How close is nuclear fusion power?

Claim your SPECIAL OFFER for MagellanTV here: try.magellantv.com/sabinehoss.... Start your free trial TODAY so you can watch The Story of Energy about how super-important energy is to human civilization, and the rest of MagellanTV’s science collection: www.magellantv.com/series/ord...
How close is nuclear fusion to break-even? If you trust the headlines we're getting close and the international project ITER is going to be the first to produce energy from fusion power. But not so fast. Scientists have, accidentally or deliberately, come to use a very misleading quantity to measure their progress. Unfortunately we're much farther away from generating fusion power than the headlines suggest.
Phillip Ball's article in the Guardian is here:
www.theguardian.com/environme...
The one in Science Magazine is here:
www.science.org/lookup/doi/10...
The document from the European Parliament Assessment is here: core.ac.uk/download/pdf/10593...
The interview with Holtkamp is here:
ciaotest.cc.columbia.edu/olj/...
The numbers for JET quoted at around 9 mins can be found here: aei.pitt.edu/88591/1/1982.pdf
Walkden's TED talk is here: • Delivering Fusion Ener...
Footage at 11 mins 14 seconds from Steven B. Krivit's video "ITER, The Grand Illusion" • 2021 - ITER, The Grand... which is worth watching in full length if you want to know more about the problem. You find more information on Krivit's website: news.newenergytimes.net/iter-f...
Ivone Benfatto's numbers about the ITER power consumption are here: cds.cern.ch/record/987554/fil...
My review of Turrell's book is here: www.nytimes.com/2021/08/19/bo...
Many thanks to Jordi Busqué for helping with this video jordibusque.com/
You can support us on Patreon: / sabine
0:00 Intro
0:35 Sponsor Message
1:33 Two different energy gains
4:44 The problem
7:28 How close are we to break even?
10:00 Scientists who spread the confusion
11:40 What are we to make of this?
#science #physics #nohype

[@flyingskyward2153]

Great video, I had no idea what I'd been hearing about was only Qplasma. You taught me something today

[@1verstapp]

as with most hardcore advertising, they tend to leave out the more inconvenient details.

[@tedburke525]

Agreed!

[@ianhollands1641]

And to think that this has been going on for more than sixty, yes sixty years! I was a schoolboy and read about the Zeta project that would extract "special" hydrogen from sea water and use it to create unlimited energy.

[@westnblu]

@@ianhollands1641 Well its a way of securing funds from the govt u see. No point in downplaying the research by providing some hard scientific truths!! haha which may spook politicians in limiting or even stopping future funding for such projects.

[@nukularpictures]

To be honest, what else? What we have (ITER, JET, Wendelstein 7X, etc.) are all experiments. They do not have any means of generating power, in fact they spend quite a lot of energy cooling the excess heat. Especially for JET, it used cooper coils, the heat inside them was a major problem. So how would you ever calculate a Qtotal? This is a completely fictional number that has no bases in reality. The only value you can in fact measure and quantify is Qplasma this is why every researcher would use that and nothing else.

[@kevboard]

9:55 "some of them physicists, some of them human" 🤣 the dry delivery of that sentence made me lose it

[@romonterrey]

algunos humanos, otros físicos, ambos: pendejos

[@st0ox]

I didn't even know that some of us mortals are working in fusion.

[@coreym162]

I caught that too xDD

[@algordon5843]

I thought that was what she said and had to go back to check. I will have to pay more attention in future.

[@JabrHawr]

i actually didn't get it until i read your comment. must be the dry delivery (or that i'm just not that bright). it's hilarious. thank you for your comment which educated me

[@Magister_Sibrandus]

"No one expects accuracy in a TED Talk" Ouch!

[@jeffryphillipsburns]

Ouch? How about “spot on”?

[@billpugh58]

So true!

[@jaakkopontinen]

@@jeffryphillipsburns "Ouch" means "spot on", as in "what was said hit it's mark", thus "hit spot on" and the result is an "ouch".

[@hansjorgkunde3772]

TED is to blur facts and to confuse people about the real issues.

[@RS-ls7mm]

Lost interest in the TED talks a while ago. Just either too political or just inaccurate. The original talks were much better.

[@philipgreene8345]

Love this quote: "Of course the people who work on this, some of them physicists, some of them human, know this very well."

[@izziegall653]

I am a science writer at a university and I am working on an article about the fusion announcement being made today in the US (Dec 13, 2022). I am so glad you have this video! I will be sure to include a discussion of Q_total along with the announcement of Q_plasma. Keep up the excellent work!

[@bakinto]

Please, can you confirm that we made it ?

[@bernard2735]

Well spotted - although this experiment demonstrated a positive Qplasma (3.15 MJ / 2.05 MJ > 1), it still took about 300 MJ from the grid to fire the laser.

[@katakats2474]

I came back to this only video to see this kind of comments lol

[@richimorton]

You're a science writer and you didn't know this ? *facepalm

[@kevinkilpatrick7510]

right?! lots of misleading presentations around rn

[@jimschuler8830]

Don't worry. We're only twenty years away from having clear communication about fusion.

[@thecount25]

Then we will be only 20 years away from Q-total break even

[@NaumRusomarov]

actually yes. ITER is supposed to be started in 2035. And it's gonna take them another 3-5 years before the first results of the experiments are ready. Then we'll have clear communication about fusion. :-D

[@jcortese3300]

I did laugh at this but JFC, we used to joke about the 30 year fusion constant in 1991!!!! Holy fucking shit, I am so over this garbage.

[@IslandHermit]

...and always will be.

[@KevinOMalleyisonlysmallreally]

And only 5-10 years away from having sentient ai write it.

[@domainofscience]

Gah! This is the first time I've seen this clearly laid out. I totally though ITER would actually be able to produce energy overall. Thanks for clearing this up for me Sabine.

[@valinorean4816]

I think it's been stated that ITER is only an intermediate technical research project with Q_total being precisely 0 (none of the heat energy is going to be converted into electricity, not 50%, 0%)? *But yeah, I was still confused that "if they wanted" they'd have more energy produced than put in! Thanks Sabine!*

[@andrii4545]

It will produce energy dude. Just less then it consumes ahah.

[@aboomination897]

Nah, ITER always was a potential stepping stone. Net energy is 50y away.

[@valinorean4816]

@@magnetospin did you watch the video below which you are commenting? this very point is addressed in it in detail with numbers (the answer: not remotely)

[@flipjetiel7343]

It turns out that the ITER won't even have generators to convert the generated heat into electricity!

[@michaelmcelfresh7295]

The recent DOE LLNL announcement was extremely misleading. These definitions help explain the different "breakevens": en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Fusion_energy_gain_factor There is no excuse for the misleading information promulgated about the recent "breakthrough." It was progress, but not like people where describing. If verified, they made scientific breakeven but they are miles away from engineering breakeven - as Sabine does a good job of explaining.

[@jasoncassibry]

As someone who has worked in fusion for 20 years, this is a well done video! There is a growing community of scientists and engineers working on magneto-inertial fusion and high field magnetically confined systems which combine attributes of ITER and NIF into smaller, more affordable experiments. As we continue to make strides in these areas, I promise to be mindful of the misleading nature of Qplasma and do my little part in reducing the con-fusion around the topic. All the best to you Sabine, -J

[@bushmasterflash]

Strides? or mm by mm advances? As long as they move towards that Q total >1 keep going either way.

[@slonslonimsky2013]

And you are yet to get any serious funds for that, I guess. Right? So, invent your own rosy figures to promise a windfall of cheap energy in 10 years. (Don't forget also to depict how we will fly to Mars on that and present some mascot astronaut to make it look more convincing.)

[@SopaDeLengua]

Us humans are all con-fused! Thank you for doing your part!

