Nuclear Fusion: The Secret to CHEAP and LIMITLESS Clean Energy?!

[@hugocass8381]

This is the sort of content which keeps me subscribed to Fully Charged. No ranting, no evangelism, just exciting science explained well.

[@Flumstead]

Not sure about exciting.

[@grahamstevenson1740]

Yeah it's dumb futurism of the very worst type.

[@derekcraig3617]

Wanna buy some of my premium swamp land?

[@John.0z]

That Helen is the science presenter says so many really good things about the whole Fully Charged team. The team has slowly become a mix of different people, with different abilities and focusses on the future, contributing to the various different subjects this feed addresses.

[@deanfielding4411]

@@Flumstead This is definitely exciting. 100,000,000 degree plasma is exciting.

[@CTCTraining1]

Does anyone else remember that quote about the old fission power being so plentiful and cheap it wouldn’t be necessary to meter it? I wish them well but still feel we should be taking advantage of that massive ready-built fusion reactor with it’s 2 billion year supply of fuel.

[@juniorballs6025]

Probably untenable over medium to longer timescales. Imagine a Carrington scale event now, with modern electronics and our reliance upon them 👍 And it's due.

[@rogerstarkey5390]

Solar is closer to "zero cost energy" than Nuclear.

[@MYOB990]

Fission is in its technological infancy. Held back by closed minded Envirowackos and politicians.

[@xxwookey]

Some politician gave that 'too cheap to meter' quote. No one scientific ever said that. It's a bit strange that it's perpetually held against nuclear power as if it was a technology failing. People have always said dumb things.

[@crynne66]

Fusion looks like it requires some expensive high precision kit. If its not reliable then it will never work

[@prit04]

This show is way better than it has any right to be as a channel on KZbin. Brilliant! Deserves a much bigger audience.

[@buckles29]

Always love Helen’s episodes. Great presenting style to cover complex subjects so clearly. Definitely a power source that is needed & can replace fission reactors that we currently have if nothing else.

[@grantandre79]

Fusion cannot replace fission. Fusion relies on tritium, a by-product of heavy water fusion reactors. If we want fusion, we will need a lot more fission, too.

[@busog97641]

Agreed!

[@grantandre79]

@Deo Volente Yes: thanks for helping to add that detail to the comments here for all to see! Truly, I am as hopeful as anyone that fusion can be realized & commercialized. However, I think most folks discussing and reporting on this fail to recognize that fusion isn't really possible or scalable with our current 3H or Li6 supply. A significant and real roadblock.

[@afz902k]

Same, more Helen plx!

[@derekcraig3617]

I got some swamp land to sell ya...

[@grantpritchard7492]

The one thing I love about Helen's videos is not the fascinating answers to complex subjects. It's the way she knows how to ask the right questions, in the right way, to get those fascinating answers that are easy to understand.

[@johnfruh]

And still Helen's questions are evaded. Just listen to the NONE answer given at the 9:15 mark. Okay, so many projects are working on the problem. So what? Tokamak Energy "believes" that they have the right approach. Again, so what? Answer the damn question already! They don't because they can't. So they skate, skate, skate.

[@grafja]

@@johnfruh You're missing her entire point. Think of it this way. Each of the start-ups (working on their idea of how fusion should be achieved) is a laboratory working at the highest level of modern scientific research with large amounts of capital behind each effort. Each of them (hopefully) has math supporting/justifying their method and the capital expense of the experiment. Because of the extreme difficulty of the scientific challenge, no one, not the public, nor the companies involved KNOW what will happen. So we all wait and let the scientific method play out. Hopefully that helps you lose some of the aggression with which you're approaching this generation-defining worldwide science experiment we are conducting as a species. I only pray to The Spaghetti Monster that we figure it out and share the winning idea equally before humanity stumbles. Every day it seems to get closer and closer.

[@johnfruh]

@@grafja Well, no, I do not think that I missed Helen's point. SHe was trying to get at the "30 years away" issue and did not get an answer. She promised us milestones in the intro. Did you see any? I didn't. The whole video consisted of a fluff piece and I expected better from Helen.

[@julianruggiero9701]

This might be my favorite video from you guys ever. I knew fusion power was the holy grail of nearly infinite, clean energy, but I had no idea what complexities were involved with actually making it viable. It's crazy to think that the inside of their reaction chamber is hotter than the sun, while simultaneously the superconductors containing the reaction must stay just above absolute zero. Hats off to those engineers for even getting this far. Thank you for this glimpse into the future. I hope I live to see the day that fusion reactors power the grid, ships, who knows what else.

[@oldbloke135]

I guarantee that you will never see the day fusion reactors power the grid, or anything else. Neither will your grandchildren, or their grandchildren. People seeking investment always say a useful fusion reactor is 30 years away because that's just about as long as people are prepared to wait for the big dream return. If they told the truth, that it is 300 or 3000 years away, they would not get a penny.

