Fusion power: how close are we? | FT Film

[@FinancialTimes]

Watch FT Moral Money editor Simon Mundy uncover some of the biggest opportunities and challenges within the global shift to cleaner energy. Click the links below for related videos: *Can hydrogen help the world reach net zero? | FT Film* on.ft.com/47g3MvA *Inside the global race for lithium batteries | FT Film* on.ft.com/46ojrrA

[@ExiledGypsy]

This idea of fusion being the magic bullet to the world's energy deficit and climate change is either a deliberate lie or simple stupidity risen out od vanity. Let's say ITER was successful and even the next plant was connected to the grid somewhere in the EU or the US and worked even better than expected. How can any country going to be able to pay to build one of these massive plants? Given the international involvement and huge costs of building its different parts, the scaling such a thing is 100 years away. Just take the problems companies have in taking something out of the lab and putting on the shelves and multiply that by a factor at least 10. Mean while we have tides out these going up and down withe regularity since before the age of dinasour. How many of such plants have been set--up compared to solar and wind farms? Why because operating in salty waters and other environmental issues is a challange. But nowhere as big of a challange of building an economically viable fusion plant by any country. I have no doubt that we will run out of deteriun long before the tides stop on earth. I just can't believe and no one seems to see that obvious observation. You need to develop the kind of material that is gong to stand to harsh environment of the sea but it is much closer, more useful and cheaper than a fusion plant. It is far more reliable than solar or wind and yet by comparison is it hardly developed and scaled or we would not have scarcity of energy by now. This is the sad part and makes you wonder if there is a conspiracy involved because it is just so obvious. We have been building offshore oil platforms for years and we have a good understanding of the kind of material needed and yet we are chasing fusion. Why?

[@JaapvanderVelde]

It's hard. It will take a long time. Most of us won't live to see it - but it's worth everything we can throw at it, because it's possible and it will be the greatest revolution for humanity since we mastered fire.

[@worfoz]

For the last 50 years they told me"within 20 years or so". And they still say that so it must be true.

[@worfoz]

@@_inthefold We need 580 million terajoules per year now, that is 13865 million tons of oil. Einstein said 1 Kilogram = 8.98·10¹⁶ joules of energy, IF only we can convert mass into energy (CO2 emission-free)... I'm too lazy to do the math, but you get my drift

[@sangbeom6245]

US already did it in testing.

[@Eris123451]

@@sangbeom6245 I'm not convinced.

[@brembopollypor9965]

Agree with comment, been reading about Tokamaks etc. since the ‘70s, not going anywhere in my lifetime (25-30 years left I hope…). Complexity is comparable to that of colonizing another planet (as Stephen Hawking suggested mankind starts preparing for….)

[@3301-w5d]

This video/ documentary was perfectly made. We get a lot of different point of views, from the scientists themselves to the investors backing them. And the question in the video title has been answered, with a very reasonable ballpark. I hope that a commercial breakthrough happens in my lifetime as this would catapult the human civilization exponentially in all scientific fields.

[@cobanus2862]

Yes energy like this would fuel insane projects! SpaceColonizers soon!

[@RavingFan]

be int. if can achieve nett energy gain in our lifetime. meanwhile, continuous eng. improvement/scaling of solar n wind ie. solar fusion energy. effective use of big red desert in auz, where i'm from. 1x in Amsterdam, winds almost removed door of taxi-cab, gotta be few mega joules in wind farms there. maybe cheaper large scale storage eg.sodium batteries.

[@Pureskillzor]

Simon Mundy has be the FT's best presenter for these documentaries. Very good video!

[@bogdan78pop]

20 years ....since the 1950's ...it's always been 20 years away....!!!! it still stands....!!!

[@aviefern]

For me, fusion really illustrates the importance of taking a balanced approach. I do think fusion will eventually pay off, but in the short-term, we really need to go all in on renewable energy and next-gen fission. We need to decarbonize as much as possible using the tech we currently have including solar, wind, tidal, thorium, hydro, and more. Once fusion pays off, we can start transitioning to that and increase our energy usage, but till that happens we need a temporary solution. Hopefully in the far future, we can start building a Dyson sphere and become a type 2 civilization.

[@mv1612]

To me, CFS (the SPARC project), driven in fact by the MIT fusion labs, seems to be the more promising, by which I mean the closest to not only demonstrate the concept, but to build a real power plant.

[@yes-vy6bn]

helion looks WAYYY closer

[@adrianthoroughgood1191]

@@yes-vy6bn I thought helion seemed really exciting when I saw a favourable video about it, but I've since seen a critical video pointing out all the problems and I think that the first one was hyping it up way too much. It's a cool idea. I like the idea of using the coils to capture energy without going through a steam phase. But there are really big problems that they seem to be basically ignoring. ITER is taking things a lot more seriously.

[@PolywellFan4512]

This is so much better than the coverage we got on 60 Minutes. This should clip should have many more views.

[@maestrovso]

This FT report on the subject is the best out there that I am aware. No fluff, no nonsense, and well balanced coverage of all the work happening around the globe on this pursuit. Thanks.

[@88Superphysics88]

These scientists don't know or understand how to make a commercial fusion reactor. Эти учёные не знают и не понимают, как сделать коммерческий термоядерный реактор.

[@AndrewMellor-darkphoton]

They just advertised the Ponzi scheme.