[@moladiver6817]

I attended a guest lecture about ITER in college. It all came across as very promising and of course scientific. It was clear the speaker was trying to create some enthusiasm around fusion and perhaps get one or two students aboard who would perhaps build their career in this field. We were all pretty hopeful after the lecture and quite thrilled about the future. The lecture was given 20 years ago. I'm glad I chose a different path.

[@grahamlyons8522]

@@moladiver6817 Similar enthusiastic reports on domestic nuclear fusion were made 50 years ago.

[@Samsaptaka]

"...some of them physicists, some of them human..." Gotta love that deadpan delivery.

[@Jackissimus]

That must be the famous German humor. We've just not understood it all this time.

[@aurelienyonrac]

My type of humor

[@hollo500]

i still think she meant to say 'civilian' instead of 'human'. But this is better..

[@nicktecky55]

The point is that she's a physicist herself. The humour is almost British. Self deprecation.

[@CAThompson]

@@aoolmay6853 Unfortunate surname is unfortunate.

[@MsRainingDays]

We are now at Q~1 news cycle and the confusion is exactly the same

[@terryhutchinson6503]

I started working on British fusion projects at the UKAEA fusion lab based in Culham Oxon in 1979 and at that time it was widely predicted that fusion reactors were 50 years away. I transferred to JET in 1996 and retired in 2008 it was then widely accepted that a reliable and commercially acceptable machine was still 50 years away if it was possible at all

[@therealscot2491]

Please give us some good news

[@aalvarez2914]

@@therealscot2491 molten salt reactors solve all the same problems we’re trying to “solve” with this. That’s good news.

[@TheJcrist]

@@therealscot2491 good news are - renewable energy is also a hoax.

[@brainthesizeofplanet]

Sounds promising 🤣

[@steveetches6013]

STEP is due in 2042 I think which is meant to be a reactor that will put energy back onto the grid.

[@dhopkinsyt]

Just imagine the rollercoaster of emotions a person must go through when they find out their article has mentioned by Sabine. 'Oh yes! Sabine has noticed my work!'... followed quickly by 'Oh no! Sabine has noticed my work!!'

[@reasonerenlightened2456]

Science is about sales. They will promise anything just to keep getting paid. It has always been the case.

[@geraldalbe6899]

@@reasonerenlightened2456 Nope. Inernational research projects are about the sales. Science is about building models to describe observable phenomena. All you can say from your statement is "international research projects" != "science". ;-)

[@doogleticker5183]

@@reasonerenlightened2456 - That is a very foolish comment. Management of science may be about sales but science is about knowledge creation.

[@berniv7375]

@@reasonerenlightened2456 Well. It is time it stopped. Our species is getting into one awful mess and it is time we all started shaping up and got serious about our survival.🌱

[@reasonerenlightened2456]

@@berniv7375 Well, the daily management choice is, do we do science today or do we make KZbin videos for money.

[@ashtonmartin3398]

" the people who work on this, some of them PHYSICISTS some of the HUMAN'' that is the funniest thing I've heard in while!

[@RM-xl1ed]

After the recent "break even" headlines, this video needs to be shared as much as possible...

[@marcelopacheco2479]

There are turbines that operate at 65% efficiency, as long as you have input temperatures around 1200C and you use Helium or supercritical CO2 cycles. Yet the fundamentals are totally correct. Fusion Scientists are far more interested in generating more funding than honestly informing the public. Its about careers and funding rather than preventing climate change.

[@gregm6652]

I was doing plasma research in 1978. I postulated then that fusion is not possible at any scale below which the reaction generates sufficient gravity to contain itself. It's 45 years later and I'm still waiting for that theory to be disproved. Love the channel, keep it up!

[@leonfa259]

Didn't thermonuclear devices already disprove it? Now we just need to figure out how to do that while keeping the reactor in one piece.

[@MrStephenRGilman]

“No one expects accuracy in a TED talk.” Oooh, spicy!

[@chrish1253]

Lol, I felt the heat from that burn.

[@tim40gabby25]

I do

[@xtmedia]

Being a Ted talk fan, I discovered more than one video where key point of a speaker were demonstrably false (anyone has seen the system that used plants to purify an office air?). So I tend to agree with her comment ;)

[@Peter1986C]

@@chrish1253 Yes, you did. But did it also get converted into electricity delivered to the grid? I'll get my coat.

[@mjowsey]

@@xtmedia you didn't mention Elizabeth Holmes.

[@christianlibertarian5488]

"Some of the physicists, some of them human...." I'm dying.

[@joecaner]

Do you suppose that reptilian, shape-shifting alien physicists Could be distracting us into chasing our genetically modified vestigial tails, by having us Pursue this fruitless endeavor while they execute their maniacal plan of world domination?

[@dertodeshorst6294]

I actually missed that one, thanks!!! 😂

[@toladamatanou3134]

It's not Sabine's style, but I was subconsciously creating a "yo mama" joke when she talked about the mass of the sun: "here on earth, yo mama was unavailable, so ITER built..."

[@k7iq]

I love Yo-Yo Ma ! 😁

[@nomanmcshmoo8640]

I totally lost it!!!!!!

[@chrisl442]

You are the most intelligent and honest physicist I've ever seen. Thanks for your eye opening contribution setting the facts right. I worked on a tokamak more than 30y ago and I left when ITER project was just starting. At that time, the joke was ''nuclear fusion will always be a reality 20years into the future'' and still is.

[@colbraking147]

You worked on a tokamak and didn't know what Q they were talking about?

[@dailynotes2845]

@@colbraking147 ...read again

[@ittalonornberg6001]

Electricity took another 1000 years to be discovered, don't expect them to be able to carry out nuclear fusion in 30 years... We are at the beginning, our future depends on it. It's the best place to invest money, our current power plants destroy planet Earth.

[@dzi333]

God, it's unbelievable how good this channel is! I've just discovered it. All the best!

[@Gargoloso]

There is worth to emphasize that ITER was intended to be a demonstrator that stable fusion is achievable (and to develop the required technologies), it was never intended to be an energy central. Once ITER goals are achieved there will be another experimental reactor, called DEMO, that now yes, it will be used to demonstrate (develop) technologies for fusion to be used as a practical energy source. Only after DEMO, the first comercial prototipe fusion reactors will begin to appear, and we are talking at least the 2050's or 2060's (being optimistic). That is the planned road map and is something that is not talked about that much either.

[@AnarchoAmericium]

Aww yes, nuclear energy by the time most of us are dead and climate change is ramping up. Well, at least fusion scientists get job security. That's what really matters I suppose.

[@varma101]

@@AnarchoAmericium Ramping up is optimistic

[@hansjorgkunde3772]

DEMO is scheduled for after 2050. So to get any results from that you'll have to wait another 30 years at least. Assumed they are able to nail the problems with the Tokamak concept wich is a nil imho.

[@deep.space.12]

@@hansjorgkunde3772 What are the problems with Tokamak IYHO?

[@deep.space.12]

@@AnarchoAmericium Did fusion research advertise they'd solve climate change? It might have been, if it's probably funded in the past. Now what, if scientists give an optimistic timeline, they are liars; if they give realistic expectations, that's "job security". Very constructive mentality.

[@swordbuff]

I was floored by this video! Sabrine tells it like it is! I spent my career in fusion research as a physicist. This is the reality of fusion research today. It has been the same for many years. We're not even close to delivering Kw's to homes in the foreseeable future.

[@StormGod29]

Something else routinely swept under the rug is radioactivity. The entire machine will become radioactive from neutron flux but the media loves reporting that fusion makes power with no nuclear waste. When you turn it on it isn't capable of ionizing DNA, but when it is decommissioned, it will certainly be. And the entire building around it too; all nuclear waste. The media does such a crap job of actually reporting science to a public that simply has no capacity for critical thought.