[@ZZKJ396]

"Is fusion still 30 years away?" @ 9:14 ... totally avoids the question ... so I assume it still is!

[@mortenmlbjerglund772]

Later in the video the CEO is saying it's into the 2030s.

[@grahamstevenson1740]

@@mortenmlbjerglund772 NO way ! 2130s maybe and costly as hell.

[@PuontiP]

Just commenting to help this channel. I've followed them for quite a while and even though Robert's energy is a bit over the top he's, I imagine, been the driving force that has made the channel grow. Hat's off for the team and thanks for the content up until now and all the best for the future!

[@lucidmoses]

it's good we are not stuck at 30 years away. Now we are stuck at 29 years away.

[@Smidge204]

So one thing that never seems to be asked, and I'm always curious about, is how you would actually extract the energy from the reaction. With fission, the fuel is in a bath of flowing liquid that carries heat away, but it's not at all obvious how you would extract the energy from a ball (or donut) of plasma, especially when so much effort is put into keeping the energy from escaping.

[@rapallayahuma9417]

I often wonder too but perhaps one would absorb the radiation

[@CHIEF_420]

🎓

[@skylerlehmkuhl135]

The walls of the vacuum chamber heat up, both due to radiated heat from the plasma and neutrons from the fusion events. It needs to be cooled down by water or some other coolant. The heat that goes into the coolant can then be used to run turbines to convert it into electricity.

[@grahamstevenson1740]

EXACTLY ! How indeed do you contain a plasma at tens of millions of degrees without the thing melting ! There don't seem to be any real engineers working on this, just theoretical physicists with their heads in the clouds.

[@Smidge204]

@@grahamstevenson1740 Uh... in case you weren't being sarcastic, you contain it with magnetic and/or electrostatic fields. Anyone who's been remotely in touch with fusion reactor development knows containment is one of the biggest areas of focus. To say there aren't any real engineers working on this is so absurd it HAS to be sarcasm...

[@mervynmorris613]

Looks like they've reduced it from always being thirty years away to always being twenty years away

[@bazoo513]

Even this old physicist found this captivating, and your enthusiasm contagious, Helen!

[@drunkenhobo5039]

Using the stem of a grape to demonstrate the mass lost during fusion was genius. If only Einstein had thought of that!

[@hfvhf987]

It's so insulting when "documentaries" use food analogies to explain things to adults.

[@MikeCarter]

@@hfvhf987 keep it tidy ✊

[@Digital-Dan]

He didn't, however, make it clear what the immense amount of E=mc^2 energy would result from that minuscule loss, which is kind of the point.

[@heaslyben]

I was loving the grapes, then annoyed that one still had a stem on, then delighted that the stem was part of the demo! That's what I call STEM learning!

[@t1n4444]

@@hfvhf987 Hmm, but we don't know the ages of the audience. Interesting content but perhaps presentation a tad "jokey" for some.

[@kevfquinn]

I liked the comment that all this start-up investment is creating a larger pool of engineers and scientists working on it overall; that's quite encouraging.

[@PetesRetroCollectables]

So... the message of this video is "theoretically *break even* fusion is only 20-25 years away" knock me down with that feather again...,and again., and again. Physicists pretending to be nuclear engineers have pulled this 50 year long confidence trick for an entire career's work of steady well paid complete lifetime. 👏 I applaud the audacity they have used for...ever.

[@beyondfossil]

Good video. I like how these videos get right up into the labs and equipment like the previous wind turbines and now this. The interviews with the scientists and technicians really brings this technology to a personable level. Truly hats off to these people dedicating their lives to this honorable goal. But there are some fundamental problems that should be highlighted: First, that 100-million degree Celsius fusion reaction chamber is a massively astounding temperature to reach and sustain. By comparison, the sun's core is *only* some 15-million degrees Celsius. Even if they get to net positive flow, most of the fusion energy will likely be used just to keep the fusion reaction going. Secondly, the Tokamak design goes after the *Deuterium-Tritium* (DT) fusion reaction as mentioned at 5:36. Because that fusion reaction is easiest to achieve. If it used, say, Deuterium-Deuterium (DD), then the 100-million degree Celsius reaction temperature would go even higher making it all the more harder to achieve positive energy flow. But Tritium (3H) is incredibly *rare* and costs some $30,000/gram. Thirdly, Tritium (3H) is rare so will need to be "bred" from a nuclear reaction with Lithium and there is no commercial method of doing this yet at scale. Add this to the list of major problems because Tritium will be 50% the fuel of a Tokamak's daily operations. The most famous Tokamak is the European ITER project and ITER lists on their website that it will need 300-grams of Tritium *per day* for a small 800MW reactor. By comparison, traditional commercial fission nuclear reactors are in the gigawatt range. If Tritium cannot be supplied at an economic rate then the Tokamak design is a dead end. Fourthly, Tritium (3H) is radioactive by emitting beta particles and is an ionizing radiation that can partially penetrate skin. If Tritium leaks out into the ground and into the water supply then that becomes a major environmental disaster. I don't think it would be safe for Tokamaks to installed within city limits or be installed on-site in industrial factories. Installing a power source close to the locations of power usage is optimal for both efficiency and reduced stress on the grid but that might still be off limits Tokamaks.

