Nuclear Fusion: The hottest swindle on earth

[@user-tn1vc1xz5d]

I'm a chemical engineer. Our 3 mantras: Energy balance Mass balance Ensure all equations are dimensionally consistent.

[@reefrebels]

Yes Balance and consistency

[@mothMagnets]

At least there're not trying to make roads out of solar panels.

[@fusion9619]

I actually liked that idea. Doubted it could be cost effective, but was hopeful. But I guess it died, so that's that.

[@redsed1565]

Was a great idea. Why did it fail?

[@WeighedWilson]

Thank you for calling out the lies on several fronts. Your content is a valuable resource.

[@reefrebels]

Thank you for the support

[@777Outrigger]

It's just 30 years away. It's been that way for the last 50 years.

[@mybirds2525]

Next year they will move it to 40 years away

[@MarksyS387]

not sure what's a bigger waste of money, renewables or fusion.

[@richardokeefe7410]

Renewables. Nobody is being forced to rely on fusion.

[@redsed1565]

Spot on. Imagine how many mouths it could feed or homes for the homeless!!

[@thedave7760]

Hi Peter so glad you started a YT channel I subbed a few weeks ago and the algorithm just showed this to me so the system is working. I would love to hear your thoughts on LFTR reactors.

[@reefrebels]

Yes I might do something on Thorium. I must say at the moment I don't know where I stand. Probably better value for money spending resources on Thorium reactor research than Fusion.

[@axle.australian.patriot]

I have been subscribed for ages, and never get a new video notification :(

[@redsed1565]

Imagine how many starving mouths could be fed. And homeless could be sheltered. This is a waste of taxpayers money.

[@yt.damian]

Spend that money on building a good standardized fission reactor design.

[@reefrebels]

yes thats what congressman rohrabacher suggested

[@thegeneralist7527]

Canada did this in 1954. Canada began development of the Canadian deuterium uranium reactor, CANDU. Over the years the design has been improved, and it is thought the design cannot undergo meltdown.

[@jimtrowbridge3465]

Please check out Elysium's molten salt reactor. I've looked at dozens of reactor designs, and it's the best one I've seen.

[@richardokeefe7410]

Quis custodiet ipsos custodes? Who audits the auditors to keep *them* free from strange enthusiasms and wild hatreds?

[@Nuts-Bolts]

The only Fusion reactor type that I think shows real promise has been demonstrated as part of The Safire Project. The team have succeeded in producing Power-Over-Unity (meaning more energy came out than went in). As performance so closely matched the theoretical model at every stage, further development is now quietly taking place by a privately funded company called Aureon Energy. Despite the projects success, the main stream media are just ignoring it. Perhaps because huge amounts of tax payers money have not been spent on achieving fusion it lacks credibility in the minds of science journalists. Gareth Samuel (creator of See the Pattern channel) with his very critical reasoning mind has also interviewed the team leader and I’ve watched some zoom interviews as well as watching their YT videos. I think Dr Peter Ridd may be pleasantly surprised to see how this type of fusion over-unity reactor works and it would make for a good video.

[@reefrebels]

The Safire Project's achievement of power-over-unity in fusion is intriguing, but its lack of mainstream media coverage may be due to its unconventional funding and approach. Private funding can lead to innovative developments, but rigorous scientific scrutiny is essential. Gareth Samuel's critical analysis adds depth to understanding

[@henrybarker1159]

When i worked in science this happened all the time

[@reefrebels]

its definitely not an uncommon thing in science

[@henrybarker1159]

chasing funding is the root of all evil

[@henrybarker1159]

correct

[@JohnWilliams-iw6oq]

Thank you for the explanation, it's nice to know what's really going on.

[@barenekid9695]

Hey ! I'm still waiting for the Long promised Flying Cars.

[@RussellCockman]

The promise of “almost limitless” energy is based on the false assumption that one of the fuels, radioactive tritium - half life of 12.3 years - is in almost limitless supply. Not. It needs to be made in a nuclear reactor or by using the neutrons generated in the fusion reaction. The latter is an undeveloped technology which will likely require an energy intensive process to become remotely feasible.