[@88Superphysics88]

@@AndrewMellor-darkphoton And this is very bad for science. There are real technologies, a commercial fusion reactor in 6 months, but nobody wants that. И это очень плохо для науки. Есть реальные технологии, коммерческий термоядерный реактор за 6 месяцев, но это никому не надо.

[@88Superphysics88]

@@AndrewMellor-darkphoton This is very bad for science.

[@davidtydeman1434]

Thank you for the balanced reporting

[@erikhartog5340]

There is absolutely nothing balanced about this reporting. Whether something is balanced is not dependent on the style of the reporting, but on the substance itself. Take the report on the US breakthrough for example. This video wrongfully says that there was a net energy gain. This is totally wrong. It was the laser itself that used less energy than it created. What they forgot to tell you is that the laser is only a fraction of the total energy needed to run the laser, since all the overheads are responsible for the vast majority of energy used.

[@benjiunofficial]

@@erikhartog5340 He literally said that though. He explicitly said that the power to run the laser was a hundred times greater than then fusion output. The NIF result was just mentioned as an aside, the real point seemed to be talking to Commonwealth Fusion

[@lozoft9]

You can't really compare the spaceflight commercialization era with today's rush to invest in fusion. By the year 2000, spaceflight was a proven technology with an entire industry based around it. All that SpaceX and others had to do is plug their companies into the already-existing contracting and talent pool that NASA, DoD, ESA, and others had developed. Fusion on the other hand is still in its blue-skies phase, the sort of technology that usually only nation-states and international alliances take part in researching. Of course I'm grateful for Bill Gates and others who see fusion for what it is putting so much of their resources to bare in this field, but people who think they'll see returns in 10 years shouldn't take part.

[@user-oz2ys1ow4y]

A 50 year return wouldn’t be bad. You’d be sitting pretty at retirement

[@WormholeJim]

Awwww, you party-pooper, you.

[@user-oz2ys1ow4y]

@@WormholeJim hey I’m young I got time to wait 😂😂

[@kreek22]

Rocketry is only a slightly older tech than fusion. SpaceX did incremental improvement on existing tech and prior research. This is what is also necessary in the fusion energy field. Rocketry before SpaceX was dominated by national champion firms, state firms, and crony capitalist firms (eg, Boeing, Lockheed). Fusion until a decade ago was almost the sole province of academic and gov't labs. SpaceX brought the profit motive to rocketry. The VCs are bringing it to fusion. Like SpaceX many of the fusion startups are adopting an iterative process of rapid improvement by doing a succession of experimental projects at moderate cost. Even SPARC, the most ambitious such project, will only cost $2-3 billion. Another element that will induce acceleration is AI. The level of its contribution is unpredictable, since AI's contribution to a new challenge is always unpredictable (black box syndrome). In sum, what fusion did not have going for it 10 years ago but doe today includes profit motive, iterative improvement, better AI, more financing, superior materials, more fusion processes under development. One advantage over SpaceX: the energy industry is orders of magnitude larger than the rocket market.

[@lozoft9]

@@kreek22 Rocketry has advanced leaps and bounds since the 50s. Fusion is still stuck in the 70s and hasn't demonstrated a viable practical application yet. That's the difference. In the year 2000, the US could've privatized rocket development and manufacture very easily. The enterprise would've been profitable within a few years. The same can't be said of fusion. That's my point.

[@pdxjjb]

Several places in this video use the highly misleading term "net energy" to describe the much more limited concept of scientific breakeven (where the energy on the outputs side of the plasma is greater than the input side of the plasma). This is like abusing the term "net profit" to mean only the difference between the price charged for a product and the cost of the product, while neglecting the cost of sales, the G&A overhead, the taxes, and all the other aspects of running a business. If you watch the part in Boston at 23:30, you'll see the CFS representative be very clear: "more power out from the plasma than went in". The problem is that it can take more than ten times that much power to run the plant, not to mention the roughly 50% loss to generated electric power with steam. And this whole story doesn't even touch the most serious problem, which is the incredibly misleading claims by the fusion industry about "cheap and limitless". In fact, the fuel for the types of reactors shown in this video is desperately constrained and astronomically expensive; and the best concepts we have for "breeding" more of it make unrealistic assumptions to achieve breakeven. Investors will figure this out, as they always do, and the fusion bubble will pop in the mid-2020s.

[@critiqueofthegothgf]

it's extremely admirable to hear the heads of these institutions display humility and adopt a realistic approach regarding the actual timeline of nuclear. we are setting the stones for what is a long term endeavor

[@pepguardiola5951]

no theyre being complacent. we can get it done in 5 years. and to make sense its gotta scale to some meaningful % of global energy by 2050. i think helion can get it done

[@critiqueofthegothgf]

@@pepguardiola5951 respectfully, you dont know more than the people who actually work on fusion everyday. check your ego

[@Epicfunk]

At the moment it's a dream, because it's exponentially harder to reduce the size. This is why all suns are freaken massive.

[@bargdaffy1535]

The Fusion Reaction, if it can be maintained beyond "Ignition", which is what this is, can be self perpetuating if Lithium-6 Blankets are involved, maybe. But it is about 10 years down the road at least to even test the theory at ITER in France. That is the purpose of ITER. The reactor was expected to take 10 years to build and ITER had planned to test its first plasma in 2020 and achieve full fusion by 2023, however the schedule is now to test first plasma in 2025 and full fusion in 2035.

[@adrianthoroughgood1191]

The problem of producing enough tritium doesn't get talked about enough. Without that even if fusion was working you couldn't build it at scale.