[@beyondfossil]

@Deo Volente Probably from the nuclear weapons industry.

[@tbird-z1r]

@Deo Volente Melt down and centrifuge old Tesla batteries.

[@beyondfossil]

@Deo Volente That would just decrease the chances of Tokamaks becoming commercial. But the world of nuclear weapons is shadowy and hard to get accurate numbers on.

[@boomie54]

Why have molten salt thorium reactors not been built? A working model was constructed way back in the 1960's and they could be built on an assembly line which is much cheaper than one-off designs. It makes no sense, which tells me there must be some hidden reason like there's not enough money to be made with it, at least for the powers that be.

[@ferkeap]

It solves too many problems, and many green NGOs come from anti-nuclear influences Many green politics are completely anti-nuclear, it's sad they choose to ignore Science.

[@markyboyclark]

Super love these episodes. Great work FC.

[@rhiantaylor3446]

With Wind and PV Solar generation getting cheaper and cheaper, I feel available funding would be better spent on storage solutions if power generation is the problem at hand.

[@terryrodbourn2793]

Well it still looks 30 years away still!

[@drewcipher896]

Achieving commercial fusion generation will be a game changer, but it's important to note that in the decades we have been researching there have been so many ancillary technologies and discoveries that help us daily in ways you don't even see. This is the new race to the moon. And humanity will and has been benefiting from the journey. Research is not a waste.

[@rogerstarkey5390]

The BIG questions are Who? When? And What are the political ramifications? . Imagine if China gets there first, (likely) Several scenarios 1) China says "here's the design, it's yours to use!" Imagine the reaction in "certain countries" as the oil based economy is decimated? Will they accept it? Will they decide to "take out" the Chinese systems to "level the playing field"? (I'm semi serious about that.....) . 2) Will China say "it's ours! Good luck catching up!" (This also crushes the (remaining) oil based economy overnight..... If solar and wind haven't already done so) . 3) China "gives" the tech to very specific countries to spread influence. "Others" may not be very happy about that? . It's going to be "interesting "

[@Milkshakman]

Would be amazing if you guys could cover CFS’ SPARC reactor at some point. I think either CFS or Tokamak Energy will be the ones to break through to commercial sale, but as was said at the end, even *if* these technologies are a technical success, they’re unlikely to be cheaper than renewables in the beginning, and will take decades to mature. Not to mention they’re a very centralized form of energy (also high capital costs) which, in an increasingly unstable climate, is not the most resilient addition to a power grid. That being said, I’m optimistic that they will play an important role in the future.

[@thinktoomuchb4028]

One last plea to use your great reporting talents to cover Exergyn’s shape memory alloy heat pump tech. Thanks again for the awesome content!

[@grahamstevenson1740]

WHAT ? Sounds like yet another 'green energy' SCAM to me.

[@markandjennyhesketh7149]

So how is the energy extracted from the plasma. I seem to remember some of the neutrons fly into a lithium blanket (lithium is going to be in short supply) and the lithium becomes irradiated and radioactive so not very clean when the reactor needs dismantling. A great idea but not clean and not easy!!!

[@lorenzoventura7701]

Will it generate steam to drive a turbine?

[@markandjennyhesketh7149]

@@lorenzoventura7701 lithium blanket gets hot and turns water into steam then off to conventional turbine system.

[@Canucklug]

The solid components exposed to the neutrons become low level waste, it is hoped to be able to reuse the material after 100 to 200 years

[@markandjennyhesketh7149]

@@Canucklug Thank you for that extra info.

[@JongJande]

@@markandjennyhesketh7149 Which is indeed a system you do not want because of the poor efficiency of the conversion cycle .... So up to a molten salt loop? Or directly generate an electron stream??

[@rogerhudson2814]

I read one of the first UK scientific articles about fusion research in 1958, I can't wait much longer!

[@dwc1964]

seems to me we've got a perfectly well-functioning fusion reactor already pumping more energy at us than we can use, just 8 light-minutes away, and we've barely begun to tap into that - nevertheless even the little bit we've started to do is already producing lots of energy at very little cost, with improvements happening all the time I mean sure, keep working on this too - as long as it doesn't detract from things that are already producing results

[@jochem1986]

Populist language without considering practical limitations. These aren't PR projects. Scientists and engineers have investigated the up- and downsides, and I listen to them.

