Nuclear fusion within reach | Michel Laberge | TEDxKC

[@HENN3H]

You just gotta love this guy's enthausiasm! And the contraption he's proposing is quite possibly the most awesome machine I have ever seen.

[@retromillenium]

I agree. You're statement is not an exaggeration.

[@dadt8009]

I learned a while ago that "Everything is relative". If we get nuclear fusion to produce energy for us by the end of this century, I would still call that within reach.

[@kennethhicks2113]

How about an update?

[@soylentgreenb]

OK, here's an update. NIF was designed to achieve ignition with a factor 2 safety margin (actually it was designed and funded to validate models for simulations of nuclear weapons so that no actual nuclear tests are required to design new nukes and maintain existing nukes; but achieving ignition is an important goal for research into thermonuclear weapons, although plenty of its use is to research things like state equations for uranium and plutonium). NIF now looks like it will never reach ignition and it is publically admitted that it might never do so. Every time we have tried inertial confinement fusion, we have started out expecting ignition and it has always turned out that there are instabilities (e.g. Raleigh-Taylor instabilities), and the scaling is not as good as predicted and we're going to need an order of magnitude more laser energy to make it work. When we build that order of magnitude larger machine that we think will work, the process begins again with more stabilities and issues that make it look like we need just another factor of ten in laser energy. ITER is still progressing on schedule (very slowly) and still looks hopeless from the perspective of leading to a commercially viable fusion reactor this half of the century. There's still a large number of interesting small scale approaches to fusion where we do not know what and where the major show-stoppers are or how well they scale (e.g. focus fusion, polywell fusion, general atomics comical but possibly effective steam-punk MTF fusion machine, tri-alphas FRC machine etc.)

[@Hy-jg8ow]

What about the Stellarator?

[@andrebalsa203]

*The update is quite short: nothing new on the horizon for fusion reactors.* Commercial fusion power is nowhere to be seen, just as it has been during the last 50 years, and as expected for the coming 50 years too.

[@johannesgh90]

"[ITER] is expected to finish its construction phase in 2019 and will start commissioning the reactor that same year and initiate plasma experiments in 2020 with full deuterium-tritium fusion experiments starting in 2027." "DEMO should produce at least 2 gigawatts of fusion power on a continuous basis, and it should produce 25 times as much power as required for breakeven. DEMO's design of 2 to 4 gigawatts of thermal output will be on the scale of a modern electric power station. [...] Construction from 2031 to 2043 Operation from 2044, Electricity generation demonstration 2048"

[@soylentgreenb]

Linear extrapolation of exponential trends is risky.

[@amaraojiji]

I've hear about 'fusion soon' in my childhood book about physics. It was 30 year ago. And now my child watching KZbin about 'fusion soon'. I expect his son will watch holo-something about 'fusion soon' 30 years later...

[@harrue]

amaraojiji hopefully not

[@rashkavar]

That's like saying "Pope Alexander VI saw Leonardo DeVinci's plans for a flying machine, 400 years later, people are still failing to make them, therefore powered flying machines are impossible." Oh wait, add another decade or so to that 400 years and you've got the Wright Brothers. Just because people 30 years ago were stupidly optimistic about fusion doesn't mean progress isn't being made.

[@crhu319]

You could have said the same about electric vehicles. And you would not have been wrong, but suddenly all at once the Tesla, GM Volt, Nissan Leaf, and hybrids like Prius became popular. These things can and do just suddenly work.

[@Conenion]

@Cr Hu > but suddenly all at once the Tesla, GM Volt, Nissan Leaf, and hybrids like Prius became popular. > These things can and do just suddenly work. Here in Germany EVs account for 0.11% of all cars as of Jan 2018. Norway, massively subsidizing EVs, has already problems with too many EVs and too few charging stations. To say EVs "just suddenly work" is too early. Tesla has jet to show whether their business model is sustainable. It "works" if and _only_ if any manufacturer is able to mass produce a cheap affordable EV without making debt. Tesla's goal was to produce 20,000 cars per week by now, not just 5,000 (=260,000/year). Porsche, which is really small, sells around 230,000 per year, to give a comparison. Tesla's idea is simple: vertical integration and scaling effects. Problem is: the more batteries you produce the more costly they can get because of the rare materials they contain. It is too early to say that batteries will be significantly cheaper once mass produced. Tesla made high-stakes investments and piled up a breath-taking amount of debt. It is not clear if all of their plans work out. Not clear at all, as of now.