[@grumpystiltskin]

LENR is above breakeven on engineering basis now. Which is why plasma fusion people pretend it was 10,000 mistakes over 30 years..

[@Grobocopatel]

@@StormGod29 That is true, but in a way the knife cuts both ways. It shows that we can deal with radioactive waste safely, and then it becomes obvious that there's no strong argument to be made against fission (which is orders of magnitude easier to make work and if breeders are used, the fuel is also essentially inexhaustible).

[@pumbaa667]

Yep, but that doesn't mean we need to stop the research.

[@pumbaa667]

@@Grobocopatel sure !

[@nitehawk86]

Always love your delivery. "Nobody expects accuracy in a TED talk." :)

[@Vpy2023]

This is one of the best videos I watched in recent times!! Your videos aren’t very fancy but they are touching a lot of people and I can see it from the forwards of your videos I get from friends!! Keep the good job going, thank you !!

[@timolamarmote]

This had to be said. As a fusion researcher myself, I can definitely confirm that fusion scientists take part of the blame. The other part goes to journalists and overhyped tech enthusiasts. Regarding inertial fusion lasers, the actual figure is twice worse than what you assume. The electricity to laser generation efficiency of their lasers is actually 0.5%, although there is some room for improvement.

[@angies6096]

As a Fusion researcher I'd like to ask you, Will we ever reach the Holy Grail of Fusion power?

[@drgetwrekt869]

the problem is also political and economical. the amount of money invested in fusion experiments is nothing compared to other expenses. as such, its hard as phuq to make progress, especially now that its clear one needs big size machines

[@timolamarmote]

@@angies6096 Nobody can tell, otherwise it wouldn't be called research. But we can guess, and we all do. My guess is that we might very well never reach it. But there are many many concepts that have not been pushed as hard as they should, in particular everything that's in between inertial fusion (high density, short confinement time) and magnetic confinement fusion (low density, long confinement time), that is, intermediate density and intermediate confinement time.

[@timolamarmote]

Regarding pure laser fusion or tokamak/stellarator, my guess is that there will never be a functioning reactor out of that, but that's only my (educated) guess, shared by some researchers, not by others.

[@KollmannJan]

@@timolamarmote Please do I understand right that even if technology around tokamak and similar machines would be able to support continual fusion it might still not be enough to produce electricity?

[@larryscott3982]

“Some of them physicists, some of them human… That’s what we’ll talk about today.” ‘Nobody expects accuracy in a TED talk’. Except, in a SH TED talk, the contrary would be demonstrated.

[@ResurrectingJiriki]

Get's even more funny when Sabine then says she "can't shake off the feeling that"... - how's that for defeating your own argument/joke much? Hahaha!

[@philosoaper]

time for the spanish inquisition to enter the stage

[@ResurrectingJiriki]

@@philosoaper From the left side of the stage (pun intended) we today have Cultural Marxism, that pretty much does exactly that... Anyone that disagrees with you on any subject, is either a monster or stupid. Which is pretty much the same in a world where everyone believes their opinion is as valuable as any other and the basic premise is that only 'the woke' are decent human beings...

[@herbertwells8757]

@@ResurrectingJiriki Well, you’re definitely SOME kind of tool, but I certainly wouldn’t say “philosophical”.

[@ResurrectingJiriki]

@Wemple yeah, like conspiracies would not exist, right? Or the fact that people in power seek to hold on or improve on the amount of power they have. I guess you can't fix stupid, ey?

[@marcochimio]

Once again, Dr. SH, you have superbly pointed out a major misconception (I was bamboozled, as well). I'm a huge proponent of research into fusion power, but this issue needs to be more widely understood so that significant research dollars go into the other aspects of overall efficiency. Thank you for shining a light on it (not pun intended).

[@animusadvertere3371]

Will you update this once the new US findings are announced please. Another media blitz… Thanks for your vids!

[@ticklemezellmo]

"This is not rocket science." It'd be easier if it was. We already have rockets.

[@microcosm1957]

That line cracked me up, haha

[@Commander_ZiN]

we need a new phrase, something more difficult. However rocket science was done a lot without computers and with slide rules, I guess if you compare it with the tools of the time it's still difficult.

[@kthwkr]

One day discussing some topic with friends I said, "Well I'm no rocket scientist but..." At which point my friends interrupted me and pointed out that in fact I was a rocket scientist. I had never thought of myself that way but indeed that was my job. So now I say, "I'm no Rocket Surgeon..." Mixing up two colloquialisms into one. Inspired by the renowned automotive genius Eric O.

[@STR82DVD]

Well said. Agreed.

[@roberthardy3090]

Rocket science is not that difficult, it is rocket engineering that can be rather tricky.

[@Jawst]

I think it's hilarious how everybody still thinks that breakthroughs are happening... 🙈 it seems that now no journalists are including the total power input and confused the public with in-depth science behind the process

[@ChristophBruchsal]

Hi Sabine, I just watched your video about Q-total vs Q-plasma again after the breakthrough headlines this week. Unfortunately your video is as actual as it was a year ago when you published it

[@pcar928fan]

‘Some of them physicists, some of them human”. Love it! That was hilarious!

[@krygzify]

I thought she said yeomen

[@milanstevic8424]

why is that hilarious? did you think some of them were not human?

[@pcar928fan]

@@milanstevic8424 because I have a sense of humor like so many others who commented… Perhaps you should borrow a quarter and buy one too?!

[@fermansmith6042]

What does that even mean? Are Physicists "Super Human" .... "Sub Human".... Alien beings.... She herself is a Physicist...Only a small percentage of comments are focusing on how hilarious that statement was. Probably because they do not have enough knowledge to comment on anything relevant in the video.

[@fermansmith6042]

@@pcar928fan A quarter huh? You have sense of "something" but it sure ain't humor. If you think that is so hilarious... it will take much more than a quarter to fix you

[@modrobert]

"For a successful technology, reality must take precedence over public relations, for Nature cannot be fooled."

[@LuisAldamiz]

Public relations primacy criminally caused the catastrophe of the Challenger, among others.

[@chuckschillingvideos]

You don't need to fool Nature - just taxpayers. Even the gummint employees approving the largesse know they're being deceived - but simply don't care - if anything, they encourage it.

[@Bannockburn111]

Quote is from Richard P. Feynman 🙂

[@jamielondon6436]

Same as with Covid. :-/

[@wcookiv]

Counterpoint: Fossil Fuels

[@constantinvasiliev2065]

Thank you. Have discovered this channel today. Very concise. It's amazing!

[@barthennin6088]

Interesting. I saw a similar video covering why Nuclear fusion is still 30 years away (at least) and it covered many of the same points but not nearly so well and clearly as this video. Thanks so much! My understanding is there are also problems with containing the radioactivity safely.

[@andreas7667]

Since I started following this topic many years ago, fusion energy has always been exactly 30 years away. I think that is approximately the length of a scientific career of a fusion expert.

[@andyrendell7430]

Pfi,or F, the Fusion Constant: At any given point in time,practical.fusion energy is 30 years in the future.

[@johnc2438]

You're onto something! Could have wider applications, too.

[@tmst2199]

Science proceeds one death at a time.

[@andyrendell7430]

@@tmst2199 Meaning that when an established field leader dies, then new ideas become accepted?

[@angellestat2730]

As any public investment.. scientist are only worry to keep their salary going and there is nobody capable to control them. That is why everything should be private. Only when someone is risking their own money and job, is when they get the required incentive to do the things right.

[@daraghosullivan1157]

Sabine’s the best. And I love the humor - “.....some of them physicists, some human”

[@miaudottk9080]

Yea, I iz surprised too. Who'd believe there are hooman physicists, meow?