[@Ked_gaming]

Except it doesn't work at night, is very ineficient and takes so much more space than a fusion reactor

[@stulop]

@@Ked_gaming It is always daylight somewhere. The Sahara Desert is mostly empty as are other deserted places around the world. We need to think of our energy production and distribution globally.

[@Ked_gaming]

@@stulop Countries need to make their own power, or ww3 is gonna come sooner than later. And this basically mean that you need to build enough so that the whole world can be powered by solar only where there's daylight. Never gonna happen

[@stulop]

@@Ked_gaming here in the UK we already have 7 interconnectors with Europe and Ireland. Electricity can flow both ways depending on where supply and demand is. A windy Norway can supply cheap electricity to an in demand UK. In these days of high voltage DC interconnectors there is even a project to see Moroccan solar piped to the UK. At this point if successful we will have base load renewables.

[@Dave5843-d9m]

Fusion will NEVER be low cost. It also generates ionising radiation so nuclear waste is also created. Moltex fast spectrum nuclear, burns nuclear waste is low cost. It solves the waste storage issue and generates at least 20x as much power in the process.

[@michaeldepodesta001]

I know people are just trying to be positive, but it would it would be great if someone (e.g. Helen) could ask some genuinely challenging questions. e..g. How will you get the energy out? How will get hold of enough tritium to operate the reactor sustainably? Will the magnets be affected by an intense neutron flux? Will the materials in the Tokamak last for 20 years? What happens if something goes wrong inside the intensely radioactive core of the reactor? It's important to remember that (as Helen said) fusion is irrelevant to the climate crisis. Every time I see one of these 'fusion is great' videos I just think: why not spend the money on solar panels or wind turbines and a battery - real practical solutions to living off energy from a fusion reactor that we know works!

[@MattNolanCustom]

You can't power the whole world, all of our transport needs and bring the less advantaged places around the planet up to the standards those of us commenting on youtube videos enjoy using only wind, solar and storage. It just can't do it all. You need something else in the mix. A mix is good. Diversity is security. The only carbon-free sources to complete the picture are Fission that we already have and Fusion that we hope to have later. You might get a little bit more from tidal / wave power, but that's got its own problems and still won't power the whole world in 50 years from now.

[@andymccabe6712]

Look, dude - if everyone thought like you we'd still be throwing rocks at wild animals and wearing skins.....

[@michaeldepodesta001]

@@andymccabe6712 Andy, thanks for taking the time to stop by leave a derogatory comment. I have thought about the issue of Fusion quite a lot, and there are lots of reasons why Fusion energy will simply never work as a method of energy generation. I admit, it might JUST work - but even if it did, it would likely make VERY expensive electricity: nothing about this technology looks cheap. So the question is: is it worth pursuing? You think it definitely is, I am not sure, and I would like videos on the subject to reflect the reality of the problems facing fusion, not the marketing fantasy. Best wishes. Michael

[@JW-lr1mc]

Hey Helen, you are the best as always !

[@brendanwallace4661]

The ratio of Energy out/Energy in needs to be at least 10 to be economical. This is 30 years away at least. I agree. it is worth continuing the research. However, I completely agree that our use of our fusion source billions of years in the making should be optimised. It is sitting there waiting to be tapped into: Solar (in all it's forms), Wind, Tidal, and Geo. With AI optimisation we can achieve our goals of a sustainable future. Excellent presentation.

[@mralistair737]

Why 10? it's not like they are buying it from the grid, they will be feeding it back from the reaction once it starts... you only worry about efficiency when your fuel source is the limit.. and their fuel source is basically water.

[@lhrflyguy]

Great presenting! Easy to follow and understand some of the complexities.

[@mervynmorris613]

This should've been under the heading "Almost breaking news"

[@anonymous.youtuber]

Or “broken news”

[@petecoop84]

Saw “fusion” in the title. Hoped it would be Helen presenting. And it is, and it’s awesome

[@aamir122a]

The problem is of confinement, in stars inexhaustible ( sort of free confinement energy ) gravity cause the matter to achieve fusion and then gravity also acts as confinement, in the end when the fuel runs out this inexhaustible gravity wins as the star either turns into a neutron star or a black hole. Also in stars fusion happens at a much lower temperature because of quantum tunnelling so they are much better at utilising gravitation energy. In tokamak design there is no inexhaustible gravity confinement, confinement happens due to electro-magnets which utilise energy. So the problem is that this confinement energy has to be slightly more than the fusion explosion in order to confine it, that is why all fusion reactors are energy negative. Unless something drastically changes in our understanding of physics and more importantly gravity, fusion will always be that 30 years pipe dream. Please correct me if I am wrong, however, till today I have not heard of a net positive fusion reactor.

