no neutron emission. It will be major if not unsurmoubtable regulation problem. Say Deutrium-Tritium fusion. One count of fusion generate one 14.1 MeV fast neutron. In the case of nuclear fission, one count of fission generates 3 neutrons with an average of 2 MeV. The neutron exposure is more worse in the case of fusion. Nuclear reactors most use water as moderator. Neutrons are slowed down to thermal neutrons. Thus there is no fast neutron emission. If Helion is on full scale electricity generation, it will be Chernobyl level of radiation exposure. I do not think that any regulatory authority will green light them to operate.
might be a german position but regulation is not only about slowing down. Regulation is also the common knowledge gained by a lot of mistakes leading to catastrophic accidents, from the past. To make the same mistake a second time might be stupid.
Another take is that the worst fission accidents were a lot less catastrophic than other energy sources (coal, oil, gas) are during normal operation. The worst fission accident had a lot fewer consequences than the average hydro- accident.
@@elmarmoelzer2229 this is a lot of a statement. i personally remember the pictures of the fukushima explosions. Now there is a lot of waste water to threat. Do you remember Chernobyl, still an issue for the Russian soldier currently illegal in the region. By the way the three mile island report is public available, i red. anyway i guess you have some kind of argument about size for each of them. You know in germany is TÜV which started of by exploding steam engines around 1850 when industrialisation came around . Can you recall the Beirut explosion, ammonia explosions are well known in germany, US and i think last decade also in China. With Rules you do not need to repeat well known mistakes.
@@eugenhuber3441 Chernobyl has had a death toll of about 100 people over almost 40 years. In the end, it might end up having caused some 300 premature deaths. 20 years ago, it was estimated to be at most 4,000 but they have since revised it down since even after 40 years those excess deaths have not materialized. The exclusion zone around the plant is a nature preserve now. Wildlife thrives there without humans. The radiation is relatively minor. You can stand close to the sarcophagus and have less radiation exposure than you get from flying. Three Mile Island killed no one. Fukushima killed no one. The "contaminated water" is blown wayyy out of proportion. Meanwhile, coal plants kill thousands every year. German coal alone is responsible for some 2,000 premature deaths _every_ _year_. The pollution from coal is much worse too and yes, it also contaminates water. Plus add the effects on climate change. Gas and oil are slightly better than coal but not by much. When a hydro dam breaks, thousands die in an instant. The dam breakage of Banqiao was the worst, killing some 250,000 people and destroying 7 million homes.
@@elmarmoelzer2229 wau, i will not argue for coal as this is a stupid comparison and i think it easier to capture and storage nuclear waste than to do the same with CO2. I don't think CCS will work and don't think about how long to store away. At west coast of africa is a volcanic sea showing the risk of CO2 going rough in a big "champagne bottle" life killing accident. I do not remember three mile island casualties but i remember the terminator guys after the chernobyl accident, you really think the improvised lead cloth or short time helped to save them? I would easier stay with the believe of the guys about vodka to help against radiation or to clean up the statistics as they die on liver cancer than on radiation. To my knowledge some month ago some soldiers tried to dug in, in the red area around the reactor and immediately recognised the error. Anyway feel free to follow your feeling about the wildlife rumor and i will propose you for the Darwin award. The same is for Fukushima, still under deconstruction, very carefully not to die on radiation. I think we can handler nuclear power plants but only if very careful people plan, build and operate them always improving the set of rules and learn from each other errors. There were people in the USSR knowing about the flaws about the RBMK reaktor but did not tell, one reason for Chernobyl disaster. The reason you can find the official three mile island report online. You can now come up with more numbers, i will not believe and comment, as i stay with Churchill's comment about: i will only believe my own falsified statistics.
@@eugenhuber3441 Well, my numbers are from the WHO and the Chernobyl tissue bank. You can read up on it, or believe whatever you want to believe. Btw, most people do not know that the other two blocks of the Chernobyl nuclear power plant were still working until years later. People went to work there every day. Chernobyl is a tourist attraction now, well was before war anyway.
I haven’t watched it yet, but I’m laughing, iregardless, which seems to be an appropriately laughable 😂 joke word to use. It, commercially available fusion energy, is 30 years away 🤷♂️, period. The second part, and always will be, is probably incorrect however.
Unfortunately, no time to watch this all now, so all my doubts may be erased when I do, BUT in the meantime... The only objective facts we know about 'how good' these start-ups are, is ' look at how much money they have persuaded rich people to give them'. Not a hint of actual new records being set, anything, beyond what the ponderous, govt funded beasts have achieved. If there are ten start-ups, no one would be shocked if only one of them was successful, meaning nine out of ten failed, but ten out of ten failing seems too incredible. Why? because all those rich men handed over their money. I so, so hope these guys are right and we have fusion asap, but give me some evidence of science, not persuasion.