[@Urufu-san]

And 2025 won’t happen either, by the looks of it

[@flickapolitan]

Well done, this is by far the most comprehensive and understandable film on the state of the fusion industry

[@LDacic]

Looking forward to parts 2 & 3!

[@TheDavidlloydjones]

The coda, where the moderator comes on and says "I'm sorry, these are all a bunch of loons, and we're no closer to it now than we were in 1938"?

[@peterclyons]

I will have to watch the other two programs in the series before coming to any conclusions but so far so good.

[@thecrthguy]

Seems that we’re making huge progress towards fusion power 🕺👌👌👌

[@benmike8296]

Wonderful doc! Thanks for producing the high quality film!

[@benmcreynolds8581]

This is why we need to invest in modern advanced nuclear energy options. Small form reactors, LFTRs, Thorium Reactors, liquid reactors. Utilizing our advanced modern technology, engineering, material science, safety measures understandings and designs, computer technology, robotics, It will really allow any nation to be pretty much be energy independent. Less reliant on fossil fuels. They'll have efficient, stable electrical grids and the rest of the grid could experiment with alternative power sources, etc. We need to heal from the trauma of our past and see that it came solely from Us not understanding what we were doing, not have advanced enough technology, material science, engineering, safety measures, understanding of how to go about everything, etc. This source of energy will greatly help the world improve towards the future and lowering emissions more than anything else could while having a very stable electrical grid system. Currently we have alternative energy options but the majority of our grid is powered off of fossil fuels and emission producing sources of energy. We will be so much better going forward commiting to modern advanced nuclear energy options. ~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~ {I truly believe, The more our surroundings flourish, the more we all flourish.} With how bad I've been seeing "water level/droughts" in the Western America lately. I really hope we not only reintroduce Beavers all over I hope we actively do cloud seeding to influence more rain to such important area's that supply crops, deal with forest fires, & are running out of water. We've really messed up natural waterways from hydroelectric. Ecosystems and biodiversity, water oxygen, carbon levels, algae blooms, nutrient flow from inland location to off shore location. In some areas like where I live in NW Oregon, rivers are a direct connection from the ocean to the inland ecosystems and how both those ecosystems can flourish which directly connects to our qualities of Life. Our natural waterways are crucial aspects of the entire overall health of every aspect of that environment and anything that environment connects too. In Oregon, we had some of the best Salmon runs on the planet and lush inland forests, wetland ecosystems, beaver's that created special habitats/fire safety and all that got totally flipped upside down from all the hydro dams they built in the early 1900s, and many other practices we once commonly did. Before we knew or understood the effects and outcomes that comes from them. So I really hope to see tons of projects that are working on rewilding areas for the sole purpose of reestablishing ecosystem's that once flourished. Because Humans inherently do better when their environment is doing better. It provides a ton of benefit to it's people and to the quality of Life as a whole for not just humans but the entire ecosystem around you which will definitely have positive impacts to so many layers to people's life's and your community as a whole. ~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~

[@bikingcat3283]

The extremes they went through to get the tiny spark of net gain in mind blowing. That lab consumes something like the energy of a small town when it is just setting idle to keep all the equipment at proper temperature. There is no path to scalability.

[@nick_0]

Thank you so much for such quality and educational videos for free for everyone!

[@robfer5370]

The thing people need to realise about Nuclear Fusion, is that they don't even know if it will work as a viable method of generating electricity. It's a massive science experiment that is always going to be decades away from when we need it ( and in all likelihood won't even be ready then ). Nuclear Fusion is a nice idea but it is an ideological one ( that in the end will amount to nothing) when to solve the climate crisis in time, we need a pragmatic one! We need to act fast and use ideas and solutions that will make a difference quickly before irreversible damage is done. I do believe cheaper and safer nuclear power will be essential for the future of green energy, but it will be fission not fusion that will get there in the time we need. Because if we keep waiting for fusion, there won't be a planet left. When i say fission i mean New Nuclear like Small Modular Reactors (SMRs) Advanced Modular Reactors (AMRs) and molten salt thorium fuelled reactors like (LFTR) Thorium is the future and the way forward. To learn more search Liquid fluoride thorium reactor and the work taking place with Kirk Sorensen at Flibe Energy. Also Dr Alvin M. Weinberg who invented nuclear power generation as we know it today. What's that i hear you say renewables like solar and wind are the answer and what we need.. Well let's talk about renewables. Yes, advanced nuclear does have its downsides but so do renewables. Renewables take up huge amounts of real estate and they have to be replaced every 20 years. The U.S. will need about 7.85 billion individual solar panels, each providing about 350W per hour and 500,000 5 MW wind turbines that are the height of a 50 story skyscraper. After 20 years, the U.S. will then have to replace 80 5 MW wind turbines each day and 1.23 million square meters of solar panels each day forever. All that material will need to be recycled or we will run out of atoms to make them. We will also have to build huge amounts of batteries and recycle them as well. The chemical energy in batteries and fossil fuels can only store about 2 eV of energy per atom. So just think of any battery as an equally-sized container of gasoline for energy content purposes. On the other hand, Uranium and Thorium atoms contain 200 million eV per atom or about 100 million times as much energy. That energy came from two neutron stars colliding to form a black hole maybe 6 billion years ago.

[@delavalmilker]

"The U.S. will need about 7.85 billion individual solar panels, each providing about 350W per hour and 500,000 5 MW wind turbines that are the height of a 50 story skyscraper." Just like with fusion, the starry-eyed hopefulness of the "renewables" cult will run into some serious realities. In the case of all those solar and wind farms---it will run into the "not in MY backyard!" reality.