[@reefrebels]

You raise a valid point about the challenges associated with tritium as a fuel for fusion reactors. Tritium, an isotope of hydrogen, is indeed essential for most fusion reactions being considered for practical energy production. As you mentioned, tritium has a relatively short half-life of about 12.3 years, which means it decays over time and needs to be continuously replenished in a fusion reactor. Currently, tritium production primarily relies on breeding it from lithium, either in a nuclear reactor or by using the neutrons generated within the fusion reaction itself. However, both methods have their limitations and require further development to ensure a sustainable and efficient supply of tritium for fusion power plants. The challenges associated with tritium production and supply are among the many technical and engineering hurdles that fusion research faces on the path to practical energy generation. While fusion has the potential to provide abundant and clean energy, addressing these challenges, including tritium supply, will be crucial for realizing this potential. Research efforts are underway to develop innovative techniques for tritium breeding and extraction, as well as exploring alternative fusion reactions that may not rely on tritium. These efforts highlight the ongoing commitment of the scientific community to overcome the obstacles and make fusion energy a reality.

It's very difficult to get someone to admit what he is doing is not viable when his salary depends on him not admitting that. Plus, it's only other people money, so hey..............

[@davidhilderman]

Thanks so much for this video. I had no idea fusion was such a scam.

[@richardokeefe7410]

You really don't have to read very far in the popular scientific literature to realise that (a) the gain depends on what you choose to measure and where you choose to measure it and (b) the production of energy doesn't last very long. It's not really a scam. There used to be an ad in Scientific American many years ago, with the slogan "Moving air is easy. Controlling it takes an expert." Fusion is *possible*. We *can* make fusion happen, as this video pointed out. Generating fusion power *controllably* *safely* *economically* and *usably* has so far defeated us. We have come a long long way but there is a long way to go. Anton Petrov had a KZbin video "Was there a 'Major' Breakthrough in Fusion? Not Really" making much the same point about the gain, about a year ago. I shouldn't think anyone who has been following the story, possibly running their finger under the text and looking up the hard words, should be expecting fusion power plants feeding the grid any time soon. As one Q+A put it, "Q: How dense is the plasma in a fusion reactor? A: Either (1) very not dense or (2) very dense but very very briefly." You're not going to get much energy out. These are giant machines with losses everywhere. You're going to put a lot of energy in. It's probably going to take some fundamentally new ideas to get any big changes.

[@torrespearls381]

Good call.

[@fusion9619]

From the perspective of a special interest group, the power behind the politics, it makes perfect sense to overspend on boondoggles - boondoggles can't threaten them.

[@chrisruss9861]

Your grounded commentary is appreciated, Peter. Was the Hadron (hope I have spelling right) collider a worthwhile project? I do admire the hefty minds who work on science at the highest level. A recent academic podcast, I think the Association of Scholars, suggested too much public funding can crowd out private financing of science research. People such as Darwin financed his own research discovery voyages and there were many others.

[@reefrebels]

The Large Hadron Collider (LHC) is widely regarded as a significant and worthwhile scientific project. It's the world's largest and most powerful particle accelerator, located at CERN (the European Organization for Nuclear Research) near Geneva, Switzerland. The LHC enables scientists to study fundamental particles and forces by accelerating them to extremely high speeds and smashing them together. The discoveries made at the LHC have contributed immensely to our understanding of particle physics and the fundamental nature of the universe. One of the most notable achievements was the discovery of the Higgs boson in 2012, which confirmed the existence of the Higgs field and provided crucial insights into how particles acquire mass. As for the balance between public and private funding of scientific research, it's a complex issue. While private financing can sometimes lead to more focused research aligned with immediate commercial interests, public funding often supports more fundamental research with broader societal benefits and long-term impacts. Both types of funding play important roles in advancing scientific knowledge and technological innovation. Historically, many groundbreaking scientific discoveries were indeed funded by private individuals or institutions. I think Charles Darwin's voyages on the HMS Beagle was financed by the British government ,for sure he also received support from private sources. Today, a combination of public and private funding supports scientific research across various disciplines, each contributing in its own way to the advancement of knowledge and understanding.