Well...listen...fusion so far ..has not veen practical ..where as..a self running fuelless turbine has more practical implications ..any tec takes development...in the end practicality ..affordability..availability...and just plain better..these things win the game..any fool can spend a fortune on impractical things ...we need to look at other things that have a better outcome...fusion just doesn't look practical
(third attempt; my comment has been automatically removed) well, as he asked for it at 1:13:15 , here's what I have to comment: I totally believe in the progress of work to solve all these barriers. What I don't believe is that this will happen before some class of people disappear from this planet; people who live off of lies, secrets, and information detainment. This people need to "leave" first, then we start to think in improving our machines and systems. (because, it doesn't need to be too wise to know that it all and much more is possible already). 12:37 and in my belief, it's a good start to simply get B*Gates off the equation. (off ANY equation!) this is it: good luck to us all. Sincerely, Ace
Lol Helion is basically an investment scam. Kirtley lies about the reactions that will occur in their dumb system, and lies about projections. Neutrons will quickly destroy their machine.
57:50 To me, it's just truly gratifying that we've reached a point where solar PV is seen as the comparison standard for cheap energy. A couple of decades ago, it was just taken for granted that PV was green, but just too expensive. Some of us never bought that claim, at the risk of being said to be talking pie in the sky.
So amazing - thanks for producing such great quality info on this - exciting times!
Our pleasure! Thanks for watching!
Extremely well done. Thanks for such a well produced and balanced series
Thanks for watching, Mike!
It’s always been an engineering problem. These guys are salesmen so be careful about optimizing. This has yet to be proven.
I am convinced there's a way to do this in an apparatus the size of a large automobile, like perhaps garage sized. Who knows, perhaps even microwave sized... However ... Is it a great idea for Gigawatts of energy being made available to all people? I barely use a few hundred watts at once, maybe a kilowatt or two if it's really warm or cold outside. With cheap energy at a few megawatts, geeze, I could become very dangerous!
I'm equally convinced that there probably isn't.
I strongly suspect that it's a, (fundamental,) physics problem far more than it's an engineering one.
Just like anti gravity.
Jonathanhuges dont trust these guys they are laiers they are manufacturing helium 3 for sales in expensive amount so they earn more profit. Especially this helion
@@Eris123451the fundamentals are fine: it has been shown that fusion works.
If it's possible to scale the sun down to the size of a microwave? Challenging, but afaik there is no law in the fysics book that forbids it...
Who could, in the 1960s suspect that one could carry 10 billion transistors in his pocket?
But: my gut feeling is that fusion will never fit in a microwave. A garage? Unlikely. A factory? Maybe. Without proof.
What… 😂. We know stars operate using fusion, it’s fundamentally very possible, whereas anti gravity. Not so much
Commercial fusion energy would be a miracle. And there in lies the problem.
Cheap solar energy would be a miracle but here we are I’m paying a quarter what I used to pay
Yes, commercially-viable fusion energy would be a miracle. The phrase, "...put electrons on the grid by 2028", is being spoken in order to sound impressive but in reality that step is trivial. Any individual or company with a working fusor could "put electrons on the grid" today by converting some of the heat to electricity. The tough challenge ahead is to make a fusion plant that can put even a tiny bit more energy on the grid than the energy that is consumed in producing the fuel and in operating the plant. Then the next tough challenge will be to improve the process until it is commercially-viable. Videos such as this one that discuss the dreams and the general approaches to fusion energy have not yet begun to address all the issues and challenges to commercial viability.
The real reason for excitement now is that serious work, likely to work, is being done to remedy the plasma instability problems that have plagued Tokamaks up until now.
I was a teenager in 1957, and I remember the front pages of all the newspapers shouting about the successful operation of the first fusion reactor at Harwell, UK. They claimed unlimited power was about to be generated from the deuterium and hydrogen in sea-water.
Unfortunately, there was a decimal point error in the calculations, so the net power gain was not positive.
(On the other hand, in the previous year, 1956, Queen Elizabeth had opened the world’s first nuclear (fission) power generation station at Calder Hall.)
Thanks for sharing!
You're pumping content like crazy, I couldn't keep up with all the episodes
Fortunately the holidays are coming up!
Actually, I take that back. That's so interesting and stops at the most interesting part for each company, clearly not deep enough! We need 2 hours long episode of just uncut conversations about each approach.
@@rotors_taker_0h We'll drop some of the full interviews once the season ends!
ITER also uses superconducting magnets. Being superconducting doesn't make the magnets stronger, but it reduces their energy cost enough to make them practical for power plants. CFS uses new magnets that are both superconducting and powerful, which gives ITER's performance in much smaller and cheaper machines that CFS is building. :-)
Being big doesn't make its magnets stronger, but it lets them hold hot plasma longer. Stronger magnets also do this without being large, which is the approach that CFS is taking. :-)
Me, i will win the fusion race.