[@parichehrmanuchehr4679]

Excellent video 👍🙏

[@ag2158]

This is an incredible breakthrough! Humanity is now only a few years away from real life teleportation devices, force field technology, warp drive, holograms, invisibility cloaks, and even real life "lightsabers" thanks to this breakthrough. We literally leapfrogged a few hundred millennia into the future thanks to this!

[@88Superphysics88]

They can't make a commercial fusion reactor. The theory is wrong. The design is stupid. They probably think that if you make the physical conditions like a fusion bomb, it's a reactor? Useless work. Коммерческий термоядерный реактор у них не получится. Теория неправильная. Конструкция глупая. Они наверное думают, что если сделать физические условия как в термоядерной бомбе, это и есть реактор? Бесполезная работа.

[@cobanus2862]

Exactly. They need the mass of jupiter to keep it running 😂

[@sshray1115]

Congratulations scientists.👏🏻👏🏻👏🏻👏🏻👏🏻👏🏻👏🏻

[@normajohnson6352]

Build a LFTR, molten salt thorium reactor. I have waited 40 years for fusion, and it's always "10 years away."

[@robfer5370]

Exactly!! If they had put the same time, money, effort and resources into LFTR and thorium reactor technology as they have with fusion, we would already have an endless amount of clean power for the world!!

[@Baerchenization]

The Germans had a working Thorium reactor, but Phd physicist Merkel has killed it...

[@jonathanskurtu7384]

This is a good documentary.

[@dougjohnson4266]

We may never make our own usable fusion, but we will learn a lot in the process.

[@Djfmdotcom]

Remarkable to see how we're progressing. IF we can make it past this present madness in the world, I think we have a remarkable and unique future ahead of us 🫡🥳💯

[@votebrian66]

So if we dont kill ourselves in wars and mass medical experiments we have great future, interesting hypothesis but doesn't seem likely.

[@MN-vz8qm]

Ahead of them. It is not for our generation unfortunately. We will leave the difficult transition period.

[@unorubbertoe]

Great presentation. Thank you for the insight. I have been binge watching a lot of videos on the subject. I really appreciate that you included the voices of reason on the timeline to achieve a net gain.

[@andrewnorris5415]

The US gov effort was crazy hyped for some reason by the MSM. Less than one percent out than put in. Only enough power to boil two kettles max! The FT missed UK private company First Light Fusion which is the best pick. And why did they not mention fission as a viable power source in the meantime. UK and Germany invested billions in wind and solar and are still at the mercy of Russia for power. We have high bills now and next winter could be bad. If BJ had invested in nuclear fission instead... The last thing we need to do is double down on wind and solar. Sad the FT did not mention fission power to tide us over.

[@unorubbertoe]

@@andrewnorris5415 don't we currently use a form of fission?

[@LadyMaria_AstralClocktower]

@@unorubbertoe a small portion of energy produced is from fission, France is the highest at 70% and has some of the lowest power cost in europe, whereas the US is only aroEurope, from fission

[@callmethreeone]

​@@andrewnorris5415 Hitting the bottle pretty hard lately ?

[@gio-oz8gf]

@@andrewnorris5415 Did you not read the title of the video? Fusion power: how close are we?

[@sunroad7228]

"In any system of energy, Control is what consumes energy the most. No energy store holds enough energy to extract an amount of energy equal to the total energy it stores. No system of energy can deliver sum useful energy in excess of the total energy put into constructing it. This universal truth applies to all systems. Energy, like time, flows from past to future".

[@eduardi.nandrea6048]

We're progressing! This is the important fact!

[@robfer5370]

LOL no they are pretending to make progress so they can keep the money train rolling!! People really need to wake up about nuclear fusion!!

[@sk8erkenny]

so sick…can’t wait to see more advances in this industry 🤘

[@robfer5370]

LOL you won't see it in your lifetime.

[@sk8erkenny]

@@robfer5370 why not😢

[@cobanus2862]

Because it requires alot of mass. This isn’t even close to what they need to build

[@robfer5370]

@@sk8erkenny Because of the laws of physics 😉👍

[@jossbolton3790]

Incredibly informative - and very helpful. I have (Economics) students who are very sceptical of this energy source, and I am doing my best to open their minds to "possibilities". I have set this as a homework task and hope it will "sparc" (weak joke but love a pun) a deeper discussion.

[@SimonMundy]

That's great to hear - thanks!

[@Kingj2real]

I’m not even half way through it but if all these countries have spent billions and are working together to make it work then there has to be a possibility even if we can’t reach it yet

[@sboog24]

Fascinating video, well done FT film. Can't wait for the other parts of this series.

[@petrskupa6292]

I would love to see some up to date report on the ITER project. Any time and everytime there is any information on ITER it sounds very general and looking towards future. What is the state of constructiin right now? How long it will take before first run?

[@4Ayrej]

10 tears are least before it starts

[@cobanus2862]

It’s not going to work

[@Gohary936]

Great journalism. Good job

[@nikk7d]

Very informative and interesting.

[@panashifzco3311]

Really insightful video and great presentation.

[@Cle44139]

Absolutely fantastic

[@user-km7cw1iy8s]

this video was cool. i wish there were more footages of nuclear fusion it looks so cool

[@lindz3661]

This high quality documented content right there.