[@616CC]

Those are the government projects which I’m sure by now are deliberate black holes of time and effort. Corrupt. However, there are now some small private company’s aiming towards fusion, which I have much more, for what it’s worth faith in. It is interesting at least.

[@reefrebels]

It’s understandable to feel disillusioned with large government projects, especially when they seem mired in bureaucracy or corruption. Private companies often have more flexibility and agility to pursue ambitious goals like fusion energy. Fusion research holds incredible promise for clean and sustainable energy production, so it’s exciting to see private companies stepping up to tackle this challenge. Let's hope they make significant progress!

[@michaellovelace3844]

Am I missing something here? Because deuterium-tritium fusion produces a neutron that's even more energetic than one produced by fission of uranium. So "clean, limitless energy" would actually be "radioactive, limitless energy". That doesn't seem like an improvement over fission reactors.

[@reefrebels]

You're correct that deuterium-tritium fusion reactions do produce high-energy neutrons, which can activate materials surrounding the fusion chamber, potentially leading to radioactive byproducts. While fusion reactions can produce energetic neutrons, the radioactive byproducts are typically less abundant and have shorter half-lives compared to those produced by fission reactions.

[@Mrch33ky]

Sounds like Fusion is a Funding Engine at the end of the day.

[@reefrebels]

this engine is very efficient in getting funds

[@makismakiavelis5718]

I'm a layman and I want to believe in abundance of energy through fusion but to me it's simple: Both fission and fusion, or at least the theories behind them were discovered in the 1930's. Difference is that it only took about 20 years for a working nuclear fission power plant to be made but it's almost 90 years later and no fusion power plant.

[@reefrebels]

good comparison

[@axle.australian.patriot]

Thank you for another valuable topic :) No, it has become common place to misrepresent the realities of science and I don't find that acceptable. > 3:06 Correction Peter:No engine today gets more energy out than what we put in. We get what you are saying, but maybe throw in less "kinetic" energy than what we get out :) To be continued... I'll come back to this at the end of the video in case I jumped the gun :) > First, lets look at a natural fusion reactor; a star. It requires a lot of input kinetic energy to initiate that reaction. That initial energy comes from the shear mass of the gasses pushing at the center of that star (potential energy). When stuff gets pushed together under high force heat is created and eventually enough pressure and heat exists to press the first 2 atoms together in a fusion reaction. Yes we get a lot of kinetic energy released from the fusion of the 2 nuclei but stop and think of the shear amount of energy required to initiate that first reaction. At this point most of the released kinetic energy goes back into the fusion reaction of more atoms and the chain reaction continues. The balance between the initial force from the total mass of the gases in the star + the kinetic energy from the fusion keeps the stars reactions going until it no longer has the pressure and heat requirement to continue initiating fusion reaction. If we look ate the total potential energy (the mass) of the star before it starts its fusion reactions, and the mass that is left after the fusion has ended and it has become a brown dwarf or something we will find that not very much energy was released during its lifetime compared to the total potential energy at the start. So, the energy required to to create that reaction and keep it going is way more than what comes out. > An ICE is similar except that far less kinetic energy is required to begin the reaction of the potential energy. ~60% of the potential after conversion to kinetic energy is lost through heat in the exhaust and radiated heat from the engine and cooling. Of that 60% loss a small portion is captured in the rotational motion in the crankshaft and flywheel of the engine. This small amount of captured kinetic energy is used to compress the potential energy so that it becomes hot enough to initiate the next reaction. Note that we need the equivalent of about 300A of energy for a second or 2 via the starer motor to initiate that first reaction. Much less than what is required for a fusion reaction. > Fusion reactors: A fusion reactor has to create the conditions similar to the internals of a star to initiate the first reaction. The shear amount kinetic energy required to do this is mind boggling (and expensive). Once we obtain our first fusion reaction between two atoms we need to reuse enough energy to create the mind boggling conditions to initiate the next reaction to make it self initiating and keep the reaction going for as long as we can add more potential fuel atoms. In this scenario rather than requiring a small 300Amp battery to initiate the first reaction we need a building sized battery to get it started (just for 2 atoms!). We then need to keep at least that building sized battery worth of energy from each reaction to initiate the next reaction. The sheer reality is that like a star we will always need to use a ridiculous amount more energy to keep the fusion initiating than what will come out before we even have energy to spare for other uses outside of the fusion reactor. > It's kool that we can emulate a single fusion reaction that occurs in a star, but I am very dubious about any practical use in the future. I think it is a poor display of values to market fusion as the power generation of the near future. That marketing is a snake oil sales technique. > I did contemplate the requirements of fission initiated fusion. aka the equivalent of a fusion bomb continuously going off inside a mega large and robust container to create the initial pressure and temperature for fusion to initiate and continue.. The sheer size of the container as well as the heat and forces involved so far make this thought completely impractical. We would probable have more practical success building a Dyson sphere around a natural fusion reactor :) > [Edit] I had an oopsie. Fission/fusion lol