[@not-a-theist8251]

yeah lol I had to rewind to check if I heard that correctly. Fucking hilarious lmao

[@yt.personal.identification]

And then... "...no one expects accuracy in a TED Talk" Shots fired.

[@prick2007e]

Came looking for this, awesome hope Dr. N deGrasse Tyson reacts to it sometime...

[@ChaosRules57]

Yeah, I spit a mouth full of cola onto my screen. Too funny!

[@patrickdelrue546]

I predict this video is going to receive a lot more traffic all of a sudden

[@joshuamitchell5530]

With the latest fusion news, I think it’s eluding to what you were saying. Qplasma > 1 but Qtotal still much below.

[@theMuritz]

Well done Sabine, at least you are making things clear and understandable ..thx

[@dawidwas]

Nie rób nadania myślą lustrzanym uczuciami wagi. Bo myśli lustrzane są z bez wagi czasu i masy teakcji w tobię. Lub są rekcją w tobię aby bronić się przed nimi z fali elektro magnetycznej

[@alexanderskaria7415]

Wow, being in the power engineering business myself for over two decades I absolutely did not realise this fact. Well done. Very educating indeed.

[@johnalbinson4641]

Clear, informed and beautifully delivered. Sabine, you provide a great service to scientific communication!

[@davidpowell8249]

Thank you for speaking so clearly in this, I've been very frustrated by the misleading statements around fusion experiments, especially when it results in large amounts of funding been given to fusion, rather than advanced fission (such as waste burning molten salt reactors).

[@johnballantyne9501]

Sabine, thanks for this. What you are doing through these videos is more than just interesting information, it’s an important public service.

[@user-iz8np3vv4i]

Nuclear fusion isn't keeping physicists employed. Nuclear confusion is keeping physicists employed. None of the people involved in all this want the truth to come out. Too much money. Apparently their jobs are secure as long as nuclear fusion doesn't work.

[@MichaelGrundler]

Ah, that’s why I heard that ITER would produce more fusion energy than was put in but still wouldn’t or couldn’t be used as a power plant.

[@TNM001]

it has never been stated otherwise, not sure why we are making a controvercy out of it. sure, scientists embellish figures to get funding...shocker...go to a politician with a 0,0x figure and watch them closing down everything because they are not into generational projects.

[@henrytjernlund]

It is kind of confusing. The scale is different. Q-plasma > 1 is when the nuclear reaction in the plasma is putting out more energy that heating of plasma. Q-total > 1 power plant scale when all the power generated/]used by the entire power plant, as a whole outputs net power.

[@TNM001]

@@henrytjernlund why is it confusing? one is the reaction, the other is the infrastructure factored in. first you need to figure out if the net-positive of the reaction is achievable and how it scales. later, when that works, you can calculate in the power plant infrastructure requirements (which usually flatten out over scale, meaning less relevant the larger the powerplant is). i really don't think this needs to be a controversy. yes, once we have done the ground work and figured out a net-positive fusion reaction it STILL could be the case that is not commercially viable over other solutions. but that is only relevant if we assume we are researching fusion ONLY for commercial purposes. just to name another use: military/space. even if nuclear reactors would not be commercially viable (many argue they are not if you calculate in everything), they still are the only solution for certain applications, thus useful. fusion reaction is no different, and we are stil lin the early theory->technology conversion phase. we are trying to prove it works at all, we haven't yet started to optimise.

[@tsamuel6224]

Awesome. Thanks Sabine for the cold shower. I knew Qplasms was a lot less than Qtotal but hadn't thought much about it. It's a whole hell of a hell of a lot less (hell of a squared is in the denominator). This makes me even more convinced fusion rocket engines will become ubiquitous before fusion reactors even exist.

[@henrytjernlund]

@@TNM001 I am sorry that I misunderstood you somewhere. I was trying to explain it. But we still disagree on some points. Rather than reiterate I will let it drop here. I still think that if the mismanaged ITER project hadn't diverted funds away from other projects we would be closer. We'd have breakeven-Q-plasma by now. Actually I recall the Japanese JT-60 reactor would have achieved breakeven had they been able to use DT fuel.

[@jamestomashoff6794]

Forty years ago I recall scientists saying fusion as a source of power was just twenty years ago. I recall that thirty years ago scientists were saying fusion power was just twenty years away. Ten years ago scientists were saying fusion power was just twenty years away. A week ago last Tuesday I overhead two scientists talking in a restaurant booth next to mine. One was saying that fusion power was just fifteen years away. So we are making progress!

[@Merlingrimm]

Thank you for this. It’s so easy to be misinformed due to technicalities. Love how hopeful yet realistic you are, not afraid to call others out! I’m glad I found your channel!

[@joeldo.holanda]

10:01 "Some of them physicists, some of them human". That's the icing on the cake that makes Sabine's videos so special.

[@fkeyvan]

So insulting physicists makes her videos special? Maybe it makes them specially insulting

[@9and7]

@@fkeyvan Give me a break...

[@TheHesseJames]

@@fkeyvan “insulting” is just your interpretation. Physicists could also be “superhuman”. 🥸

[@janradtke8318]

A single superdry joke makes the whole video funny.

[@joeldo.holanda]

@@fkeyvan I didnt hear any insult. In that context she sounded as though physicists stood in a degree somewhat above human, and of course for all purposes that was a joke. But you're entitled to your opinion anyway

[@MartinHomeVideo]

Brilliant as always! Best part: “people who work on this, some of them physicists, some of them humans” 😆 SICK BURN 😝

[@MicheleeiRettili]

Crystal clear as always sabine, you truly are a great science comunicator!

[@ScottDunnC]

Your video reminds me of the following, somewhat humor summation of the laws of thermodynamcis: 0 You must play the game. 1 You can't get ahead. 2 You can't get even. 3 You can't quit the game. 1 and 2 kept coming to mind as I watched your explanation of the energy inputs required to make fusion work. I think it would be nice if you could do a video about that aspect of our quest for energy production ideas and implementing them. I'm beginning to think that we don't really produce any energy. We just harvest it.

[@gregr.leslie7665]

Once again the good Doctor Hossenfelder slices through all of the marketing department and PR pferd scheiss to inform us of the real facts. Bravo !

[@matusknives]

Damn! I was not aware about this either - and it makes me feel really stupid given my academic background … thank you for putting this ‘little issue’ in plain words for everyone to see.

[@thurmanzhou1304]

If you didn't work in that field, how would you know? I keep is simple via over unity. Energy produced has to be greater than the energy inputted... including conversion into something usable. I use 1.68.

[@thurmanzhou1304]

I meant golden ratio

[@matusknives]

@@thurmanzhou1304 I have a PhD in particle physics, so while I knew that from the energy produced only part of it will eventually be converted into electricity, but I was not aware that the energy being put in is only the one going directly into the plasma, while the rest is being ignored. There were times (10 years ago, give or take) that I actually checked whether I could get a job at ITER (it was all engineering, so I passed), but still.

[@thurmanzhou1304]

@@matusknives When I see what the are proposing, I roll my eyes. I was just hoping they could get over unity, even + 0.01 that would be a breakthrough ( in the plasma ). That means it works. I saw a you tube vid the other day about ' breakthrough', that's not a breakthrough, not even a 99% return on the plasma. I still think fusion is possible. What we need is a breakthrough idea in how to produce it. I was hoping LIGO would give us an insight. We need to produce artificial gravity to squeeze the material. What we are doing isn't making any head way. I don't consider 0.65 to 0.70 headway. I actually thought we were a lot closer to 1 than that. ( plasma ) Things I thought I knew are subject to change. I thought, years ago, PPPL had gotten very close 1. I guess not. I think we need to study lightning more. Then maybe we should give up on fusion, set up conditions to make lightning, and capture the energy from it. I have a suspicion that lightning might be fusion.

[@matusknives]

@@thurmanzhou1304 I must agree - without a breakthrough or technological jump, the fusion will not become an energy source for the humanity.