[@grantandre79]

Excellent episode and presentation but misses the fundamental question: where do we get the tritium? Assuming fusion is ready-to-go tomorrow, we’d need to first build more heavy water fission reactors to fuel the tokamak. In short: even if we have solved the fusion problem, it’s not a clean or viable solution. Why is this not discussed? Do we have a new clean tritium source I’m not aware of?

[@Canucklug]

It is possible to set up light water reactors to produce tritium as well, and possibly to outfit a fusion reactor to breed its own using neutrons from deuterium reactions

[@maudepotvin8660]

@@Canucklug Why would you setup light water reactors to produce tritium, when the same reactor can produce power ???

[@grantandre79]

@@Canucklug agreed: that fusion breeder option seems like a viable possibility in concept… but how long until available? add another 30 years?

[@grantandre79]

@@maudepotvin8660 it would do both: produce power and tritium (basically, as a by-product)… but you’ve nailed it! if we have to build more nuclear to supply tritium for fusion then fusion is not inherently clean or infinite … frustrating! confused why the scientific community hasn’t already made this same conclusion?

[@tanalson]

Why nobody is discussing flywheel? I find that using flywheel to multiply energy makes more sense. It all depends on the design of the flywheel.

[@tsbrownie]

Don't know if fusion will happen in my lifetime, but these are the kinds of projects that the world's billionaires should be working on, rather than space tourism, stuffing the stock markets and investing in existing companies, buying up land and driving up housing prices, etc.

[@BrianBetron]

Time stamp 16:35 nothing shows up where the guy is pointing. I’m on an iPhone 13 pro max in case you need to know the platform I’m watching from.

[@Chris-ie9os]

It also needs to be affordable. It costs ~$30/MWh to convert heat into electricity and renewables are already $0/MWh it's going to have a hard time competing with renewables :/

[@Canucklug]

One of the fusion companies projects as low as $10 MWh if the physics works and the reactors are robust to the neutron irridation. They are using a direct energy conversion system twice as efficient as steam One neglected issue with renewable costs is the cost of backup generators and transmission upgrades which costs about an extra $50 MWh when you're adding more renewables past 50% of generation. Either fusion, long term energy storage or something else is needed to consistently get past 50%. Hydroelectric and nuclear grids are the only really decarbonized ones currently Also it may be that the $50 MWh cost of steam generation is for electric to heat storage to steam... for instance Thorcon is projecting $30 MWh for their molten salt thorium fission reactors

[@Chris-ie9os]

@@Canucklug That would be a neat trick considering it costs ~3x that just to turn free heat into electricity.

[@christalbert722]

YES. Exactly this. It really comes down to cost/Watt. "Limitless", "Free", yeah great, but essentially the same can be said for fission and that's never achieved a competitive cost. I fully support all this research- I believe all sorts of useful knowledge will come from it, some totally unexpected, and someday... maybe not competitive fusion, but useful? BUT- I feel like the promise of fusion is often used as FUD to stall nearer-term useful solutions. I'd like to see more renewable, more geo thermal, and I'd like to see some modular smaller scale fission, maybe even some Thorium... and not do it in the "all eggs in one immense basket" way we've done with nuclear. Dispersed, local, redundant, fault-tolerant- not massive, complex, crazy regulations, pork-barrel.

[@Greguk444]

Brilliant informative film. Thank you. Do more like this please

[@grahamstevenson1740]

It reinforces dumb uncritical belief in futurism. I despise this total BS.

[@deanfielding4411]

@@grahamstevenson1740 go back in your cave Graham.

[@deanfielding4411]

It’s great, inspiring and gets people interested and aware of the brilliance of science.

[@grahamstevenson1740]

@@deanfielding4411 Getting excited over things that aren't going to happen is stupid.

[@deanfielding4411]

@@grahamstevenson1740 Maybe it’s dreaming. But it could, and probably will happen. If we can’t dream what can we do? I think that there is nothing stupid in getting excited about things like this. I think we should all be a bit more child like in our excitement and enthusiasm for things like this rather than pretending they’re ‘stupid’ and we’re all too grown up, boring and narrow minded.

[@MrSunnyBhoy]

Great and informative video bit you didn't cover what exactly plasma is? Only one I know of is blood which obviously isn't this type of plasma so would have been good to explain what the plasma is made of.

[@logicalChimp]

They did - it was towards the end of the section with the grapes... the plasma is when the electrons are strpped from the neutron/protons, such that you have a soup consisting of both positively charged elements (neutron/protons) and negatively charged elements (electrons), that are intermingled but kept separate due to the heat.

[@sphinx2k210]

So how does it generate electricity? Is it still just using heat to generate steam that drives turbines or something different?

[@consciouscool]

I remember a tokamak in a shipping container. If I'm not mistaken, it was Lockheed. They said they cracked this like 5yrs ago, it then it quietly went away. Who else remembers this?