[@Nivola1953]

I worked more than 40 years in the microelectronics business and I fully agree on the disappointment of working so hard for such a trivial results. I’m really looking forward to see the first commercially viable fusion power plant in my lifetime, that will be the real breakthrough for humanity’s

[@dreamdiction]

They know it will ever work, there is no material which can contain and utilize the radiated heat from 100 million degrees, it's just a tax-funded scam will will not die because there are too many people making too much money from the charade.

[@AlmightySarlac]

I love this guy, he's exactly what humanity needs if it's going to see itself through the next century.

[@russhamilton3800]

He’s a charlatan.

[@eddiegaltek]

Fusion has been promised in the next 10 years for the last 40 years!

[@MrTheBassline]

I love this guy and what he says about fusion, and his accent accent ever more

[@fryncyaryorvjink2140]

Fusion will unlock our next giant leap. We'll finally have enough power for fast space travel, serious lasers, and of course the death of fossil fuels

[@eitkoml]

+Nabre Labre A lot of problems today could be solved through simple brute force provided by so much cheap energy. Still, people were saying that fusion power plants will be working in 10 years since 1960.

[@YouCallitPiracy]

+Nabre Labre I think the WAMSR has more chance of coming to fruition. I've been at JET in England on a university excursion and despite being fascinating it's just not going to be ready for 50 years or more. ITER is just a proof of concept, Lockheed Martin's creation is a joke and the continues cycle devices are too small to get net out. To give an indication of how not ready JET was they need to pump for months to achieve a vacuum good enough. The walls absorb the tritium.(fixed in ITER) And when it ran it could only run for minutes and they don't run it because the walls become radioactive. At 200k euros a day I don't thin it's really worth the investment once ITER is finished. It's a matter of scale which in a time of non centralized production being the trend I don't think I'll live to see fusion. (that says something as I'm only 20 years old)

[@eitkoml]

YouCallitPiracy What could be working much sooner is fission with liquid salt thorium reactors.

[@ColinGclicks]

+YouCallitPiracy i hear you bro but fusion will be here by 2035 in a major way. guarantee

[@Jacksllvn0]

+Nabre Labre and death rays

[@frankfromupstateny3796]

Thank God for geniuses like this man....nice video...very easy to understand. Plasma must at some level...act like a "solid" then, if hitting pistons, creates that much more heat?

[@nraarn5422]

So good to see the progress made. we are eagerly waiting for this stuff.

[@powelllucas4724]

As far back as 1963 I was reading stories about how fusion power would be available within 20 years. I'm still waiting.

[@russhamilton3800]

Not in your lifetime, not in your kids lifetime and not in their kids lifetime…unfortunately

[@petersimmons3654]

Precisely! But they keep getting funding paid by people with jobs paying taxes. This video is 7 years out of date, has this silly man had any rethink? Of course not! They promise fusion as it is 'clean' compared to fision, or would be if they could get it to produce more energy than is put in, so far at this point in Ausust 2021, this is still the situation, they get a massive bolt of power but for a tiny fraction of a second, and in return for much more power pumped in. It's all BS to keep the money flowing for their comfortably numb life.

[@juhanleemet]

still 20+ years away, from what I hear

[@russhamilton3800]

@@juhanleemet and always will be.

[@esra_erimez]

I'm a time traveler from 3 years in the future, and I can tell you that nuclear fusion is not within reach.

[@whalekid6142]

. . . damn.

[@geraldh.8047]

I’m a time traveller from another 3 years in the future and the pieces are starting to slowly come together. Lots of private investments in fusion startups, quite substantial investments actually. And ITER also progressing in a big way now.

[@VeritasPraevalebit]

I have travelled close to 8 years into the future, we are near the end of the year 2021. Not much has happened at General Fusion. They have flattened the spherical arrangement of cannons and combined this with firing delays that still will produce a spherical shock wave. Another thing that has happened is that they disabled comments on on their later videos, probably to prevent me from announcing that their concept will never work. How can a chock wave in the fluid compress the central cavity? Seems mechanically impossible to me.