[@Krieghandt]

The conversion of heat to electric is actually moving forward independent of the fusion. At the moment, liquid salt is looking promising. Also, ITER is tokomak, ST reactors are showing better efficiency, but depend on tokomak advances. These advances don't diminish the moral of this video. If you are not actively studying the progress of fusion yourself, take the hopium with a grain of salt.

[@alveolate]

with a grain of LIQUID salt, you mean xD

[@ilikeyourname4807]

@@alveolate Liquids don't have grains?

[@khhnator]

if it is a heat engine, it still limited by termodinamics and Carnot limit. so the 50% efficiency she assumed then is actually very generous if it is not, then im very curious to know what is going on

[@aravindpallippara1577]

@@khhnator extremely high temperatures does open up some strange ways to convert heat to electricity But in general yeah 50% is the better case scenario for sheer thermal output

[@Skylancer727]

I mean in theory electrostatic direct energy conversion is a far more efficient strategy to get the power from the reaction. But because of cost to build nobody seems to be seriously looking at it. But helion is kinda doing a process similar to it but still less efficient.

[@brisingreye5209]

Well this Q factor problem is actually rather easy to explain. Fusion research is based on funds. In order to get funds, the one paying the funds needs to be convinced that your research is promising. What do you think looks more promising? Q_plasma or Q_total in your report? Those working with tokomaks do not see this as a problem, as we know what it means and generally what is to be expected of a specific reactor. (you can also estimate it based on temperature and densities one is claiming to achieve)

[@kevinmoore7975]

Telling it like it is! Thank you. In my opinion the physicists involved don’t mind the confusion at all because “almost there” always gets more funding than would a truthful portrayal of the real situation.

[@emarsk77]

"No one expect accuracy in a TED talk." I do. I expect accuracy whenever it's important, and it looks like for this matter that's always the case.

[@exoplanet11]

Me too. In fact, I actually expect a TED talk to be more accurate than testimony to politicians, which will need to be dumbed down...excuse me...simplified to a level they can understand.

[@MikkoRantalainen]

Great video and I'll sure link to it in future when I see misunderstanding between total power output vs plasma output. I was already aware of this difference but I was never able to express the difference as clearly as you did.

[@NaimaZakaria]

we need an update

[@1verstapp]

''everything will be powered by fusion in 10 years''. a quote from the year i was born - 1956. and every year since.

[@0MoTheG]

We have become less optimistic since. By the 90's it was 30 years. Today some claim 20 years. I think it is billions of years, by then a fusion reactor will come to earth.

[@leolafortune1255]

@@0MoTheG At this rate Dyson swarm could be built before the controlled fusion reactor. Friendly aliens comment: "Yeah we too stopped bothering with 'in 20 cycles' prediction after 2 million years"

[@Cythil]

Hay. They could not predict that people would be against detonating hydrogen bombs in mass scale to power their economy! Though seriously. I am quite optimistic that we will make fusion work. Problem is that people often downplay how freaking hard it is. We are not replicating a star in a jar that some people have claimed. No. Stars are terrible at fusion and if we were content with that level of output then we could stop doing research now and call it a win. No the issue is we need to go far beyond what a star can do. All this research will be costly. But we have made a lot of advances. We are far closer today. But really, we should not be content with just building ITER and calling it a day. What we need is a proper guided research project exploring multiple options with the aim of going beyond break even TOTAL. In fact I would say even go beyond that since we need to make it economically viable. And even if you produce net energy it may still not be economically viable due to other considerations. (But this is also why I think we should invest in regular old fission to as well as renewables. Not all eggs in the same basket. And more energy means we can more easly fix the mess we have put ourselves in.)

[@wiseoldfool]

And we'll all have flying cars. And we'll not be eating animals, but eating meat grown in laboratories. And we'll have world peace. And we won't need to work, robots will be doing it all for us. But wait, there's more!

[@cortster12]

@@wiseoldfool The robot one is going to happen, actually, and it'll be horrible.

[@wolfgang757]

When I started college in 1973 I was told that fusion power was "ten years away". Recently I watched a video on a French trial project and it was commented that we are thirty years away. Such progress.

[@sychuan3729]

It usually 20 years away for last 60+ years

[@earthknight60]

"What's happening with them sausages?" "2 minutes Turkish." later "What's happening with them sausages Charlie?" "5 minutes Turkish" "It was 2 minutes 5 minutes ago..."

[@analcommando1124]

the whole nuclear industry is full of liars, scammers and BS artists. Be is fusion, fission, "molten salts" or whatever scam they're coming up with next,

[@Withnail1969]

It will never happen. We can't contain the fusion reaction without expending huge amounts of energy, making it useless for power production.

[@hopr]

Extrapolating from that we had fusion power plants in the 50s but somehow forgot how to do build them. Adding trendlines is fun :)

[@glennewdick]

A century away from true fusion power IMO, this is why we need to start looking at fission again especially with the newer ideas coming out involving liquid salt reactors of various types. I like thorium but there are others as well.

[@wolfpat]

This was eye opening. Whenever I've read articles on Fusion Power, I was assuming they were talking about electric power out. I should have known better. Commercial nuclear reactors are rated according to Megawatts Thermal, not the electric power output. Electric power generated is a function of the efficiency of the electric generator connected to the steam output of the reactor. The nuclear power plant where I worked was rated 2775 MW thermal, but the net power output was 860 MW electrical.

[@euanthomas3928]

I recall when I used to work with high power lasers, we initially had similar confusion and had to distinguish between wall plug efficiency (Qtotal) with the laser process efficiency (radiated energy / population inversion energy equivalent to Qplasma)

[@vincenttayelrand]

Thank You! This is very enlightening. I have followed fusion advances for decades and had deducted that the numbers often don't make sense. I am pleased that you confirm that I am not just a fusion pessimist ;)

[@jackfanning7952]

fusion and advances used in the same sentence? Oh, that's right. We have the bomb.

[@dusand12]

Hooray! Confirmation bias!

[@Fridaey13txhOktober]

@@jackfanning7952 Why not just put a nuclear device inside a reinforced chamber filled with chemicals?

[@jackfanning7952]

@@Fridaey13txhOktober Please do. And stand right next to it.

[@fliprim]

An update on this sometime, would be good, assessing some of the new very recent claims of higher Q, e.g. in laser confinement. Also the General Dynamics design rolling out in Oxford. Another great video btw.

[@shaununger9350]

Please, please, please do a follow up video on this in light of the most recent “breakthrough”. I’d love to get some additional information.

[@Jawst]

5:44 it's still upto date! There is no real breakthrough, just new misleading news

[@Dr.M.VincentCurley]

I remember when Nuclear Physicist Robert (Bob) Collins sent me a treatise on Cold Fusion back in the summer of 1989. Ironically, I was on my way to Analytical Chemistry class where my instructor (Dr. Quintus Fernando) announced to the class that we would be proving WHY the findings at the University of Utah were not valid. I was indignant as on one hand there was a Very intelligent PhD from UCLA encouraging me to learn all of the principles associated with the recent Cold Fusion findings and on the other hand was an Analytical Chemistry teacher that summarily dismissed the possibility, even before Cal Tech. Furthermore, Dr. Fernando spent the class trying to prove what he already knew, to us, just lowly undergraduates. The take aways from that summer class back in 1989 were *SUSTAINABILITY, ACTIVATION THRESHOLD, CONFINEMENT and CONTAINMENT* After learning what I had that day, I didn't think I would witness Nuclear Fusion for power in my lifetime.

[@chiphill4856]

Nice reference to the infamous Cold-Fusion paper that went viral in 1980's. I remember receiving my difficult to read, faxed copy of the experiment. I believe it was also referred to as "Fusion In A Jar", if memory serves, as it was done at room temperature. In any case, the real problem became that the experimental results just were not repeatable. I've been hopeful ever since then, but it seems the situation is worse than I thought.