[@lancerudy9934]

Great video😊

[@mb-3faze]

The thing is, we already have a reliable fusion reactor. Its output is available to anyone on earth for free (free, baring the need to purchase a slab of doped silicon). Sure, it disappears from time to time - quite regularly, in fact, but the use-cost is remarkably low. Still, major engineering projects are a great way to advance human technology and they should be supported because, although the ultimate goal may be illusive for many years, the employment of so many scientific and engineering minds can bring nothing but benefit for humanity.

[@steveetches6013]

Virtually all the energy we use on this planet (I can't think of any that isn't) is generated from that fusion reactor in the sky or ones that preceded it. We just want to build controlled ones here so that geography doesn't need to impact people's access to energy.

[@chench1lla]

Control the Sun and secure the future for humanity.

[@mb-3faze]

@@steveetches6013 Yes, indeed. One place there's a massive and basically inexhaustible supply of energy is under everyone's feet. I wonder if a few billion were syphoned off from the sexy fusion projects to updating decidedly unsexy drilling technology, maybe everyone could tap in to the permanently hot mantle to generate steam for eternal electricity generation. It's hard to believe that the current limitations to drilling technology are more insurmountable than the fusion variety.

[@steveetches6013]

@@mb-3faze We've been trying to drill to the mantle for decades and drilling technology has received billions and billions of funding over the last hundred years... The cost of drilling a well a couple of thousand meters is in the order of 10's of millions of dollars and so the places in the world where it is economical to do so is fairly constrained geographically. That is the main reason geothermal energy is fairly limited.

[@mb-3faze]

@@steveetches6013 The thing is, you can bet your last petro-dollar that if there was oil discovered at 15000 meters down, the oil companies would have found a way to drill to it.

[@metalhead2550]

Interesting documentary. Constructive feedback: Your noise filters @24:00 could be better and there's an underlying buzz/hiss under almost all interviewees speech

[@Vector_Ze]

12:30 This video is literally the first I've heard any debate that it's an either/or discussion. Either fusion OR established non-fossil energy sources. A false dilemma. The existing sources obviously must be used now. That in no way suggests fusion should be disregarded. It's just not available now, but we MUST advance non-fossil sources NOW. 21:39 It seems unfortunate that his analogy wasn't comparing fuel economy instead of MPH. Like, imagine that instead of getting 30 MPG, you're getting 480 MPG.

[@dhananjaymeena5511pihu]

Great job

[@mrp8811]

Positive output fusion energy is one thought away. The difficulty is redesign of the reactor because it will always come down a several people granting the green light.

[@danielapelaten5557]

Nice work of art. 😊

[@wizard380]

We need to invest more in this technology.

[@anikettripathi7991]

If scientists themselves write down advantage as well as disadvantages in minimum eleven point on both sides, we would certainly know what needed to be done. Common people's don't have any understanding on fusions /fission reaction.

[@SoulMasterX]

Fusion might be the next big thing. But I think we cannot build a low-cost (to build/maintenance) power plant any time soon. It’s similar to the problem of a portable quantum computer. Quantum computer = near abs zero temp Fusion power plant = pressure/temp higher than the core of the Sun

[@gangye1594]

thanks for the great video, a lot of interesting insights

[@johnleo1756]

Surely making fusion a viable new source of abundant energy is principally a matter of investment? When I hear that it's 20 years off, or at the end of the century, is that based on past\current levels of investment in research?

[@nerinavshrestha3338]

Fusion power sounds too futuristic, too good to be true.

[@Marvin-dg8vj]

Cheap almost limitless energy is a power fantasy for people stuck on Star Trek emotional maturity levels. It has never existed and never will

[@syntaxed2]

Surprised? These people have been working on this for 60years - Check out companies such as Helion Energy and General Fusion. GF for example is about to build a demo reactor next to the famous JET reactor in the UK. Helion Energy is about to build their 7th prototype, in a line of succesful prototypes that demonstrated key components and the final one is the last ingredient - net gain.

[@gabrielerosso9223]

I sold a large five axis machine tool to a Canadian company that is manufacturing large components for an American tokamak, amazing project.

[@aquariussoda007]

I think we as the human race are in good hands in the next stage of energy .

[@Withnail1969]

It's been 60 years and they still can't produce any net energy.

[@cobanus2862]

No. This isn’t possible with the size they’re building it at.

[@markcampbell7577]

The transistor is a different metal not a different size. A permanent magnet motor as a generator and brushless motors as generators is much simpler and safer way of generating unlimited amounts of electricity to deliver to the power lines cheaply.

[@kevmorris3000]

Fusion is the power source of the future, and it always will be. It has bee 20 years away since the 1970s.

[@JJs_playground]

I like the way Helion energy is doing fusion power.

[@robfer5370]

Really ?!?! So you would like to irradiate lot's of places around the world and make nuclear power in a dangerous way ... 🤨

[@jb76489]

Then you don't know very much

[@micahjv]

60 minutes covered the story about the breakthrough on fusion. 60 minutes said that the test actually had an input of 300 times the energy and had an output of 3 times. So there was a net loss of 297 times the energy. There was no fusion breakthrough.

[@anobody3803]

the lion among sheep everyone

[@Pushing_Pixels]

Isn't Tritium really rare? I believe it's only present in trace amounts in the atmosphere. Where are they going to get it from? I know it's a by-product of nuclear reactors, that's about the only source. So we're going to need a large nuclear energy industry in order to fuel the fusion industry? Doesn't make a lot of sense.