[@esra_erimez]

@@VeritasPraevalebit LOL!

[@VeritasPraevalebit]

@@esra_erimez Dear Ezra, this is not a laughing matter. The destiny of humanity and our cohabitants on planet Earth depends on access to abundant sustainable non-fossil energy.

[@spacetimemalleable7718]

Entertaining & informative speaker. Good status report on Fusion. Everyone should be encouraging the development of fusion - the ULTIMATE Energy Source!

[@LikeZO]

I like how that lady is sleeping at 9:20 :P haha.

[@procraft]

Haha! Makes me think of this huge lecture by Stephen Hawking in Copenhagen. The guy to the left AND the right of me both fell asleep.

[@HalfDayHero]

hopefully they'll crack fusion so she can get some damn energy

[@martinsworld8678]

Ahh. Stephen Hawking. Rest in Pece.

[@FrogmortonHotchkiss]

@Stuart Murray: I am from an alien race with an advanced sense of humour. Here is your first (!?) upvote for that joke.

[@Kie-7077]

The question is not whether we can achieve positive energy output continuously from fusion, no doubt we can. The real question is: can we gain electricity from fusion cheaper than renewables + storage and the answer to that question is that it is highly unlikely. Fusion is so complex that it is unlikely that it will ever be cheap because of the manpower, expertise and maintenance required.

[@ocem]

The Germans are currently constructing the Wendelstein 7-X, apparently its magnetic field has been optimized by a super computer... Look it up!! The shape it has is awesome! If it works, it's even cooler to think this donut will bring us all the energy we need :D

[@kurtilein3]

+Bobby Waksy the first test was successful. so the machine is running now.

[@jonharson]

+Bobby Waksy ITER is a lot bigger than 7-X

[@kurtilein3]

jonharson But 7-X has a plasma free of electrons, so it cannot emit photons, it is invisible, and that is really cool, except that it is at 100 million degrees which is not cool. Eliminating electrons and electric current does a lot, read up on it.

[@midgekiller2151]

7-x is only a research project to show that it is possible to contain plasma in a stellarator device. ITER is much bigger because its purpose is to show that energy break-even is feasible. It will NOT feed electricity into the grid, though, either, because its also just a research reactor.

[@bernhardschmalhofer855]

Of course there are electrons in the plasma of Wendestein 7-X. If there were only positive charges the plasma would rip apart immediately. The special thing in stellarators, as compared to tokamaks, is that there is no strong current around the donut.

[@emersonbest8463]

When you realise this was posted 5 years ago. *Big oof*

[@katraconnor8451]

we made giant leaps in fusion tech since ten with viable designs being developed as we speak. we already had japan and china sustain plasma for over 100 seconds last year. 100 seconds. ITER will be the last experimental reactor to nail everythign we learned down and sum it up, after iter fusion will be commercially availiable. about 5 to 10 more years

[@Anonymous-pr3gr]

When you realized that it took a little over 30 years to make that little thing you can hold in your hands to make phone calls, text, play graphic games, browse the biggest collection of data ever accessed in the history of humanity and much more. In short, 5 years is not much time.... Big oof

[@richhitch3242]

He says right at the end of the video that he hopes "within the next 5 years" he can demonstrate that his machine works. Seeing as it was filmed in 2014, an update is due right about now as to his progress.

[@Anonymous-pr3gr]

@@richhitch3242 You can use google to find the update. No one CRACKED the puzzle per say, but they are getting closer to it. Problem with fusion is that no one cares about the progress being made if the whole thing does not work.

[@lop2167]

Look up ITER

[@iamcheese4519]

6:42 don't lie to me, i know a death star when i see one

[@scotscheideman9800]

Nuclear Fusion has been the dream answer to our energy needs for the last fifty years and probably will be for another fifty years. Too complex, too expensive. Molten Salt reactors, either burning Thorium or our current stockpile of nuclear waste will be everywhere , powering everything long before the first fusion plant ever gets built

[@frisianmouve]

It wouldn't surprise me if Greenpeace starts to demonstrate against nuclear fusion because it has the word nuclear in it

[@Ucceah]

nukular. the word is nu-ku-lar.