[@mikemellor759]

Great review of this approach to fusion but still essential to pursue energy transition technologies that are available today.

[@davidpowell8249]

No fusion reactor has achieved a Q Plasma anywhere near 1, let alone a Q Total greater than 1, meaning all of the fusion reactors are incredibly far from break even. Then there's the tritium fuel, which unless they get lithium-beryllium breeding to work, is primarily sourced from Canada's soon to be retired CANDU heavy water fission reactors and is eye-wateringly expensive. I wish more funding was being directed to advanced fission reactors, as there is plenty of possibilities to explore, and even existing reactors have a lower CO2eq g/kWh emissions than solar and about the same as wind.

[@grahamstevenson1740]

You're not alone. Fusion is nothing but a multi billion Dollar/Euro boondoggle.

[@davidpowell8249]

@Deo Volente I remembered that beryllium was used, but refreshing my memory, the beryllium is used as a neutron multiplier, to increase the tritium production rate from lithium. The contaminated water being held at Fukushima nuclear power station has tritium in it, but they can't separate it.

[@MikeHarEV]

Fascinating episode. Helen is fantastic as usual.

[@Canucklug]

I wonder with their much more modular potential size if Tokamak Energy has a shot at powering shipping

[@grahambeyer6254]

So could you build something in space and use the natural coldness of space to cool the material?

[@mralistair737]

Bit of a long way to run the extension cable though. Also space isn't cold if you are facing the sun... it's very very hot.

[@dudmanjohn]

Maybe we could place it 93,000,00 miles from Earth, oh, hang on🤔

[@john38825]

With the creation of a 17 tesla magnet 2 or 3 years ago and MITs 20 tesla magnet late last year as well as simulations increasing from raw computing power. Just these 2 things should make a positive Q a reality in a few years, hopefully within two decades he will have a test reactor with a Q value of 15 at least that is putting power in the grid. Possibly making the first fully operational commercial reactor in less than 30 years.

[@christophernoble6810]

Fine in theory but clearly immense practical problems to overcome. So, not the holy grail but then nothing is ever that easy.

[@menguardingtheirownwallets6791]

No, we are nowhere near close enough to stabilizing the flux field at high plasma densities. A much better and easier alternative for near-limitless, 'almost-clean' energy is to use thorium minerals for nuclear fission reactions, in an advanced molten-salt nuclear reactor, like the types that China is currently undergoing research on. China will be the place where advanced nuclear reactor designs come out of.

[@mikedennington8856]

What a great presenter, thankfully they did not put Robert on this video as I would not have watched. I think he should stay in the background now.

[@garethedwards2883]

A very interesting video and the numbers just blow your mind 🤔

[@johnm2879]

Yes, 50 years ago it was 10 years away and lately it has become 30 years away. I'm glad we are still working on it but waiting for fusion is like planning the Toronto Maple Leafs Stanley Cup parade route. Toronto might not even exist by the time the Leafs win the Cup.

[@DeveloperChris]

If confidence was all you needed, every fusion project in the world would work. However, nothing in this video gave me any sense of a breakthrough necessary to bring fusion power to fruition.

[@markchip1]

My eternal question about fusion, despite understanding the basics of H + H = He + a crap load of energy, is once the monumental energy/heat is created within the reactor vessel by the fusion process, how do you then either get it out or transfer it into a more useable/adaptable form to then generate electricity?? I don't expect you can simply pour in water and turn it into steam to run a turbine - and water jackets around the vessel would presumable impact the efficiency of the magnets...

[@Canucklug]

Most of the energy flies off in neutrons unaffected by the magnetic field that are absorbed into a heat sink blanket that shields the magnets. The challenge for spherical tokamaks is they have little room for shielding their central magnet column, they're definitely working on a compact neutron shield material for that

[@rachaelfleming7132]

@@Canucklugis it the carbon nano tubes from the carbon theyve been capturing and storing that surround the core plasma i

[@Canucklug]

@@rachaelfleming7132 the exhaust region around the bottom is the hottest and might use tungsten that has a 3000° melting point, possibly carbon vapor deposited diamond coated with tungsten even The rest of the walls they'd like to use carbon but it absorbs too much tritium so beryllium seems like the main choice, it's resistant to being turned radioactive and is one of the best materials for not spoiling the fuel purity of the plasma

[@rachaelfleming7132]

@@Canucklug ok thank you

[@aporiac1960]

Apart from the fact that it's not a secret, and not cheap, and doesn't exist and so can't be a solution to anything, the title of this video is 100% right.