I'm rooting for you
no me
Wow thanks for this video, definetely opened my eyes. I came over here after learning about the use of the old giant laser at the national lab from Decouple Media and wanted to learn more!
What about Thorium reactors based in Denmark? They think about producing 1 reactor a day in a commercial setting. The race is between fusion and Thorium. Thorium might be quicker to market.
If Denmark builds Thorium reactors we retrofit Barsebäck with a RBMK1500.
Coal in the US has already dropped from 50% to 10% of US power mostly replaced by gas. Most of the gas will be replaced with solar, wind, and storage before either fission or fusion could make a contribution. Distributed generation and microgrids are growing fast. Large, low cost, non-carbon emitting power that can ramp to loads would be great, but after the Vogtle cost overruns, utilities are slow to invest in new SMR's, advanced fission reactors, or unproven fusion reactors. Of course we would all love to see a fusion breakthrough and admire innovative thinking, but so far we don't even have a working prototype.
ITER uses superconductors, CFS uses HIGH-FIELD superconductors, which give energy-efficient magnets that are much more powerful, which allows much smaller tokamaks with the same performance as ITER. :-)
If they combine all the current fusion efforts, Imagine
A tokomak donut magnet with two rail guns firing deuterium foam frozen pellets into the center of the donut from each side ( the donut on edge). With six lasers at each side, on 45 degree angles, aimed at the center. All controlled by AI.
The guns pulse foam pellets, into the center at regular times. The magnetic donut holds them in place, while the lasers add extra heat, and keep the fuel in the center, by AI control.
The heat can be removed by liquid lithium, and direct electrical power
Noooooo… pls don’t stop here! There’s still more to cover about energy!
You hv brilliantly covered generation, how about the ways we use it and the challenges in how we can decarbonise them, economically, practically, reliably🙏
You should probably have mentioned Tokamak Energy as well as CFS. They don't have as much money, but they did start earlier, and are taking a very similar route to CFS (Spherical tokamak with REBCO magnets so it can be 10x smaller and 100x cheaper than ITER). They are heading for positive Q within a few years as well.
Small correction: You show a graphic for fusing Deuterium and Tritium at 47:20 rather than Deuterium and Helium3.
Great catch. Thanks for watching all the way until then too!
Unfortunately for those that want carbon free energy isn’t going to happen with wind, solar or electric cars. These technologies have a higher impact and carbon emissions than our current technologies. It’s true and unfortunate. Nuclear power is our only current source of green energy that makes sense. It works longer and isn’t nearly as polluting as manufacturing wind and solar for how much climate impact. Fusion should eventually replace all energy production methods. It can truly help bring places like Africa up to the standards the rest of the world has. It sounds as if we are not close yet because all of these can fail to work. So far none of these companies have gotten close yet.
@@jonathanhughes8679 Helion's Trenta actually did get close already and Polaris is still on track for net electricity from fusion by the end of 2024.
Awesome content!! What about non electricity applications of fusion (industrial process heat, propulsion) ?
Several fusion startups are looking into that. Realta Fusion is aiming specifically at process heat as a first market. Princeton Satellite Systems and Helicity Space are looking at space propulsion as a main business case. Pulsar is also looking into space propulsion (though I am a bit skeptical of their concept). Zap and some others have potential space propulsion systems in a drawer as a future application of their technology. And of course you can also use electricity as an alternative in various industrial processes. Helion has a contract with Nucor for their steel plants.
Let’s first achieve it proper then we’ll have those endless ideas
Commonwealth Fusion at MIT should win this race, somewhere around 2035.
Helion has a pretty good shot, if we can breed enough helium-3.
Great video thanks 😊😊
Enjoyed the podcast/video. Well produced. Hopefully Fusion comes along soon.
Thank you!
In the meantime can we at least go back to using Thorium as fuel in Liquid Salt cooled atomic reactors, as they don't create radioactive waste
Guys , I’m trying to think of something nice to motivate yee and I think your channel will be big if yee stick with it for 3 yrs + (1.5m subs) - great content well researched subject, great documentary journalism and male/female co-hosts is a nice touch! Happy Christmas 🎅 🎉😅
Q 2 to Q8 would fly for fission-suppressed fusion hybrid. A fission-suppressed fusion hybrid is a proposed power source that combines nuclear fusion and fission processes. The idea is to use high-energy neutrons from a fusion reactor to trigger fission in non-fissile fuels, such as uranium-238 or thorium-232. The neutrons capture in the blanket convert the "fertile" material into fissile isotopes, which are then used as fuel in conventional nuclear reactors.
When you're planning to use a fuel that's found most closely on the moon, you don't predict success by 2028 unless you want to be comic relief. :-)
A.I. will no doubt win the fusion race
Wendelstein 7-x is in Greifswald! I studied at IPP in Munich, trust me ;) Good video BTW
love it!! Thanks Daniel
We don’t need _less_ regulation. We need to simplify the compliance processes.