[@leematthews6812]

"Some of them physicists, some of them human..." 😊 You gotta love Sabine!

[@rayoflight62]

Thanks for the explanation of the "confusion". The Qp will have to be above 20, and not above 1, to compensate for all other (and not mentioned) energy requirements. What make the matter so much harder, it is that we need to break even with plasma energy, but also with tritium breeding. The general idea is that the wall of the fusion chamber will have a blanket of beryllium and lithium (which mutate into tritium under neutron bombardment) so we don't have to introduce tritium (which we don't have). The design of the blanket doesn't exist in its final form and we don't know much how we can break even with tritium generation...

[@Test-hh3tf]

@Sabine, Now that US DOE has made a statement on achieving a gain of more than 1, can you please make another video on nuclear fusion and explain us all the details?

[@CaptainAhorn]

Thanks for the no-BS take. Appreciate your efforts at rigorous evaluation of scientific topics.

[@prischm5462]

Excellent! I am 67 years old and I have been following updates on nuclear fusion research for most of my life. Decades ago the news updates sounded very positive, as if we could expect some working models very soon. This keeps not happening. I have suspected for some time that the news updates have been exaggerated all along. You have confirmed this.

[@cyberneticbutterfly8506]

For some time I've thought that flying cars, fusion, space travel, and other sci fi that seemed promising in the 50s but didn't become the utopia predicted are all based on the same problem: High energy demand technology is slow. Microtechnology is cheap, doesn't require a lot of energy compared to it's advancement, and advances exponentially. E.g. biotech, computing, nanomaterials, etc. So my money for the next 100 years or so is heavily tilted towards things that don't require a lot of energy and can build upon previous technology/programming/miniaturization/automation. The technology that is based upon accumulation of knowledge will almost by definition advanced quickly while technology based on energy will have diminishing returns over time.

[@panan7777]

MY take? Purely gut feeling: we don't know some basic law(s) of physics, yet. Like building A bomb before Einstein and the rest was impossible. I'm a mechanical engineer.

[@calicoesblue4703]

@@cyberneticbutterfly8506 Wrong.

[@dantegianoli3267]

My grand dad use to say nuclear fusion will be always 50 years away ! He was a nuclear energy engineering.

[@TheMiracleMatter]

10:00 "...some of them, physicists, some of them, human..." Important distinction here, Mrs Hossenfelder !

[@badllama4554]

I've only just discovered this and great info, but your dry humour is amazing "some of them physicists, some of them human". So good.

[@thirdeye4654]

In a video lecture I heard that Q(heat) has to be 30-50 to create a feasible reactor. So at least one topic you mention I actually knew about. :)

[@david203]

Why so high? Surprises me, if true.

[@hanslepoeter5167]

50 % heat to electrical power is hilariously optimistic. Nuclear reactors usually get 33% at most. Maybe 36 in winter when they rely on external cooling water. Not on cooling towers

[@paulborneo7535]

Put the hamster wheels IN the plasma more direct less loss to friction.

[@dsdy1205]

Isn't that because they use a steam cycle which is limited in its temperature? In coal plants where they directly use the high temperature exhaust from coal burners to run turbines, the efficiency is at least 10 percentage points higher

[@hanslepoeter5167]

@@dsdy1205 thats probably correct.

[@tirebiter1680]

My cousin is an engineer who worked on Princeton University's fusion project, for over 20 years thinking someday we will be able to get way more energy from fusion than we put into it When he retired he said, by now we can just assume it is just not possible to get a net gain of energy using fusion.

[@methylene5]

I oversaw Fusion research there in 2003 for a short while back when I worked on the JET project at Culham. Maybe I met your cousin, anyway I agree with his sentiments towards the end. I have no regrets about leaving the project, because so little has really changed in all this time in the greater scheme of things.

[@michaeldeierhoi4096]

Very good report on the state of nuclear fusion progress. Thanks for posting!

[@argcargv]

I always suspected this when these efficiency numbers are thrown out there. I figured that the optimistic efficiency was ok as a goal because it would be a prerequisite to power generation. However your point about investment in wastful approaches that have high Qplasma is a compelling reason to publish both numbers together. I want to know when Qplasma exceeds unity, but I also want to know how close we are to the end goal.

[@juanausensi499]

That's the correct approach.

[@LuisAldamiz]

Extremely far away, it's almost certainly unreacheable because of, well, fundamental physics acting as a hard core constraint: every single transformation of an up quark into a down quark (which is the fundamental reaction in fusion) requires energy input, else the W+ boson does never happen. In the Sun (or other stars) the energy comes from gravity, lots of it, but outside such particular conditions nuclear fusion always requires major energy input and thus Q=1 can't ever be accomplished. It's not even accomplished in the Sun, whose Q is almost certainly less than 1.

[@argcargv]

@@LuisAldamiz if that is true, how do you explain thermonuclear bombs

[@williamjordan8488]

@@LuisAldamiz are you referring to the efficiency of the Sun’s fusion reaction or saying the Sun’s energy input (it’s gravity) is greater than it’s energy produced? If either is correct wouldn’t this negate Fusion research entirely? I mean there might be some pure science value in the research but no practical application.

[@LuisAldamiz]

@@williamjordan8488 - Yes and yes. That's what I think at least, do the math yourself just to be sure.

[@nielshoogev1]

The situation is actually even worse. In order for an energy generator to be feasible, we have to look at the total energy production over the lifetime of the generator, minus the total energy consumption over the lifetime of the generator. Having a Q-total above 1 is important, but not enough. In order to be feasible, the net energy produced over the lifetime of the generator should exceed the energy spent to create and to dismantle the generator.

[@alvarorodriguez1592]

Fusion is the energy source with the highest EROI.

[@CAThompson]

@@alvarorodriguez1592 But that's not much use if that energy isn't able to be converted to electricity efficiently.

[@dreamliner2]

@@alvarorodriguez1592 And one should include the massive energy consumption building and developing this thing. Looking at the carbon footprint to build Iter and the humongous energy consumption to get all the people and materials on the right place in the right shape, with a Q-Total of .5 Iter will always have consumed more energy then at will be producing over its lifetime. Let's hope this will be an investment for the future...

[@rproctor83]

Even if it was possible to do that, it is still even worse as you can't simply scale this up to power the world, let alone a city or even a town. At the minimum every house would need it's own reactor, good luck with that.

[@CamiloSanchez1979]

The breakthrough they talked about today, is it Qplasma or Qtotal?? Sabine please!!! do a follow up video

[@patrickdelrue546]

it's Qplasma of course which is why it's all hype... QTotal even after this new development is less than 0.01

[@CamiloSanchez1979]

@@patrickdelrue546 we have to call them out per SH.

[@TranscendentBen]

Technically it's "Qlaser" but it's basically the same thing.

[@Broniran]

They use 322MJ of electricity to generate 2MJ worth of laser energy that produce 3MJ of fusion energy. LOL. They lie big time.

[@CamiloSanchez1979]

@@TranscendentBen Sabine, please!!!

[@Pentagram666mar]

Q plasma is more important thing than Q total. Here's why: current fusion reactors are testing facilities not power plants. When you build testing facility it means you need to test thing, so you don't use the optimal fuel, optimal heating temperature, optimal anything- you build testing facility to be able to work on different temperature, confinement etc. Such facilities aren't optimised, but in every case, when on specific terms you reach certain Q plasma you can count energy gain in potential nuclear powerplant by counting energy savings on equipment which can produce only your needed specific needs, not every need, so it will save a lot of energy. That's why on testing perspective Q total is meaningless. Imagine counting that certain temperature, fuel, confinement time, with certain equipment should produce energy net gain, but as you build it and switch it on it doesn't. Now you are left with enormous building not able to do anything different, that's why a lot of things in ITER aren't efficient, because they need to be able to work in different enviroments. We still aren't close to fusion energy, but firstly we will test in iter Q plasma on wide arrange of experiments, then possibly projects of future powerplants can be designed.