[@nfergistink110]

This is truly a great time to be alive x

[@eastindiaV]

I hope soon, they will be able to build fusion powered aircraft, like flying saucers. It would be a good idea on how to sell the idea to the public. People won't beilive it exists without seeing it. In the 1930s, the USA used to land planes, which were new back then, in small towns and let people see them and ride in them just to sell the idea of aviation, and then they had celebrity pilots like the Lindberghs, and Emilia Eairheardt (sp). I don't think aviation would have caught on as much as a private industry otherwise. They used to race planes a lot too. My grandma always talks about seeing them in Nebraska in the 30's and 40's

[@charlesmarsh9608]

Thank you as always Helen.

[@vansf3433]

The problem here is that the amount of input energy you have to put in that equation to create nuclear fusion energy is far much larger than the output energy, which means that it is simply economically unfeasible The question here is that why human extremely limited knowledge wants to mimic natural forces to create such clean energy while the clean energy is already so available in sunlight? Sunlight will exist as long as the Sun still exists, and human beings and all ther beings and this planet itself can exist only when the Sun still exists All you have to do is to come up with an efficient way to extract it from sunight and store it for whatever purppse you have Sunlight happens to be the only source of energy which allows human space explorations within the solar system to be possible because human spaceships will never ever be able to go anywhere farther if supllies of fuels for such human-invented flying machines still have to be from the Earth, instead of being extracted direct from sunlight

[@ferkeap]

And you keep ignoring Fission or use not-experts to give an unsupported opinion. Fission is already available what fission wants to start doing. In the UK you have many opportunities. From existing reactors to new Hinkle's points double reactor to upcoming builds of Rolls Royce design.

[@paolomoscatelli]

What are the odds? 4 hours later Startalk channel posted an "explainer" about Eddington, tunneling fusion. My wave just collapsed

[@theunknownunknowns256]

More Helen please Fullycharged. And more science type clean energy episodes too. Ta.

[@bazoo513]

Up tp several years ago, what was three decades away was fusion _breakeven_ - now it is the first commercial plant.

[@ScepticMatt]

What's the progress on HTS tape? Competitor Commonwealth fusion system bought them from the Russian-Japanese company SuperOx, as far as I know know one else was anywhere close their economy of scale

[@vitornuevo]

So, still 30 years away...🤔

[@chapter4travels]

"Is Nuclear Fusion the answer to LIMITLESS Clean Energy?" Maybe if someone can ever get it to work. However, we already know how to do molten salt reactor fission and that is also limitless clean energy. Why wait?

[@GreenStarTech]

Helen is undoubtedly the best presenter on this channel; unlike Robert she doesn't get carried away by hyperbole.

[@peterthomas5792]

Two technologies that need huge investment. 1. Renewables. Success = certain, but with some environmental impact - windfarms, solar farms, tidal barriers... 2. Fusion. Success = debatable, timescale unknown, but environmental impact minimal. As was said here: "The only sure way to fail is not to try". But don't put all your funds on a horse that could go lame at any time.

[@ElectraFlarefire]

One day I hope you do a tour of ITER! :)

[@johnthomas5806]

afraid 30 years away is going to be to long for me, but I have been looking forward to fusion power for many decades....

[@michaeljohnson-li5nn]

It was just 25 years away in the 70’s. We will not see this power source in our children’s lifetime, let alone ours.

[@nickdye4589]

Fusion power was touted as the answer to all the negatives of fission power. Then as we became aware of global warming it has been seen as the answer to that as well. Fusion power is certainly preferable to the present forms of power generation but it does nothing to discourage the profligate use of power, resulting in further pollution. We need to find ways to reduce power consumption, not merely replace the generating system.

[@matthewbaynham6286]

Cool video, I hope more videos like this are in the pipeline.

[@mathscience757]

Durant ma première année universitaire en physique (1970), déjà on parlait de la fusion. Si cela ce produit, il y aura une immense impact sur nos sociétés. Ceux qui s'enrichissaient des énergies fossiles seront sérieusement affectés; même les croyances populaires et religieuses devront se réajuster. Personnellement, je pense que cela est réalisable, on verra; à suivre !

[@philoso377]

Limitless? Yes to promises and no to delivery.

[@dennissalisbury496]

Is there a Catalytic back door to fusion energy that does not require brute force energy to produce electricity?

[@levmatta]

Before viewing I understand fusion as a big hoax, let's see if I am wrong (mostly let's see if they address the fuel problems)

[@levmatta]

Yeah, a lot of propaganda. Very little reality. But everybody agrees with the conclusion. Don't we

[@SteveAkaDarktimes]

another promising approach is inertial confinement fusion by First light Fusion. What people don't get is that technology always develops slowly, unseen and underappreciated in the beginning, and only really begins to rapidly accelerate a few years before major adaptation. It wont solve our problems, it wont give us unlimited energy, it wont be magical. it will have major downsides and tradeoffs. but that doesn't mean we shouldn't try.

[@SadmanStudios]

Great episode.