LCOE doesn’t include which market. It’s useless to compare solar to any base load system.
Also, LCOE doesn’t measure associated risks…
Helion will be lucky to have a kilogram of He3 by 2028. Their best bet is to wait a few decades until He3 from the moon is a standard industrial product, and develop low-neutron fusion reactors that don't need much shielding and can hence be smaller and lighter and used in submarines or fusion rockets. :-)
Fusion produces heat, disorganized energy, not electricity, organized energy, extracting just electricity is pulling order from disorder, which violates the 2nd law of thermodynamics. Making electricity from heat works, but it changes about half the energy in the heat into waste heat. They might as well plan to develop perpetual motion. :-)
My smile has been energised
I still long for a last lone inventor(s) fun event. I was sad after Pons and Fleischman were exposed. Fusion in a Mason jar was so quaint and charming. Tesla-esque.....
I believe that fusion plasma can be stably confined with a row of superconducting magnetic rings like 45 rpm music records stacked with gaps between them on a long spindle that deploy a high voltage electric field. The center ring is grounded and the rings are increasingly positive both up and down the row. The spindle can be an inner insulative ceramic hollow vacuum chamber housing the plasma not shown on the sketch below. The plasma is confined radially by the magnetic field and axially by the electric field.
The nuclei are electrically repelled from the ends inwards axially to the center. Many electrons escape at the ends but that is advantageous because the electrons radiate energy unnecessarily.
The rings produce a straght hour glass shaped magnetic field. This constrictive curvature along a straight axis is the most stable shape. The constriction is produced by having the strongest magnetism in the center. This will press the charged particles outwards axially so the vessel may need to be long to support a strong electric field compensating that.
The 45 music record like rings are stainless steel with an inlaid spiral superconductor. MIT developed inlaid superconductors. .
Key and keyboard sketch: ( = magnetizing current, + = charge:
(()++ ((()+ (((()○ ((()+ (()++
Aloha
Charles M Brown lll
Kilauea Kauai Hawaii 968754
I'm skeptical that conputing power demand is going to increase so much that its equal to current electric demand, we're likely to improve computing efficiency before that (both by improving the relatively dumb AI learning algorithms, and by improving the silicon itself), but replacing fossil in transportation, heating, steelmaking, cement making, etc will get us to 3X current demand and 5X doesn't sound crazy at all. And then there's "carbon capture"... Some of this demand could be met by intermittant renewables, i.e. make synthetic ammonia and jet fuel when it's sunny out and store it, but this depends on capital costs; if your fuel plant equipment is expensive, you don't want to be stuck running it for only that 20% of the time when the solar cells are producing. Intermittants work with low capex automated processes, but not so much when capex is higher or there's a workforce that expects to show up 5 days a week, do their jobs and get paid every week, whether it's sunny or not.
Computing power has always scaled with total cost of ownership, the price of electricity is a big part in that. The cheaper power gets, the more computing demand will open up. Bitcoin already shows how fast compute power can grow if there's money to be made, any sufficiently complex algorithm can improve cost reduction elsewhere if you had more computational power.
Transportation industry, steelmaking and cementmaking have severe limitations making them difficult even with lower electricity prices.
In an MSR with Thorium you get temperatures between 650 to 750 centigrade and that is great for making fuel from CO2, water and iron.
Indeed, I am pretty sure they can get a lot hotter, but it's designed to operate well below the boiling point of the fuel (or melting point of the containment material). I think lithium fluoride salt boils at crazy high temps, around 1500 °C
Please enable closed captions
Done! They may be slightly off, but the full transcript is uploaded.
@@age-of-miracles You Tell LIES Nuclear IS & HAS ALL WAYS A LIE Cancer Rate UP 30 %
Meny think that Helion are scam and not without facts. Most hilarious is that on thier own site still claimed that "planned date to reach fusion are 2023"... Very well choice of guests...
They still have time...
@@BartJBols😮💨
No, Helions goal was and still is the end of 2024 for net electricity(!) from fusion. That has been the stated goal for a while. Dates can slip a bit, but they are still aiming for that.
The only scam is you who write false information, they set for end of 2024 for polaris operation. In fact is under construction....
The main Helion critique video on YT is essentially fact free
Compared D-He3 reactivity to D-T at 100 million degrees when the full generator would run at 250 million. Didn't adjust for the high pressure of an FRC, or for the high ion temperature to electron temperature ratio. Fusion is hard, no one needs to be surprised if someone fails or an approach takes decades longer, but I'm quite unconvinced by Helion critiques!
Great video 😊
Thank you!
Forget more fission - it's too expensive and dangerous for the average consumer. Emphasis should be on renewables with fusion as a future option, hopefully.
5cents per kwh is not much cheaper than traditional generation. What happens to fusion being so abundant, so cheap, almost free? can we get like 0.05 cent per kwh or lower? if not, might as well do solar, winds....and better energy storage....they key here is cost.