[@reefrebels]

Yes the biggest problem in engines is inefficiencies and heat loss. significant challenges in engine design and operation. Dyson spheres are hypothetical megastructures that surround a star to capture its energy output, building such a structure around a natural fusion reactor is also highly ambitious , perhaps thats where its headed

[@terminusest5902]

Generation 4 fission reactors provide a much faster and easier option for low carbon energy . China now has 2 Generation 4 fission reactor prototypes using largely US and foreign technologies. This technology is hampered by the existing Gen 3 reactor industry who have a consistently profitable market. Gen 4 reactors can be substantially cheaper. There are a number of different Gen 4 types. China having MSR, Molten Salt Reactors, and gas cooled pebble bed reactors. Most Gen 4 types can be smaller, modular and mass produced. US and British Gen 4 reactors in developing SMR, Small Modular Reactors, which are more like Gen 3 systems, but having some significant advantages. The continued failure of renewable energy to meet fast global growing energy demand means we need to develop more low carbon energy technologies. And Gen 4 is a promising area. And very importantly could be cost effective and competitive with fossil fuels and much safer. Gen 4 reactors use natural laws of physics for built in safety. These features reduce the need for massive and costly safety features added on . One of the most popular Gen 4 reactors is the Molten Salt Reactors that do not use table salt. Lithium salts being common. In these reactors the fuel is carried in the liquid salt and not in metal fuel rods. If the salt, containing the fuel with molecular bonds, can quickly and automatically be really drained from the reactor core at any time to prevent accidents. Having no H2O under very high pressure or fuel rods greatly reduces risks. Salt fuels that leak from a reactor quickly cool and solidify making it easier to recover. And another MSR advantage is the ability to use non enriched Uranium , Thorium, weapons material and waste nuclear fuel for power. Thorium can be much cheaper than Uranium , more abundant and safer to handle. The salt remains in the reactor to be reused indefinitely . Unlike costly fuel rods that need replacing at least every 2 years. While still containing over 90% of the costly enriched Uranium becoming waste and barely profitable to be recycled. But can more easily be used in MSR reactors. Pure Thorium can be handled by hand with no significant human risk. Because the salt and fuel can stay in the reactor and fully burned as fuel, along with most of the more toxic waste products . Leaving much shorter life waste products . And able to turn weapons material into energy. Reducing nuclear proliferation risk. Including Plutonium. Gen 4 reactor prototypes could be built within 10 years with current technologies. Earlier MSR prototypes were built within 10 years. And could be much better with current technologies. And a number of different prototypes could be built for the cost of ITER. And we have very good options to manage nuclear waste but lack political support. So nuclear fuel waste continues to grow in many places and not in purpose built central storage. Weather we have Gen 4 reactors or not. And historically nuclear energy remains much safer than fossil fuels and even hydroelectric power. And not all nations have the resources for renewable energies. Pebble bed rectors use spheres of silicon, carbon and other materials to contain the fuels. These are very long lasting, safe, easy to handle and dispose of. Ceramic construction provides a very lasting material that resists water and corrosion. And then used for waste storage. And built to contain waste fuel products. The long life pebbles enable most of the fuel and waste products to be used up and reducing mass. As atoms are converted to heat energy. Fuel pebbles are safely, easily and regularly removed, tested and returned to the reactor if wanted. The silicon and carbon ceramics also stand up to much more heat than metal fuel rods. China is able to overcome resistance of the existing nuclear industry and infrastructure. Indonesian companies and the government are working with US industry to develop a floating MSR reactor. Built on a reinforced concrete barge that is mobile and resistant to earthquakes and tidal waves. Also impact from large aircraft. Sea going reactors have been safely used for many decades. And barge systems can be built in a shipyard with mass produced reactors on a production line.