[@patrickeigenmann138]

I am so smart. S-M-R-T

[@jeffreyumeh8580]

Well you still do have the problem of the reactor parts becoming radioactive, although they only need to be stored for 500 years, and it's solid waste rather than liquid waste which solves a lot of problems if you can develop graphene and could coat the outside with it that would stop corrosion for a long time so then you could just bury it a couple of meters down in some concreate probably.

[@guerreiro943]

Why would reactor parts become radioactive? The end-product is helium, which is not radioactive

[@chigeh]

iirc the period was only 50 years.

[@likearockcm]

it will be usable in 10 years(1960)2015 it will be usable in 10 years.

[@Oscarandjo]

+like a rock They weren't lying in 1960, we've got working fusion plants. They just don't produce a net gain of electricity and aren't cost effective. We need to keep improving what we've already got until it reaches that point where it starts to become profitable. Once some real investment and companies jump on board it will accelerate quickly to a final product.

[@likearockcm]

+Oscarandjo ok then it will be profitable in 10 years then? tons of private and mostly government(taxpayer) money already being thrown at this .

[@edydossantos]

+gtq838 And, for some researchers, the profits were not as they planned; in a contrary, there was waste of money!

[@mathunt1130]

I love these ta\lks as they make me happy for humanity.

[@buckhorncortez]

It's now 2020 - six years later and they still haven't "cracked that nut"...and I'm still waiting for the flying car I was promised in 1965 that would be available by the 1980's. I wish them the best, but I've been hearing that fusion power is right around the corner since the 1960's.

[@throwaway692]

Gotta love it. I'd be the 1st to say we ought to be using fusion. But the date on this is 7 years ago and we're still hearing "fusion is right around the corner" and "it's within reach". I wish that were true. And no one would be better pleased than I to hear "we told you so". But I just don't think it's going to happen anytime soon.

[@TheCarloza]

Thorium sounds more promising

[@AdventureswithAixe596]

That is the first talk that gave me some real hope for fusion. All the mobile phones in the world consume 60 MWh energy by the way ;) We need a solution that the oil-cartels do not manage to suppress. As he said: ASAP

[@nohotpotbetty]

Interesting talk and great delivery. Not at all boring or dry technical

[@donaldjdz]

I've been told that people have been saying this since our parents were kids. Why is it different now?

[@greghdn]

Governments should invest massively in fusion power rather than wasting time with windmills and solar panels.

[@Smorfty]

I just watched a video from the 70s where they said fusion power was "just within reach" as well.

[@Dude3210123456]

+Smorfty The diffrence is that now we are building a fusion reactor that produces more energy than we are putting in it. Search for the ITER project.

[@kakistocracyusa]

"ITER will be the first fusion device to produce net energy" is the claim. Read the fine print.

[@BluntForceTrauma666]

The part about this that most people don't seem to grasp is that even nuclear fission within uranium inside a power plant is barely _break even_ (regarding fossil fuel usage). Most seem to conveniently forget all the energy that is consumed to make the concrete, melt the steel and other metals, form the wiring, fabricate, forge, cold roll, weld, etc., etc., and then TRANSPORT all of this to a site just to BUILD a reactor. Then the uranium must be mined, transported, extracted and enriched, formed into pellets, assembled into rods and then fuel assemblies, and again TRANSPORTED. All of these processes are _extremely_ energy intensive and the reactor hasn't even pushed a single electron onto the grid yet. My point? In order to step from the stone we are currently standing on (in terms of energy supply) to the next better one, requires consuming IMMENSE amounts of energy that is available using technology that is available during the time we are standing on the old step. What does this all mean? It means we CANNOT screw around waiting for an oil crisis, coal shortage or widespread irreversible environmental damage before we start pushing HARD for cleaner, more readily available alternatives. Fusion should be brought up in the news on a weekly basis, but sadly it is not, at this time. After all, we have all the time in the world to spare, until the day we DON'T...

[@fletcherco2003]

One of numerous good ideas, but what I'd like to see is a combination of the technologies used. Heating strictly to fusion with lasers is expensive but combine laser tech, with this magnetic pulse detonation and use particle accelerators to confine kinetic energy in the particles themselves not just excitation energy when injected & I think the cost will come down. The answer is no longer "another 20 years" instead it's soon, very soon.