You are correct, the key is cost, and wind and solar are the most expensive ways we have to produce reliable, dispatchable electricity.
Solar, wind, etc all have indirect costs: intermittency, land use, materials, labor for installation. We can imagine that in world with abundant fusion energy we may prefer to have more land for nature, conservation and just left untouched rather than being laboriously plated with solar panels that require upkeep and maintenance and eventual replacement and block the ground from getting the sunlight.
@@rotors_taker_0h We don't have to wait for fusion when we can so the same thing with fission today.
@@chapter4travels I agree but people aren't fully rational. There was some podcast series about why fission doesn't fly, don't remember where.
How much overlap is there in the education and skills of nuclear and fusion, research and engineering? IE, should nuclear and fusion development be pursued simultaneously?
Did they asked when Polaris will be ready ???
When will they run the First trials??
Latest news is that Polaris should finish construction by summer. Helion still hopes to achieve net electricity for the first time before the end of the year. Though that date might slip a little.
Good job guys!
1:11:27 NOOO! Don’t say “in between spot!”
Germans can hear you! You’ll hurt their feelings!
What is the work function frequency of an hydrogen atom?
I wonder if we run a farnsworth fusor with a DT plasma at a loss to breed helium3? Currently humans make helium3 from neutron bomardment of lithium6 which is stable isotope, but only 4.5% of the typical mix...
Can Tritium and the like be made in breeder reactors? Thorium needs a breeder, does it not?
54:59 the first guy’s unit econ is a miss.
No one on earth is willing to put up with any energy system without considering the safety and environment at the beginning!
This makes me so sad. I graduated in 2011 with a Master's degree in Physics. The Canadian government of the time massively cut the PhD programs in my sub-field and I could not get a funded space anywhere in Canada. And, no, I wouldn't go to the USA. I looked for a job long and hard. I tried to find and interview with private Fusion companies. I didn't get the job because they didn't get VC funding. Now, this report suggests that there is lots of VC funding about. But that was so long ago and I didn't work in a lab or University which means that now my degrees are worthless. So, I wish them all the best but I also wish I had spent the last 10 years working and not sitting on my thumbs unemployed and living on nothing at all.
Sounds like you should have gone to the USA
The main problem is that they completely ignore is the cost and initial availability of tritium. The stock of tritium is quite small, so we can build only very limited amount of facilities. Only the high intensity (power/total tritium content) scheme will be economically viable.
It is the reason the best chance for commercialization has First Light and then Hellion Energy.
Helion does not burn Tritium. They make Helium3 and Tritium as a byproduct by fusing Deuterium.
@@elmarmoelzer2229 So Helion is doomed, because their fuel production is constrained by Tritium to Helium3 decey rate - half life of 12.5 years. This means, that they have to have double fuel stockpile used in 10 years. There is no sufficient amount of tritium in the world. They need very big amount of fuel for bootstrap, and we have no comercial lunar helium3 mines.
@@peceed
Nope.
D+D => He3 + n
OR
D+D => T +p
Both have a 50% chance of happening.
Their machines run just at about break even with D-D but with even every 3rd reaction being D-He3, they will have a good amount of extra energy for selling. |
There is more to it though: They can sell the Tritium. In fact, at current market prices, they can make more money from selling Tritium than they would from burning the He3 from T- decay.
And T currently costs more than He3 on the open market. Most users of T have He3 because of the T to He3 decay. So they can trade and still make a small profit.
And there is more even, because their machines are also pretty decent for burning D-T, they can theoretically make electricity in special versions that burn D-T.
And they could even make dedicated breeders that do D-D-T as a reaction. So those breeders would make some energy for selling and produce He3 for dedicated D-He3 machines.
And then there is even more, because they can more than double the Tritium production by using a Lithium blanket.
So, lots of options there.
where's GENERAL FUSION? you forgot it!
If SMRs are quickest to come online, then they may well be more affordable than fusion. Are there any avenues to smaller-scale to fusion reactors? Simply put, what are the strong and weak points?
Helion's and Zap's machines will be quite small (50 MWe). Should also be relatively cheap to build and maintain. SMRs are cool, but the fission industry is still struggling with regulation among other things. Nuscale is in big trouble, I hear.
Small, low output fusion and fission reactors should be feasible for small-sized towns and cities in that they do not need expensive, HV grid wiring and huge transformers to step up/down power to local homes and businesses. The resulting grid should be more distributed and disaster-resistant.@@elmarmoelzer2229
How about Rolls-Royce?@@elmarmoelzer2229
When your plan is to use a fusion fuel only found in usable quantities on the moon, you shouldn't predict working fusion power by 2028. Making He3 for D/He3 fusion from D/D fusion is a "Let them eat cake" plan. D/D fusion is 100 times rarer than D/He3 fusion, which is itself rare enough to be difficult to use. :-) You also can't produce D/He fusion without also producing a significant amount of D/D fusion, which means a significant amount of the neutrons that they claim to avoid. I don't care how much money Helion has raised, it's a terrible idea. 😞
Back in 1980 there was great interest in renewable energy. But, then with a change in Presidents things changed. Granted solar and wind technology were not advanced enough. I am not against nuclear fusion or fission and they have a place. However, the question is decentralized energy verses centralized energy. Sunlight, wind and hydro-thermal are decentralized and free. It is the centralized political power of fission and fusion that concerns me.