[@reefrebels]

You've provided a comprehensive overview of Generation 4 (Gen 4) fission reactors and their potential as a low-carbon energy solution. These reactors offer promising advancements in safety, efficiency, and fuel utilization compared to previous generations. Their modular and potentially cost-effective nature could indeed provide a significant contribution to meeting global energy demands while reducing carbon emissions. Molten Salt Reactors (MSRs) and Pebble Bed Reactors are among the Gen 4 designs highlighted for their safety features, fuel flexibility, and reduced waste generation. The ability to use alternative fuels like thorium and to recycle existing nuclear waste further enhances their appeal as sustainable energy sources. China's investment in Gen 4 reactor prototypes, particularly MSRs and pebble bed reactors, underscores the growing interest and potential for these technologies. Additionally, collaborations between nations and private companies demonstrate the international effort to advance nuclear energy solutions.

[@thierrylandrieu7441]

Hello … beautiful video. Thanks. I would just say that from a keynesian perspective, having the motivation to do stupid useless things just creates weath given the proper environment…. Which hoarding gold and diamonds will not .

[@thomasgreenfoto2059]

Fusion reactions are already possible as done with the SAFIRE project, using the theories of the Electric Universe. Please get updated.

[@danmoriarty9623]

Professor Ridd did not say it was impossible. He said it was inefficient and uneconomic. Please pay attention.

[@reefrebels]

Yes there are quite a few startups working on fusion, but the problem is not to get a fusion reaction - that can be done easily enough - the issue is getting more energy out that what you put in. That has not been done yet.

[@c6q3a24]

I have a technology that will produce free energy for ever - if you don't count the inputs. It's called an internal combustion engine - you just have to ignore the cost of fuel.

[@axle.australian.patriot]

@@c6q3a24 Awsomes. I have a cutting edge perpetual motion energy generator with overture to sell you :P

[@Zindo.Majesty.HisMajesty]

Just think If they crack it how much our life would change.

[@TheDixiechick12]

Computer modelling, bulls..t in bulls..t out.

[@davesmith8101]

Fusion is the biggest ever waste of money imagineable.

[@reefrebels]

At least its going towards something good for mankind , alot of government spend on gaining control and power

To use the flash new word. It's all deliberate "misinformation". About fusion, about an imminent climate catastrophe, about the veracity of wind and solar to power a first world economy and about a woman not really being a woman.

[@eutectoid1]

Way too much logic happening here mate - politics and logic are mutually exclusive

[@johnlshilling1446]

ALL of these Fusion Power attempts have been exceedingly successful, no matter what the naysayers say... What this host, and those he recommends, --seem-to-- overlook is this: Electrical Energy was never the goal. Power! always was, and still is.., The Goal. Specifically, the Power that comes with Research Grant MONEY... MONEY! is Power. Each of these projects, each of these experiments, have generated more MONEY than virtually ANY other long-term endeavor. Open your eyes, "Science Communicators." You've completely missed the point, the purpose, and the nature of The System: Gathering Money/Power.

[@redsed1565]

Fuq money and save lives😮