[@werlendesouzarodrigues8037]

very good documentary

[@TonyC-pq7bp]

The initial budget was close to €6 billion, but the total price of construction and operations is projected to be from €18 to €22 billion; other estimates place the total cost between $45 billion and $65 billion, though these figures are disputed by ITER. For this price tag you could probably power all Europe with solar power grid using the roof of every building. Unlimited energy.

[@ayoCC]

It's not Europe alone funding this though, it's an international effort. Building scientific devices gets harder and harder the bigger you go. It was supposed to be a testing facility... But ITER could have started a little... Faster to make? Smaller?

[@ryanbeat5828]

Tony C, perhaps, but only during sunny days. We still have a massive problem to solve after that: how to store enough energy for use when the sun sets or is blocked during cloudy days.

[@joet7136]

Which will be first? A viable fusion reactor or Star Citizen going gold?

[@fbkintanar]

I am interested in whether ITER will produce a breakthrough technology related to breeding tritium from the blanket that receives the neutrons from the fusing plasma. Even if more practical fusion designs in the future abandon the approach of a massive tokamak, they may need a tritium breeding blanket to generate their own tritium fuel, and ITER might be valuable even if it only contributes to solving that problem. Unfortunately, fusion cannot be commercialized in time to avoid dangerous climate change. We have to achieve net zero without it. But if fusion technology is viable in the 2100 time frame, it can power an industrial economy that has net negative carbon emissions. Within a few generations, that would enable a return to a safe level of atmospheric carbon like 350 ppm which the globe last had around 1986. Without fusion, it may take thousands of years to return to that level, risking more tipping points that are irreversible within human life spans.

[@pdxjjb]

ITER will not produce a "breakthrough" in breeding technology unless you count "the world's first serious experiment" as a breakthrough. ITER was conceptualized with a breeder blanket; but it was cancelled, ostensibly for cost reasons. Instead, ITER will have four blanket experiments, covering a total of just a few square meters of the first wall. The result is that ITER is planning to consume most of the world's incredibly limited inventory of tritium, leaving little or none for "bootstrapping" future fusion plants. This will occur around the time the CANDU plants that have supplied all the world's tritium will be reaching their design lifetimes. Bottom line: the current level of interest in fusion power is a bubble, and the bubble will pop, as they do.

[@lorenzogumier7646]

The road ahead is still very daunting, massive techological hurdles, economics non-exitent and most importantly the process is divouring energy rather than giving: realised were 2.5MJ, consumed by the lasers were 500 MJ, so 0,5% of energy was returned compared to what was used. Excitment is justified, however, any commercial use for the benefit of humanity is beyond "the next few years".

[@jjeherrera]

11:05 While it may be true fusion reactors wouldn't in principle produce as much radioactive waste as fission reactors, it's misleading to say they won't produce any nuclear waste at all. Since they will work on tritium, which is radioactive, there will still be the danger of tritium leaks, and since the reactions produce fast neutrons, the walls be activated. How much will depend on the materials of which they are made, and that's still an open question. Furthermore, the radioactive materials in the vessel may become powder which should be very carefully contained, so that it doesn't leak to the atmosphere. This issue should be solved in the next few decades before a fusion economy is possible.

[@kreek22]

Generally true, however some (like Helion) are working on aneutronic fusion. This can be done without any tritium.

[@davesutherland1864]

Tritium is a non issue - it is the fuel so it is consumed in the reaction. But you are right about the neutrons. Some are to be used to transmute Lithium (can’t think of anything else we may need this for) into tritium as the tritium required for fuel is effectively non existent in nature. I think most tritium produced now is by product of fusion reactors. But most of the neutrons will be captured and used to create heat for power generation. Apparently the material of choice for this is beryllium. However, beryllium also contains a bit of uranium (which I understand is hard to remove). While I don’t think it is a huge amount of waste, it is quite similar to a fission reactor. And dispute the rosy message here (until the last few minutes) none of these fuel generation or heat capture methods have been tested. ITER and CFS are going to try creating tritium in their reactors, but generating electricity ( or just showing it is possible) are for future steps.

[@kreek22]

@@davesutherland1864 Tritium is an issue for reactors that create it. Like other hydrogen isotopes, it's tiny and difficult to prevent from leaking.

[@davesutherland1864]

@@kreek22 That’s not going to be an issue. Whole idea of fusion is to manage hydrogen and as tritium is fuel and (currently) one of the most expensive materials you can buy it won’t be leaking away in any significant quantity. Hydrogen embrittlement will be a bigger issue for the hydrogen storage.

[@davesutherland1864]

@@kreek22 I think Helion is the most likely of the start up to produce a commercial reactor before 2050, might even do it in the 2030’s. My problem with understanding Helions process is the efficiency they are achieving. Watched at least half a dozen videos and this was never discussed. If the reaction Q is very low, they are not actually close to commercializations. If the Q approaching 1 for grid power in to fusion power out, everyone else may be wasting their money. However, Helion uses deuterium and helium 3, and helium 3, like tritium, is very rare. Do you understand how they plan to source helium 3?

[@seandelarosa1107]

So are the various fusion machine types exclusive or can successful components of each be combined to provide a better outcome? I assume there is major competition and that inventors are not keen on sharing their IP?

[@jarnomon1]

Of course not, their own potential future profits is obviously worth a lot more than the advancement of human civilization. That is how our current system works, unfortunately.