Helion Energy's CEO David Kirkley is a master sales pitchman for the series of projects that many investors have supported because they rely exclusively upon critical assessments created by nuclear fusion energy fans. Those, in this esoteric field, tend to immerse themselves in echo chamber information sources in order to reinforce their preexisting views. Few have any incentives to search for critical assessment of these projects that they have come to love. Kirkley has made progress claims that have later proven wrong. Helion withholds many key details, claiming that they are proprietary information. One detail is quantitive parameters of the number of fusion reactions their multitude of experiments have produced. Most fusion advocates have learned to capitalize on the public fear of global warming to gain public and private support for the technological projects that give them joy. I urge readers to search for the following critical assessment title on TH-cam.
The problems with Helion Energy - a response to Real Engineering
---
Virtually all nuclear energy promoters, are in line with the vast majority of Earth's other 8.0+ billion humans, who continue to assume that we still have at least 20 years left to turn this 'Titanic' around using their favorite nuclear technology. They have become masterful in excluding the following warnings from their consciousness. I urge readers to search for the following two article titles.
IPCC report: ‘now or never’ if world is to stave off climate disaster (TheGuardian)
UN chief: World has less than 2 years to avoid 'runaway climate change' (TheHill)
* This statement was made 5.6 years ago.
TIME will win the race .. 100 years .. 1000 years ?
Super-conducting magnets must be used to keep the plasma contained. BIG PROBLEM. RIGHT?
Helion does not need super conductors. Zap does not need magnets at all.
Remember the words President John F. Kennedy said over sixty years ago: "We do these things and many more not because they are easy but because they are hard".
Helion Energy CEO is a master pitchman. Almost all fusion energy presentations tend to be greatly overhyped. The research began during the late 1950s. Few of today's fans have any interest in critically looking back at the failure history, and the overblown claims. Helion itself made earlier claims that suggested it would be providing electrical power by 2025.
Most Helion energy fans have never encountered the following critique and if they do they tend to reject the analysis because it clashes with what they prefer to believe in. I urge reader to search for the following title on TH-cam.
The problems with Helion Energy - a response to Real Engineering
Deuterium-Tritium reactions convert 0.376% of the mass of the reactants into energy. Thus, with 100 kg of d-t fuel, 0.376kg turns into energy via E=mc². ~80% of that energy goes to a neutron. Neutron energy can't be collected by magnetic fields, practically, so heat is the only option.
Deuterium-deuterium reactions convert 0.0949% of the fuel mass into energy. ~33% of that goes to a neutron. Much less energy per kg is released however, there's an argument to be made that direct conversion of 66% of the released energy might get more total energy out of the system than using heat conversion.
Most of the fusion projects intend to use one if the above.
I didn't know Helion is attempting what is known is some circles as a catalyzed deuterium reaction. Basically, an incomplete fusing of d-d leaves enough deuterium to fuse with the ash; tritium and helium-3. This reaction has a 0.348% mass conversion, on par with d-t fusion but only 38% goes to neutrons. There's much more energy per reaction and just as much impetus to use direct conversion as d-d.
They are extracting the fusion products (ash) between pulses. So they can separate the Tritium (the D-D fusion product in the other D-D branch) and He3 and remaining Deuterium and then fuel the He3 and Deuterium back into the machine. Mind you, the separation does not have to happen in real time. It can be done off site too. The Tritium will eventually decay into more He3 or it can be sold and/or traded for more He3 (since people who have and need Tritium will inevitably end up with He3 from the T- decay). But selling the Tritium could make them more money than they would make from electricity at 1 cent/kWh. A 50 MWe plant would consume about 20 kg of Deuterium/year and produce about 6 kg of Tritium. At current market prices that is 150 million/a. That can work at least as much as the market can handle. So, they probably have a really good business with that for at least the first few years when they will need the most money.
@elmarmoelzer2229
Interesting.
I would have assumed a double fusion event. IE, first the plasma ball crushes to and through d-d fusion territory, and then into deuerium-helium3 fusion territory.
That's pure speculation on my part: it's how I would approach the problem. Or, at least, I think I would.
Do you have a source for the separation approach?
@@bmobert
The fusion products have 0.82 MeV and more when they are produced. That is too hot and they are non- collisional on the time scale of the 1ms pulse. They just leave the plasmoid for the divertor.