[@MrKlawUK]

as ever - hopeful. but along with the ‘its always 30 years away’ is the response ‘maybe this time’. until the ‘maybe this time’ turns into ‘yes this time’ it can still be 30 years away. Fingers crossed.

[@SuperMilkfloat]

strangely the joke was actually "fusion is always fifty years away" until about five years ago then it suddenly changed to thirty.

[@dama9150]

Based on what the CEO said, (coming in 2030), maybe now we should be saying it's 10 years away...

[@sidoliveira3246]

Please excuse my memory but if I remember correctly fission has been around for a while. Fussiion is when we split an atom apart such as an uranium atom. This is done in an atomic smasher within a nuclear power plant. Fission has not been accomplished yet to the best of my knowledge. Fission is when two or more atoms are combined. I studied physics and chemistry. My major was electrical engineering technology and my minor was psychology. I hope that I didn't confuse fussiion with fission. I was at the university from 1990 to 1992. By the way this seems like some kind of test. I'm a little rusty. I can't wait to discuss super conducters.

[@doudoune1067]

wouldn't mind to have the format a bit longer for the technical topics

[@yalvar]

I never imagined there were so many different approaches when it comes to building a fusion reactor. By superficially seeing the complexity of achieving some net energy through that I still can't get my head around how they managed to raise so much money from private investors.

[@SteveAkaDarktimes]

because they are making progress.

[@SamirMishra6174]

Very good video

[@deanfielding4411]

Why do we need temperatures at 100,000,000 degrees when the surface is only 6,000 degrees and the hottest bits in the atmosphere are 15,000,000 degrees? Is it to do with the pressure? Why does it have to be so much hotter?

[@stewreviews9345]

It takes 10-20 years to stand up a standard nuclear reactor and we don't really have a convincing fusion prototype yet, so of course we aren't going to be pulling Fusion derived electricity from a wall socket in the next 30. It was telling that nobody was willing to give an estimated timescale but I suspect that most people alive to day will likely be dead by the time this is working (I'm 53 and will likely not see it), but I still feel its right to pursue - people will need carbon-free background power to supplement wind and solar etc. Meantime, let's roll out wind, solar, tidal, energy storage and limited nuclear so we can get away from coal and gas etc.

[@wadehathawaymusic]

So we're left in the end with "maybe 30 years away". Fascinating tech and these folks are obviously much more brilliant than me, but I can't help the feeling were missing something here. I wish we had someone around like R Buckminister Fuller musing on this. (Said half in jest.)

[@jonathangwynne1917]

A fusion reaction requires an astonishing amount of electrical energy to sustain. It then generates thermal energy. This thermal energy has to be converted back into electrical energy in order to sustain the reaction - PLUS there has to be a significant amount of electrical energy left over. It just doesn't seem remotely plausible that this will ever happen. I have no doubt that these people interviewed genuinely believe what they're saying. But nothing they've said changes my view that people chasing after fusion are no different than their predecessors who were chasing after perpetual motion or the philosopher's stone.

[@PMGLE-Instruction-Videos]

It seems to me that the Millimeter Wave Technology (which has spun out of fusion research ) may be the accidental 'simple' breakthrough solution to the world's energy needs. Quaise Energy are planning to use this technology to drill boreholes down to the super-hot rock near the earth's core. Helen, it would be brilliant if you could investigate.

[@tomo1168]

Yes, video with Helen :)

[@asithajayawardhana5816]

if you can use tritium I think it will be safe . cause it won't need any extra security or cover to stop radiation leakage from an unwanted situation and can be stoped easily even for a small student from a remote place through a communication line which ever available through there care takers if they are acquainted well with these mechanisms.

[@asithajayawardhana5816]

it is if domestical small size distributed .

[@Mikk392]

Remember when in 2000 everyone said fusion is 50 always years away? Now, about 20 years later it's "always" 30 years away. I wonder how...

[@Hereford1020]

What do you do with wasted fuel rods.

[@hahtos]

Answer: yes, it's called the Sun.

[@SahilGuide]

good job .

[@s3bk]

Yes, Is Nuclear Fusion the answer to LIMITLESS Clean Energy. It consumes a limitless amount of energy to research it.

[@peterweston1356]

Can someone explain why a fusion reaction that produces more energy out than put in, that is the aim I presume, why does that not contravene the laws of thermodynamics. If you need to refer me to something, that would be fine.

[@calmeilles]

Not 30. For most of my life - and I'm fast approaching my seventh decade - it's been 50 years away. Only recently has that been dropped to 30 and I fully expect it being 30 for… well, at least the next 30. It'll happen eventually and we _should_ be pumping money into it. But it's not going to be fast enough to tackle the existential climate crisis we are facing _now._ So, well done everyone, nice to have news and so on. But the planet and civilisation saving technologies will be something else.