[@tylermccandless925]

I would assume to most of these countries companies are at a rush to Patton Fusion engines like this so they can sell the schematics for ridiculous prices it's a money game in the end it's not about human advancement for a lot of people it's f****** sad

[@samsonsoturian6013]

We've been 20 years away from fusion power plants since the 1950's.

[@Eris123451]

50.

[@Misclaneous]

And I've been hearing the same recycled joke for decades. That doesn't mean progress isn't happening, unless you have some inside information to bring to the table? Skepticism is key to science, and something we should all cultivate. Lazy cynicism masquerading as realism is not.

[@Eris123451]

​@@Misclaneous I'm 66 and I've been hearing that same song for at least 50 years and it stopped being, "a joke," a long time ago, now it's simply an cold blooded and evidence based observation; unless of course you have some inside information to bring to the table ? But of course you don't, you never do. The payoff remains tantalizing, but I've come to question whether it's even going to be possible; putting a hydrogen bomb into a bottle ? OK that's an oversimplification, but that's my point nonetheless.

[@michaelmoorrees3585]

I'm an electrical engineer, and 64 years old. I've been following the progression of fusion, since my teens. There has been significant progress. And before we forget, we do have working "net positive" fusion generators. Thousands of them. They're called H-bombs. So the theory works. Besides the 10s of billions spent on ITER, there are several privately funded projects. I will never attempt to block private investment. You're a big boy, you can chuck your money where you want. The science behind fusion is sound. More than I can say for Theranos, or FTX, or even Tesla, which is actually making product, though overvalued.

[@justshad937]

Exactly. The video will lead some to conclude we’re “close”. The reality is that we’re 80 years away from practical applications. The “excitement” overrides sound judgement.

[@ecoideazventures6417]

For those latecomers who want a crisp and clear answer - @26:18 - "I dont think it will happen in my lifetime... I started working on it in order to address the problem of global warming, but i dont think fusion will contribute in the short term!" - ITER Head

[@flotsamike]

Fusion Powers 20% of the universe. We already have a nice 4 billion-year-old fusion reactor just 93 million miles away that we can collect power from Easley cheaply and distributed over the planet . We have been using stored energy from this fusion reactor for the last 200 years. If we replaced all the space we use up on tank farms pipelines minds and oil drilling pads, we could have adequate storage for our needs. We need fusion reactors for space travel.

[@bargdaffy1535]

Several Problems, First the Net Q energy release was only compared to the energy needed for the massive laser or Q Plasma, it did not include the energy (Q Total) required to run the actual reactor which has massive electromagnets and all kind of conduction systems. Also all that was produced was heat, not actual energy, they are extrapolating the heat produced into the electricity it could produce, which is another entire energy requiring process. And also the Tritium is really rare and we do not have quantities at Scale and Scope and to manufacture Tritium requires enriched Lithium-6, not a fun substance to have around. There is only 25Kg of Tritium on Earth for reactor start up, just the ITER start up alone will use 20 Kg. The Lithium blankets theory is just that, it has not been proven experimentally yet. This is all Hopium Squared

[@buckaroo3589]

I was hoping they would cover the breakthrough in muon production, and how easily fusion becomes once you have the muons you need for muon catalyzed fusion.

[@Gomlmon99]

But isn’t that the point? Producing the muons is so energy intensive that it could never be feasible

[@Zipsnis608]

Just realized that I have been following ITER project for about 20 years already, when I first got project presentation CD from my uncle, university professor...damn, I must be getting old

[@RadoslavFicko]

I think fusion should follow the same principles as in Bohr's model of the atom, where we know the conditions under which energy is radiated

[@kenharris5390]

Helion seems to have a different system, no boiling water the electricity is produced by the machine itself.

[@The.Home.Cinema.Engineer]

Fascinating! we need more people like this in the world not these stupid kids and teens today saying they want to be a youtuber or influencer!

[@Wowaniac]

the problem is that of Scale and Duration. You can produce the reaction easily enough with enough resource being dumped into it. They found if they build it bigger the reaction lasts slightly longer were talking fractions of a second to maybe a couple seconds. I think ultimately what needs to happen is working on sustaining the reaction, so they need to be able to simultaneously reinforce the containment of the reaction while having the reaction its self be self sustained. If they havnt wired the containment field back through the reaction they may went to look at that. Secondly because the planet is something like 70% or so water getting heavy water for the reaction is fairly easy as long as the fuel isn't being made at the same place as the reactor. Again Scale. If you can use the energy being made to sustain the lasers being used then start working on putting more fuel in

[@HitenMumbai]

Let us hope for the best

[@gorgonbert]

19:28 here he explains exactly why fusion will not happen… 🤷‍♂️

[@phexcell]

I don't understand how they can use supper conducting materials, which are only super conducting at extremely low temperatures, on a machine that develops enormous amounts of heat.

[@kinngrimm]

Net energy gain is bold claim when later on it was also said that the lasers for the reaction took 300 times that energy for the reaction to happen.

[@glennnielsen8054]

Well done and thank you for a good and informative documentary. It puzzles me, as it is also indicated in the documentary, that fusion is said to be free energy. It can't be free, since the production facilities and the innovation itself must be remunerated and deliver a return. The marginal cost may be close to zero.

[@marcusturner9049]

Free energy I think is from the present onwards. This would affect the economy massively and it’s hard to predict what that would do to civilisation

[@glennnielsen8054]

@@marcusturner9049 I agree with you to some degree if you include the indirect impact on geopolitical risks, but from a purely operational point of view it does not make sense. It's like it's become widely accepted that fusion energy is free. By definition, it cannot be.