Helion's patents talk about that to some extent. Otherwise, you will just have to believe me ;)
@elmarmoelzer2229 Yeah. That makes sense. That begs the question, tho, can their energy conversion tech collect enough energy from the tritons, protons and helions of a d-d fusion event to make their power back; or do they rely on getting energy from the d-he3 reaction?
I suspect they're not getting a return better than one for d-d, as that would be groundbreaking in its own right. Which makes me wonder why they think the d-he3 reaction will make it better.
And what's the real-time delay between production and use of he3 fuel?
And do they use two reactors or one? Are they making he3 in one reactor and using it in a second? Or is it all happening at the same time?
I am very curious bit this data point makes me very skeptical.
@@bmobert
- The key is that the magnetic energy of the fusion products is transferred to the plasmoid and that drives its expansion which in turn induces a current in the magnetic coils. This works for all charged fusion products (so not for neutrons).
D-D fusion alone would be just about breaking even. The D-He3 reactions is where the money is.
- I am not sure. it does not really matter. They can run the machine for a year on just D-D and get a year supply of He3. Then they have a year to process the next load of fusion products for fuel.
- This can be done in the same machine or with a dedicated machine. Helion is still considering the option of dedicated breeders. There are some advantages with that route. E.g. it is easier to get siting licenses for dedicated D-He3 machines because of the lower neutron production and less Tritium on site. Dedicated D-D machines for breeding He3 could be sited together in some place where getting a license is easy.
The first machines will do both, though.
I named my son Admin. People said I was nuts.
Fusion to these men like fission to Neanderteals
So mankind is going to replace fossil fuels with fusion power. Meanwhile, mankind doesn't replace fossil fuels with fission power. Does that seem logically reasonable to everyone? Because it make zero sense to me. Meanwhile, fission is absurdly over-regulated due to safety and cleanliness concerns, while simultaneously being the safest and cleanest source of power available. And all the alternatives prosper, including fossil fuels, the unregulated assault weapon of energy sources. Beyond absurd.
I agree with that, but that is the reality we unfortunately live in. Mind you, the western fission industry is also hurting itself by missing deadlines and cost overruns. The Chinese show how it can and should be done. The west missed the mark, unfortunately.
I have my doubts. I have worked on fisson reactors. So I have some knowledge. But fusion seems very remote.
Fission, and any energy source that has huge associated risks, need to go. I get the challenge of replacement… let’s be a bit more aggressive than patient.
You can promise anything these days. Although I whish them well.
Unless promising things ever happens
For Helion, regulation is a minor problem, needing fuel from the moon and planning to produce electricity by violating the 2nd law of thermodynamics are its big problems. Your video discredits itself by letting them talk about minor problems and then make outrageous claims -- like saying that they'll make water flow uphill after they fix a leaky faucet. :-(
Of course not. It is not a problem now because NRC treats fusion reactor now as particle accelerator not nuclear reactor. It is fine now because there is no fusion done. No fusion and thus there is no neutron emission. It will be major if not unsurmoubtable regulation problem. Say Deutrium-Tritium fusion. One count of fusion generate one 14.1 MeV fast neutron. In the case of nuclear fission, one count of fission generates 3 neutrons with an average of 2 MeV. The neutron exposure is more worse in the case of fusion. Nuclear reactors most use water as moderator. Neutrons are slowed down to thermal neutrons. Thus there is no fast neutron emission. If Helion is on full scale electricity generation, it will be Chernobyl level of radiation exposure. I do not think that any regulatory authority will green light them to operate.
might be a german position but regulation is not only about slowing down. Regulation is also the common knowledge gained by a lot of mistakes leading to catastrophic accidents, from the past. To make the same mistake a second time might be stupid.
Another take is that the worst fission accidents were a lot less catastrophic than other energy sources (coal, oil, gas) are during normal operation. The worst fission accident had a lot fewer consequences than the average hydro- accident.
@@elmarmoelzer2229 this is a lot of a statement. i personally remember the pictures of the fukushima explosions. Now there is a lot of waste water to threat. Do you remember Chernobyl, still an issue for the Russian soldier currently illegal in the region. By the way the three mile island report is public available, i red. anyway i guess you have some kind of argument about size for each of them. You know in germany is TÜV which started of by exploding steam engines around 1850 when industrialisation came around . Can you recall the Beirut explosion, ammonia explosions are well known in germany, US and i think last decade also in China. With Rules you do not need to repeat well known mistakes.
@@eugenhuber3441
Chernobyl has had a death toll of about 100 people over almost 40 years. In the end, it might end up having caused some 300 premature deaths. 20 years ago, it was estimated to be at most 4,000 but they have since revised it down since even after 40 years those excess deaths have not materialized.
The exclusion zone around the plant is a nature preserve now. Wildlife thrives there without humans. The radiation is relatively minor. You can stand close to the sarcophagus and have less radiation exposure than you get from flying.
Three Mile Island killed no one.