[@tayro7265]

I'm not a nuclear surgeon but I have a thought. I understand the reactor problems, somewhat. Would utilizing the impact process with a containment tank modification help? It seems to me, if you can reduce the reaction force against the walls that's the game winner. So I thought how does nature handle pressure, thermal and energy waves? It's not using ring, cylinder or sphere shapes. No every time it's a vortex. Tornadoes, exploding stars, whirlpools all vortex. It not only contains the energy, it uses the energy to contain itself. In a fire twister the vortex shape amplifies the energy. In many cases to the point it can move across water. If with a combination of the shell form and magnetic fields, you form a double vortex like an hourglass. The top and bottom shaped like deeply dimpled mushroom tops. The majority of magnetic energy at the mid point to help push towards the core of the reaction. The blast is given a relief point to either end. The energy heads to the parabolic ends with the inverted cone dimples. Splits, follows the arch then turns back in to the middle flowing around the central blast in the core. Add some spin. Tornado in a bottle. Possibly a self sustaining solution? The hard part should be getting it started. And if natures any indicator, scalable. Just Thinkingoutloud

[@ES1976-3]

K

[@TheSidder1]

+Tayro Thinkingoutloud sound cool, if you look closely at 12:20 it kinda looks like an hourglass with a sphere in the middle :)

[@tayro7265]

***** That's what made me think about it. What might seem stupid could be important. To date over 90% of the inventions that have changed our lives has come from amateurs or accidents. I'm an accident that won't stop happening.

[@Charles0in0charge]

+Tayro Thinkingoutloud I don't know if a vortex would be practical in the case of fusion. The vortex is a good way to equalize high pressure states. Maybe, the application could be in the design of the reactor. There is a new design shape that had the magnets twist around the metal doughnut which would make management of the plasma more efficient.

[@Charles0in0charge]

+Tayro Thinkingoutloud I don't know if a vortex would be practical in the case of fusion. The vortex is a good way to equalize high pressure states. Maybe, the application could be in the design of the reactor. There is a new design shape that had the magnets twist around the metal doughnut which would make management of the plasma more efficient.

[@ThomasHaberkorn]

5 years ago..

[@lowbeampictures729]

Almost there for 70 years.

[@crhu319]

Like manned flight, electric vehicles, equal rights for gays... just keep working on it.

[@hermannschweizer7487]

He showed moores law as comparison. Did anyone else notice that after 2000 fusion progress didn't double every few years like the transistorcount?

[@andrewcopple7075]

I think this is the older of the two talks, but has anyone noticed some re-used lines between this talk and some of the thorium reactor talks?

[@sophiamarchildon3998]

Because they tackle the same problem?

[@jeremiahjohnson6971]

just found this... coolest channel ever

[@phillipja2010]

WOW ! Well done Mr. Laberge. Without a doubt you have cleverly engineered and built the future technology for generation of nuclear fusion power ! A nuclear fusion power reactor will give us the power of the sun in a bottle, so to speak. So, when will nuclear fusion reactor technology be available in Australia !

[@smasher123ism]

Phillip A soon we hope

[@bobcousins4810]

"nuclear fusion is coming much sooner than we think" That was never going to age well.

[@SabbaticusRex]

Looking forward to a time when we no longer fight over energy and oil but instead fight over fresh water and thoughts and feelings. I've always wondered something - the deeper you drill, the hotter it gets correct? And some places it gets hotted much quicker than others, right? So why don't we drill down, create steam to spin generators and use that for power instead of coal, oil, etc?

[@smasher123ism]

DMMcGregor Digging that deep isn’t practical

[@X02switchblades]

what if we used gunpowder or some explosive to propel the pistons?

[@ryccoh]

How does the energy density compare to a traditional reactor?

[@infini_ryu9461]

Fusion is several times denser than Fission, but that's really irrelevant. Fission is already so energy dense and plentiful there's really nothing that Fusion can do that Fission can't, and Fission power actually exists, so that helps. Tritium does not exist in nature and must be created with weapons grade Lithium only available in Russia and China, the US banned Lithium enrichment.