[@fatalityin1]

@@glennnielsen8054 If Iter were ever to be viable, it would supply all of current day western Europe with energy. Of course Iter required a huge amount of energy to be built, but imagine that you suddenly have almost unlimited energy and can suddenly create cement or potash out of thin air, create gasoline from vegetable oil, and heat homes with methane from biowaste. It would to an extent mean that we could create new atoms up to iron on our own bidding, ie Helium is one of the rarest atoms on earth. Whoever is first to create a fusion reactor and patents it controls the world, lets hope it is not some shady company like the diabetes pen produces.

[@glennnielsen8054]

@@fatalityin1 With all due respect, I disagree with you. What you describe is a flawed illusion. Additionally, you should plead that there is a carrot of developing breakthrough technology because without it, civilization would not experience freedom and progress.

[@ВладимирВласов-х4г]

Fusion on the Sun does not occur in the core, but in the Sun's atmosphere. The start temperature of fusion is from 5,000 K, the end temperature of fusion is 1,500,000 K !!!!. A commercial fusion reactor can be made in two years. But the developers don't want to make one in two years because they don't understand and don't know how to make a commercial fusion reactor, so they will never make one. Термоядерный синтез на Солнце происходит не в ядре, а в атмосфере Солнца. Температура начала термоядерного синтеза составляет от 5 000 K, температура конца синтеза - 1 500 000 K !!!!. Коммерческий термоядерный реактор можно сделать за 2 года. Но разработчики не хотят сделать его за два года, потому что они не понимают и не знают, как сделать коммерческий термоядерный реактор, и поэтому никогда его не сделают.

[@plasma-rd]

In this video, what is amazing is that D-T controlled nuclear fusion is presented as a technological challenge. It is indeed, but the lack of real progress in this field during the last 50 years comes from the lack of theoretical knowledge about hot plasmas in a magnetic field. At no time in this video is there any mention of research in the field of hot plasma physics. There is no mention of any fundamental physics problems (instabilities, radiation, loss of confinement, disruptions..). In short, it is a bit like if in the 60's we had wanted to send a man on the Moon without knowing the fundamental laws of gravity. 😪

[@88Superphysics88]

They can't make a commercial fusion reactor. The theory is wrong. The design is stupid. They probably think that if you make the physical conditions like a fusion bomb, it's a reactor? Useless work. Коммерческий термоядерный реактор у них не получится. Теория неправильная. Конструкция глупая. Они наверное думают, что если сделать физические условия как в термоядерной бомбе, это и есть реактор? Бесполезная работа.

[@stanleytolle416]

What we need to make fusion possible is a gravity concentrator. Once this is discovered I will start thinking about investment.

[@PlayNiceFolks]

There's also the fact that other useful technology and research HAS BEEN created by scientists working towards viable fusion. Even if viable fusion is physically impossible, the attempt to get there is worth it in and of itself.

[@putra4101]

The private doesn't need to be 100% right and fast, but can be a competitor to the existing project. People in comment are quick to make a joke about this, this is not blockchain sh*t, didn't happen in 1 night, just like AI, didn't happen back then.

[@rustysnails]

Javon's Paradox. There is no way to imagine the potential damage that could be done to planetary systems if that much energy is released for easy consumption.

[@colinwright5157]

Energy can neither be created nor destroyed it has to be conserved, borrow one joule of energy from the vacuum then it has to be repaid at a later time back to the vacuum. E = (q/4π*ε0*r^2)sine(α) B = (q*μ0*v^2 /4π*r^2)sine(β) It is important to know that the magnetic field the B field is a mirror image of the electric field the E field. Thus, sine(α) = sine(60) sine(β) = sine(90) The upshot is that if v^2 = c^2 = 1/μ0*ε0 then it follows that c/sine(60) > c which is forbidden by special relativity. The B field is 30 degrees out of phase with the E field.The only way to bring both B and E fields in to phase means that the particles within the B field have to travel at a speed greater than the speed of light. The conclusion is they cannot thus they take the easy path by returning to the vacuum. Fusion by permanent plasma confinement is impossible.

[@goldenshatter]

We already got out more then we put in last 2 years ago.

[@edelmaury5748]

Technical difficulty is a severe understatement to knocking us out of habitual orbit.

[@vkorchnoifan]

Commercial fusion will become practical in 30 years

[@amrenmiller6053]

Guy towards the end, Tim Luce, was quite a bit too pessimistic, coming from ITER. But of course, we don't know with absolute certainty that SPARC will work, and also don't quite understand the economics of it, but if it works, I think that the industry will probably pull through on wide-scale deployments in the 2050s, like they hope.

[@northern_lights87]

Hi, I can't find the 3rd film, has it been posted yet? Great series FT.

[@SimonMundy]

Coming later this year - stay tuned! Thanks for watching.

[@northern_lights87]

@@SimonMundy Excellent, many thanks.

[@andymouse]

I remember Dr Kingham from when he worked at VG Ionex, really nice bloke and a great documentary...cheers.

[@drfirechief8958]

Great video. A very concise overview. But I put fusion reactors just above antigravity. Climate change is a good capital driver right now,. But with the end of the century projections to real useability, climate change will already have occured and capital will evaporate. We can produce clean carbon free fission reactors today to power the world. I think using fission is a better approach in the interim until we get fusion. If we get it at all.