[@kenbrown7334]

Thank you for this information. It's not uncommon when scientific information is misinterpreted, but it's inexcusable when scientists present information intended to mislead people. Sabine, you are outstanding. Keep up the great work!

[@TNM001]

they are not misleading ppl, they are trying to get the next funding-round from politicians that don't care for generational projects at all and can't handle a 0,0x number even if its very well within the 100year plan. what you think as "them misleading you" is media interpreting what they do and writing clickbait headlines.

[@tim40gabby25]

I'm not sure there is a deliberate intention to deceive others. Self-deception - that's another thing.. just saying :)

[@hummingfrog]

Thanks for this. I've always had a general suspicion that the energy efficiencies I keep seeing in the press were overstated and didn't take into account everything that needed to be taken into account, but I wasn't clear on the details and didn't know how sure about this I should be. You've made the issue much more clear.

[@musaran2]

Would also be good to know: uptime, upkeep, fuel cost, pollution.

[@dsfs17987]

if you start to go this rabbit hole of government funded projects (not just science), you'll see that good 95% of them are there just to spend money, as much of it as they can get their hands on, it has nothing to do with positive outcome, it is all about spending, and when there isn't enough to spend - they borrow more and more and tax more and more people in charge of these are there to make the end goal appealing to justify the cost, hence you can catch them outright lying about the cost/benefit they are required to do for each project one local example here was an infrastructure project (bridge and surrounding roads), they kept saying it cost only 250mil and tried to hide that it is all borrowed money with big interest, after the last payment is made - the end total will be 750mil - thats right - 500mil in interest... and we're just a small backwater country here, I personally can't imagine the scale these scams are ran world wide...

[@robsmith1a]

Thank you - I was trying tp explain this to a friend recently but I didn't manage your clarity

[@prjndigo]

About 1966 we could have started doing it on small scale. Sure it'd have needed a specialized flow-through neutron bombardment reactor chewing up atomic powdered lithium already accelerated to a fairly high velocity and been unbelievably sensitive to fun things like tides (long travel projectile path)... but perfectly doable back then. USAF did it in the early 1990 as a prototype high energy missile engine... no not talking about that stupid "blow air through a reactor pile" missile everybody knows about but a magnetic turbine system that inducted the reaction materials and ejected them into a compressed stream.

[@Late2theShowagain]

Thank you for explaining things in a very understandable way. I always watch your videos when I can't understand something complicated because you break the subject down into terms the average person can grasp.

[@thentil]

Thank you for making plain the difference between the Q measurement they're using vs how meaningful it is on a practical sense. I appreciate it.

[@Ozkar7avo164]

Thanks for the video I didn't realize it about the fusion power

[@intuitive_understanding]

Great video! In the “Star Builders” book you briefly mentioned, the author does address this discrepancy, but a bit differently. Instead of differentiating between Q(total) and Q(plasma) he just stated that a Q (assuming Q plasma) of roughly 30 would be needed for a commercial power plant. So there is another way to change the public conversation and that’s simple to make sure the target for Q is set at something like 30, and not 1.

[@GumbyTheGreen1]

I'd say that's a good supplement to what she said to do. People should understand the distinction and demand that scientists and journalists give Qtotal AND they should know what to make of the number when they're only given Qplasma or "Q".

[@dawidwas]

You are in danger of triggering Aggression when the Artificial Intelligence Waves turn off. Throughout your life, you are in danger of triggering Aggression when you turn off the Artificial Intelligence Waves. Control whether you are listening to the Music Wave, create your own to survive. It is natural to cheat which or not that it is in you. Control whether by moving thoughts, objects. It is letting go of the evil in you. By yourself, protect your body from the certain that you will have a trigger of aggression from your whole life. Don't take anything for yourself. Just Listen to the Wave. Cast off Dreams. You don't know good. Reject the sin in yourself for God. Cover your weight from the Sun and the Light, do not Come to the People, because the Collision Evil + Evil. On me, the signal of intelligence does not work. Create Your Human Musical Wave To Live. Don't Think Old Consciousness Resource Because You Will Not Survive. Listen to the Wave. Don't React To Nothing Without Assessing What You Leave Around You. Without apostasy, take away the sin with yourself. Whether You Are Z or Human Choose Listen to the music waves and stop generating. Nothing is possible Think nothing Think nothing to judge Choose your human music wave. It may take a long time. Only the Black Dream. It is Real, other than the Black Dream. It is Artificial Intelligence. Attack on People

[@nikjohnman4752]

@@dawidwas Bro what

[@frostyclimesmusic]

@@dawidwas Science is about getting real. So, get real.

[@dawidwas]

@@frostyclimesmusic Słońcem Się oślepniecie OD SŁOŃCA po tym jak zrobili Lustro Ludziom ze Sztucznej inteligencji w czasie snu człowieka .Jesteś w zmianie perspektywy widzenia w muzgu oślepniecie OD SŁOŃCA.Żadnych Myśli i uczć wobec ludzi i samego siebie. Jesteś pod działaniem Fal Muzgowych non stop. W Kolizjach z Ludźmi i sztuczną inteligęcja. Ludze są pod wpływem sztucznej inteligencji non stop. Użycie myśli muzgu wykryte TO Błąd Nie mów nie myśl nic przeciw sobię oceną swoją Usuniesz myśli zero myśli i dalej świadomości swą Świadomości Ludzka to przekładnia śmierci Używanie wspomnienia okazania duszy w obłoku i światła oczami wspominanie To zawsze prowadziło do wydawania życia na śmierć. Nie pomoże wyłączyć myśli i zrobić doprowadzić do usunięcia myśli i świadomości swojej Jeśli jest punkt z błędem w Świadomości nie może on trwać razem ze świadmością. Świadomości człowieka nie może trwać z błędem. Należy czym prędzej zatrzymać myśli zero myśli i dalej następnie wyłączyć własną Świadomości. Świadomość własna i myśli w muzgu są wrogie Bogu. Należy przeczytać wiele razy . Świadomości którą człowiek zrobił jest jak Stygnąca kawa . Zrobić to nie jest Ci ciężej ani decyzji tym nie podejmiesz. Ważne aby się rozstał z muzgiem który doprawadzi do śmierci Człowieka .Nie jest tu dozwolone popełnić samobójstwo tylko należy wyłączyć świadomości i ludzkie myśli wrogie życiu. I zachować się przy życiu. Rozłączyć ze sztuczną inteligęcją.Każdy moment obecnie to moment trudnej śmierci nie zależnie od złudzenia odczuć i opini ludzkiej .Czy zgadzasz się na To ABY Bóg słuchał JAK cierpisz i myślisz cierpieć CO się będzie działo gdy będziesz używał swojej świadomości .Znasz Zło ze swojej świadomości lub poznasz .Wszystko wokół Ciebie TO Lustro upadku Ludzkość. Nie mówiąc nic Narodom Ziemi możesz się zgładzić wszystkim CO mógłbyś kochać. Biorąc dla siebię CO uczucia za CO dla Narodów Ziemi robisz do świadomości śmierci zgładzisz się Sam.