[@ryccoh]

@@infini_ryu9461 why did they ban lithium enrichment

[@infini_ryu9461]

@@ryccoh It requires a mercury separation process that is highly toxic. Never mind the fact the Lithium-6 is a weapons material and the reason it was enriched at all. Thermonuclear weapons use Lithium-6. The US is in the process of decreasing it's nuclear arsenal so it's not really worth it to do so.

[@davidtan8984]

How can the fusion technology be protected? I'd imagine that patents would not be the answer in this case...

[@Mattstiless]

Im sorry but isnt static electricity when electrons gather together in a very simple style of atmospheric/room temp "fusion"?

[@u1zha]

Nah, static electricity is electrons collected with increased density, but they still repel each other. The spark is electrons finding a path away from the overcrowded place, that's all... I think noone has really discovered any useful stuff happening with electrons when they are forced to run into each other. Fusion and fission is all about atomic nuclei, not the electrons.

[@filipebarbieri6367]

Hello there. I am currently graduate in Business but I plan to go for science and energy...Which graduation course should I take in order to be part of the fusion energy development, as well as other energy sources? I am 23 years old from Brazil, thanks in advance.

[@vk92007]

+Filipe Barbieri You should look at the various programs that are on the internet given by various universities here in the US or anywhere else in the world

[@Aistlander]

+Filipe Barbieri Applied physics

[@smasher123ism]

Physics or Mechanical engineering

[@retoblubber]

1:36 No, I actually didn't know that energy can be _made._ 2:37 _Fuelcost:_ he only refers to deuterium, assuming that tritium (the other fuel need) can be produced by the fusion process itself. 5:25 _Tokamak:_ means _toroidal chamber with magnetic coils,_ invented in the former USSR 8:24 _ITER:_ there are 35 rather than 10 countries participating, just sayin'...

[@Mastikator]

Tritium can be made with that spare neutron and lithium, neutron + lithium => helium + tritium. It's how they intend on doing fusion in the ITER fusion reactor. Add deuterium, tritium and lithium to the donut, the spare neutron from the tritium + deuterium fusion will collide with a lithium making more tritium.

[@retoblubber]

Mastikator yeah, that's what I actually wrote: _"...assuming that tritium (the other fuel need) can be produced by the fusion process itself."_ Which part of that sentence made you think otherwise?

[@Mastikator]

Reto Fassbind The statement seemed like it had a point to it, if it wasn't that tritium can't be created then I don't know what the point of your statement is.

[@retoblubber]

Mastikator Glad you asked. It's about the fuel cost that he claims to be 1/1000th of a cent per kWh. I pointed out that he refers to deuterium only, assuming that production of tritium will work as anticipated with little cost involved. If the production of tritium turns out to be more costly, then the 1/1000th of a cent-figure for fuel cost will change significantly. Did I make myself clear now?

[@Mastikator]

Reto Fassbind The cost of producing tritium is irrelevant, when you fuse deuterium and tritium you get a helium and a neutron. If you take that neutron and smack it into a lithium then you get a helium and a tritium. The cost is simply the value of lithium, which is trivial in comparison to the deuterium. A quick search shows that a 99.9% pure lithium metal ingot costs about 50-150$ per kg (if purchased by me, a private person).

[@sassoscrib]

how far away now?

[@orthelion9200]

I think I have actually "cracked that nut", and (hopefully) we shall know fairly soon. My design is DRAMATICALLY different from everything which has come before, because I have totally gone outside of the (crowded) box which the thermonuclear industry has tried to locked us in all of these years. I knew it could potentially be done when I was still in high school back in the 1960s, which is when I first began studying thermonuclear energy. BTW, I have also come up with a fusion engine for space which can easily take us to Mars and beyond! I was inspired by the Star Trek series to do this, which first started up in the late 1960s. A theoretical thermonuclear propulsion system for space was my HS senior year Science Fair project back in 1969. Over the years I have slowly perfected this propulsion system design. Hopefully big changes are in the works, everyone! - Rick Carter

[@egonzalez4294]

100 years later after this technology is invented. Breaking news, breaking news, scientist have discovered that the atmosphere is thinning with dangerous levels of helium thanks to the excessive conversion of hydrogen to the given gas, scientists recommend that we switch to static assets to reduce our consumption which growed exponentially since fusion thanks to the development of our quantum computer network that works at nearly absolute zero, "we don't need them in the walls, we have a quantum i1024 in every single piece of shapeshifting furniture". In other news gaben junior has confirmed hl3...