Fukushima killed no one.
The "contaminated water" is blown wayyy out of proportion.
Meanwhile, coal plants kill thousands every year. German coal alone is responsible for some 2,000 premature deaths _every_ _year_. The pollution from coal is much worse too and yes, it also contaminates water. Plus add the effects on climate change.
Gas and oil are slightly better than coal but not by much.
When a hydro dam breaks, thousands die in an instant. The dam breakage of Banqiao was the worst, killing some 250,000 people and destroying 7 million homes.
@@elmarmoelzer2229 wau, i will not argue for coal as this is a stupid comparison and i think it easier to capture and storage nuclear waste than to do the same with CO2. I don't think CCS will work and don't think about how long to store away. At west coast of africa is a volcanic sea showing the risk of CO2 going rough in a big "champagne bottle" life killing accident. I do not remember three mile island casualties but i remember the terminator guys after the chernobyl accident, you really think the improvised lead cloth or short time helped to save them? I would easier stay with the believe of the guys about vodka to help against radiation or to clean up the statistics as they die on liver cancer than on radiation. To my knowledge some month ago some soldiers tried to dug in, in the red area around the reactor and immediately recognised the error. Anyway feel free to follow your feeling about the wildlife rumor and i will propose you for the Darwin award. The same is for Fukushima, still under deconstruction, very carefully not to die on radiation. I think we can handler nuclear power plants but only if very careful people plan, build and operate them always improving the set of rules and learn from each other errors. There were people in the USSR knowing about the flaws about the RBMK reaktor but did not tell, one reason for Chernobyl disaster. The reason you can find the official three mile island report online.
You can now come up with more numbers, i will not believe and comment, as i stay with Churchill's comment about: i will only believe my own falsified statistics.
@@eugenhuber3441
Well, my numbers are from the WHO and the Chernobyl tissue bank. You can read up on it, or believe whatever you want to believe.
Btw, most people do not know that the other two blocks of the Chernobyl nuclear power plant were still working until years later. People went to work there every day.
Chernobyl is a tourist attraction now, well was before war anyway.
52:06 I would restate your comment by saying in a capitalist system, if it’s better, faster, or cheaper… you have a business.
Why do you keep blocking comments about nuclear fission ?
It’s outrageous that you don’t allow actual dialog 😢
we aren’t blocking any comments!!
unsure what’s happening. double-checking on our end
Save Our Planet Now!
The Planet will be here long long long after you ~ Ants probably have more impact on the Planet than humans.
END Nuclear
150 000 000 degrees Celcius…
Amazing how many Elon Musks there are around.
1:12:12 cussing?
Carbon vilification bandwagon. Investors beware!
It would be much better if she was not reading from the screen. It was very distracting to listen while her eyes were moving around.
I haven’t watched it yet, but I’m laughing, iregardless, which seems to be an appropriately laughable 😂 joke word to use. It, commercially available fusion energy, is 30 years away 🤷♂️, period. The second part, and always will be, is probably incorrect however.
No Chinese experts? I think they have more than a nose in front in fusion.
Seems to me commercial fusion is still 30 years away.
Helion is a joke; they plan on violating basic physics. You discredit your video by giving them so much attention. :-(
Unfortunately, no time to watch this all now, so all my doubts may be erased when I do, BUT in the meantime... The only objective facts we know about 'how good' these start-ups are, is ' look at how much money they have persuaded rich people to give them'. Not a hint of actual new records being set, anything, beyond what the ponderous, govt funded beasts have achieved. If there are ten start-ups, no one would be shocked if only one of them was successful, meaning nine out of ten failed, but ten out of ten failing seems too incredible. Why? because all those rich men handed over their money. I so, so hope these guys are right and we have fusion asap, but give me some evidence of science, not persuasion.
Well...listen...fusion so far ..has not veen practical ..where as..a self running fuelless turbine has more practical implications ..any tec takes development...in the end practicality ..affordability..availability...and just plain better..these things win the game..any fool can spend a fortune on impractical things ...we need to look at other things that have a better outcome...fusion just doesn't look practical
(third attempt; my comment has been automatically removed)
well, as he asked for it at 1:13:15 , here's what I have to comment: I totally believe in the progress of work to solve all these barriers. What I don't believe is that this will happen before some class of people disappear from this planet; people who live off of lies, secrets, and information detainment. This people need to "leave" first, then we start to think in improving our machines and systems. (because, it doesn't need to be too wise to know that it all and much more is possible already).
12:37 and in my belief, it's a good start to simply get B*Gates off the equation. (off ANY equation!)
this is it: good luck to us all.
Sincerely,
Ace
none of them, fusion is not the answer 😪
Bullshit
Crap art. Pay artists, don't steal.
Lol Helion is basically an investment scam. Kirtley lies about the reactions that will occur in their dumb system, and lies about projections. Neutrons will quickly destroy their machine.
Nonsense!