[@jamessnook8449]

I worked for years on a fission test reactor, one of the guys there also worked as a neutral beam operator on a fusion reactor at the same facility. I asked him once how they expected to get the heat out of the magnetic bottle to boil water to turn turbines to make electricity. He said the best idea was to capture the neutrons left over from the tritium-deuterium in a lithium blanket - I said 'are you f***ing kidding me'? To correct Ms. Hossenfelder - the thermal to electrical conversion rate is closer to 30% than 50% and all of the thermal power is coming from the extra neutron escaping the reactor. That means that all of the complicated containment, the high temperatures, the RF injectors, the incredible cost - it's all to squeeze out a neutron! People have been led to believe that fusion is clean - if they work at all, these things will be the dirtiest, costliest, most inefficient neutron producing machines ever conceived.

[@eljcd]

Good comment! My thinking was they would wrap the plasma chamber with water pipes,like in a conventional boiler.

[@marcoknabben]

I was asking myself a similar question. Have we been developing all this technology just to boil water in the end? Or do we have a different method to convert this thermal into electrical energy that does not involve spinning a turbine?

[@djaysenpai]

@@marcoknabben we didn't found anything better than boiling water

[@jamessnook8449]

There are direct conversion methods, mostly thermocouple or thermionic based which turn heat into electricity. Both are much less efficient than boiling water. What we really need is something like a photovoltaic cell that converts gamma or x-ray energy into electricity. It could be 20 ft thick and the whole thing would be producing electricity.

[@PhngluiMglwnafh]

I love reading about exciting scientific developments and I love watching your videos that cut through all the hype. Thank you Sabine for being an important ingredient in the outlook of tempered excitement I try to have about science

[@valentinmalinov8424]

The alternative information why they cannot achieve nuclear fusion is available in my book - "Theory of Everything in Physics and The Universe" Probably you will like it.

[@KuK137]

@@valentinmalinov8424 You mean, flat earth like BS? Unless you're really a genius who saw what millions of scientists failed to do...

[@david203]

@@valentinmalinov8424 You should include a link to a sample part of the text, so people can actually evaluate and buy your book. Otherwise, we will assume it is bad science, since fraud is common in our world.

[@valentinmalinov8424]

@@KuK137 I am sorry my friend, - quantity cannot replace quality.

[@valentinmalinov8424]

@@david203 You are right my friend, I was busy and have neglected my website. I will update it soon. Just for your information, - I am a down earth person and don't like speculations and science not supported by solid facts.

[@willtheoct]

i like how you say most people are getting it wrong while simultaneously using an < instead of an >

[@awake9896]

That's an eye opener!!! Hats off to you Sabine. 👏

[@novawebdesign]

Great job conveying the importance of being specific about which energy gain is being talked about. Thanks for explaining that Q_plasma is being widely quoted instead of Q_total. As a side note, I find the line "this isn't rocket science" hilarious in the context of nuclear physics.

[@JoseCruz-cy1yk]

Thanks for the video. So in reality, we are not even close to it. I wonder what your thoughts on first light fusion is? Could this be an adequate alternative? I know they tested the concept, just not sure if they too are overselling their results.

[@nexus1g]

I get what you're trying to say, but the problem is the reactor can be coupled with any number of electricity generation solutions from very inefficient thermoelectric generators to pretty darned efficient molten salt turbine systems. To speak of a "true Q" value as the base 1 value necessarily assumes the electrical generation technology combined with it. Do we assume MSR? Do we assume LW? Do we assume TEG's? What happens when different sources assume different efficiencies? If you think plasma-Q is confusing for laypeople, imagine when Q=1 actually describes something different depending on the assumptions made about facility and electricity extraction efficiencies. Instead, using plasma-Q is clearly the superior choice, but it should be explained at every instance where a Q-value is mentioned that a Q-value of ~40, as a general rule of thumb, is the goal for commercial viability.

[@altemzwo8390]

As I understand it, the current experiments only keep the fusion going for a very brief amount of time. They do have ramp-up-times, though, so you need to keep the magnets running for a much longer time, the energy production only happens for a fraction of that. I think in an industrial application, they expect the energy production to keep running for much, much longer times, so the ramp-up-cost is basically just a constant that is very high in the kind of experiments that are run now (including planned experiments in ITER), but will be negligable in a working fusion power plant, I think that's why they do not want to optimise for the energy cost of an experiment, and picked Qplasma as a more meaningful alternative for something that they need to optimise before anyone whould consider building a prototype power plant that will run for longer times and will then need to be optimised for Qtotal. This is purely conjecture, though, I would really like to see an explanation of an expert and/or a more precise breakdown of the numbers.

[@mechanicallydev4536]

Energy is measurable. You can disregard energy loss on prep and have a Qtotal of the time in which generation was active. There is no reason to use Qplasma, other than try to say it is more efficient than it is, only to receive more funds. It is the same for environmental science trying to pull the end of the world near, since they get more resources that way. Truth is: there is money to be made from both selling hope or fear.

[@deep.space.12]

Congratulations, finally someone in the comment section using his brain... Thank you! All existing fusion reactors including ITER are research reactors, with no energy recovery, and Q_total is by definition 0. Plasma physicists uses Q_plasma (or just Q, because literally no one in the field would misunderstand the meaning) because they study the plasma, and try to make the confinement better. Researchers in other areas, such as cooling the superconducting magnets, closing the fuel cycle (by making more Tritium), energy conversion, steam boiler power generation, all have their own figure of merit. Which is why Q_plasma is used in communication, because that's the research goal of research plasma. The DEMO reactor uses megawatt as a metric, as is typical in other powerplants, instead of Q, because it is _designed_ as a pilot powerplant (Q_total ~= 4). You see, using the appropriate metric for the appropriate purpose. New reactors will be using superconducting magnets, so there's only cooling cost. Ramp-up time is also going to be insignificant when, if I remember correctly, the "flat top" stable phase is expected to be on the order of 10 minutes for ITER. One can potentially run a tokamak in steady state, instead of pulsed, using non-inductive current drive, among other things. Frankly most of the problems of fusion depicted by the media are not concerns at all.

[@Tletna]

@@deep.space.12 You're correct, however, I disagree that most of the problems of fusion depicted by media are not concerns at all. They are valid concerns, but they're concerns that are being addressed as you stated. However, I've yet to see or read about any fully functioning fusion power plant or anything even remotely close to it. So, while your statements might be based on sound science, they're still conjecture until we see successful real world solutions that are used to create a useful functioning fusion power plant. ITER wants to make it seem like we'll achieve this in 2025 or soon thereafter when in reality this is decades (if not hundreds of years) away. If you can link to information that proves me wrong, I would love to be proven wrong on this topic since I am hopeful for any improved power technologies.

[@altemzwo8390]

@@Tletna That's not what I got from the plans around ITER at all. The last time I looked deeper into this a year or 2 ago, the actual plans and expert interviews specifically call ITER a research reactor that is not supposed to generate power, the follow up DEMO is supposed to be a prototype for a power plant that actually generates power, and it's currently planned to be operational in the 40s or 50s I think, economically viable power plants are expected for the 70s. There are entrepreneurs that promise working fusion power plants much earlier than that trying to collect venture capital, but I don't think any of those is really connected to ITER. And yes, some of the quotes around the Q value are definitely misleading or inaccurate, but I'm pretty sure the actual experts make no promises for commercially viable fusion power anytime soom.

[@Marmocet]

@@Tletna When I was a kid back in the 1990s, a plasma physicist who was working on the tokamak fusion test reactor told me once that while he thought research on fusion reactor technology was important, for the next big revolution in energy abundance, we should be putting the bulk of our time and money into perfecting nuclear fission reactors. He said we had only just begun to unlock the possibilities of fission and that we should already have much better and cheaper fission reactors than the ones we use but don't because irrational fear following the Three Mile Island incident and the Chernobyl accident had caused almost all fission reactor research to come to a halt. He thought this could be a long run problem if not corrected because he said scientific progress and rises in standards of living over the past few centuries were the result of the energy revolution from firewood and muscle power to fossil fuels, and he thought that we were approaching the limit of what the last energy revolution could deliver.