[@Arcamedi1]

I remember in high school they pushed this idea of nuclear fusion in the next ten years ect, I don’t think we can have this type of energy with out the knowledge of the fifth fundamental force, It seems that there is something unknown causing a form of signal lose making it hard to overcome the strong force. It probably be more useful to fund research into antigravity because my guess is that it is related to the fifth force once we have an understanding of that we could probably make this stuff work

[@shadowboxing1729]

I was watching a video about compress Pistons I wonder if the company stole this guy's idea. Maybe it was the same company but either way it is possible for someone to work hard just for a bigger company to steal their idea. Side note: is there a stock market for upcoming Fusion Energy?

[@2554darkangel]

It seems more practical using this method but my first thought was to use sound waves to compress the plasma instead of mechanical steam driven pistons!

[@jimmychong3884]

LENR E-Cat invention by Andrea Rossi looks like cold fusion is possible. Rossi's device has been replicated by Prof Alexander Parkhomov of Lomonosov Moscow State University and Martin Fleischmann Memorial Project (MFMP). Hope it really works and save the planet.

[@rgaleny]

Hy spectral line indicate the absorption fq to assist fusion

[@jamesdelarosa9656]

Doesn't the Sun and Stars create Fusion energy naturally? What if we tried creating fusion energy up in space as well? Would this work or not?

[@jamesdelarosa9656]

SkySynthesia Very Valid Point, thanks for clearing this.

[@wmjessemiller]

he already did this talk on the main ted talks..

[@The52brandon]

Come on man. It's absurd to compare the results of Moore's Law to that of Nuclear Fusion. Moore's Law gave us the entire infrastructure of today's society. Your Nuclear Fusion research wouldn't be remotely close to where it is without it. Our current (at least somewhat) clean energy depends on it. Your Fusion Reactors are likely to depend on it. Now. Once Fusion is achieved, which I believe it will be, and I also believe this research is absolutely worth every penny, and should have more money put into it, and has been around for the kind of time Moore's Law has, it is likely to have taken the focus from many alternatives and also be something we can't function without

[@Czeckie]

what's the followup? the video is three years old already.

[@knutholt3486]

Fusion will probably be the permanent solution for the energy need, but the clumpsy tokamak concept will never take off economically. New approaches need to be found.

[@mehuntpedbro2302]

Knut Holt yup, check out wendelstein 7x, it's been running for a year and is a stellarator

[@crhu319]

Tokamak is popular to fund because it fits so neatly into the existing fission reactor grid, and one tokomak could replace four nuclear fission plants, which is about as many as are typically ever constructed in one single location. So the grid is ready to simply replace nuclear fission with large scale tokomak deuterium fusion, and that grid takes a long time to upgrade. I agree with you completely that the smaller-scale aneutronic, "cool" or "warm" fusion using lithium or boron or He3, all need to be explored thoroughly so that we know which is the most practical long term... it would really be awful to invest too much in all technologies except the one that turns out to be easiest to deploy & maintain. "Cold fusion" also should not be ruled out there, are sonofusion & palladium cube phenomena to explain that do appear to be caused by tiny fusions in controlled sonic or rare metal cages that force the atoms together.

[@sinborn41214]

funny thing is 10% of the ITER budget would probably have given us a working molten salt reactor, ready for commercialization by now.

[@mortenstetson5143]

Now it's the year 2019 - 5 years later. And I think we haven't got any closer to the solution. I'm afraid.

[@sohitmalik9865]

Then read some....ITER is in works, multiple start ups are prepping for net positive reactors. ANd a lot more of the stuff is going on..Just have a look.

[@Anonymous-pr3gr]

Clearly you need to do some more reading then. It also took over 30 years to create that thing you hold in your hands to make phone calls and browse the internet. So just chill. 5 years is not much.

[@joshnic6639]

Now it’s 2020 and still NOTHING! All these people saying “give it some time” don’t realize they’ve been at this for over 50 years! I’d say you’ve had plenty of time!

[@randallporter1404]

@LameBrainMcCain Scientists tend to be in agreement but their prediction is still 30 more years. I might still be young enough to see it realized.

[@joeshirou]

Thorium Fission reactors and the leap to Fusion reactors will never see the light of day till a major earth changing event happens.

[@luctonindustries2295]

+Joeshirou Climate Change...That's pretty major.

[@joeshirou]

+Lucton Industries until the human race starts seeing huge effects it won't be the push that is needed

[@Shyning]

+Joeshirou Fact is that when we'll see these major changes, it means it'll be too late to reverse it. So, yeah, we're pretty much fucked if nothing happens to change this before it happens. Scientists gave governments the best reasons there were to fund the research, they still do as of today but they won't give them a penny to encourage it. Because, you know, stupid amount of energy means close to free energy, which for governments, isn't profitable at all, while oil is a freaking good way to extort money to fund more useless things.

[@guillermopacheco8547]

Commercial fusion power is not only 50 years away, but that it will always be 50 years away

[@arbeeex]

Meanwhile, no one has seriously supported molten salt reactors. The technology was proven by Oak Ridge National Lab. Nixon stopped the research in 1966. It may not be the ultimate solution but it at least should get equal research.

[@cthootie]

I realize this is very old, But CHILDESS. Any thoughts on Thorium?

[@infini_ryu9461]

It doesn't matter how common deuterium is when the other key component for deuterium-tritium reactors does not exist in nature. In order to create tritium in a self-sufficient way you need Lithium, and not just any Lithium, but Lithium-6. Lithium-6 makes up 4% of all Lithium, meaning it needs to be enriched in order to be used in these reactors. While deuterium is indeed clean and harmless in it's natural state, tritium is not--Tritium is radioactive, but worse than radiation it can replace the hydrogen in the human body which can have severe health issues. There are only two facilities in the world that enrich Lithium-6, and they are in Russia and China. It gets even worse when you realize Lithium-6 is a key component in Thermonuclear Weapons, it is a weapons material. Why does the US not have one of these facilities? Because it is in the process of dismantling it's nuclear weapons and the mercury separation required in these facilities is outlawed in the US. It is a highly toxic process. Fusion scientists and their publicists need to take more responsibility for what they're telling people. This is not as sustainable of a technology as they're making out. Nuclear Fission has recently proven to be more sustainable than ever before and is far more promising, Fusion if possible is completely redundant.

[@ColinGclicks]

nuclear fusion can potentially solve greed and extreme poverty at once. without a fear of scarcity and a confirmation of life. everything could become cheaper while everyone becomes worth more.

[@tacopacopotato6619]

+Colin Burnett Sorry to burst your bubble friend, but the same could be achieved with the technology we have now. We have the resources to feed and satisfy the world, but politics, greed, war and other things get in the way. I'm not saying fusion energy won't be a great step forward, but it certainly won't usher in a new Utopian age.

[@IbangedYaMama]

+Colin Burnett You can't solve greed and extreme poverty my friend, sorry to disappoint you. There's not enough ressources for everyone. If we all get an equal part of the world's "ressource" or "wealth" we will all going to be poor. No thanks.

[@Sh0cKwavE__]

Colin Burnett nothing can remove greed. Nothing. Removing poverty is disputed because many people in poverty are just being screwed over by governments

[@psycronizer]

prosperity and abundant free everything will easily remove greed, getting to that utopia like state is the hard part, but not impossible ! given time and enough pressure we may get it right one day.

[@empyrean196]

Colin Burnett, I agree. A nuclear fusion reactor can revolutionize our economy. Why would anyone be greedy, when their will be near limitless (clean) energy produced. Though I understand the “grabs for power” such a reactor could have on nations too. Bad politics may possibly blockade, the economical progress from the fusion power. The first country to harness fusion will be KING KONG of energy.

[@ArkDiabLord]

I cant imagine how loud your machine is gonna get.

[@bweduwabango2064]

I talk to train engineers all the time and they tell me that coal is being shipped to China and India. None of it get's used in the USA because of EPA regulations. The sad part is that it get's burned where there are zero clean coal facilities. But I'm glad He saw a rail road train from his cab..

[@powelllucas4724]

Since the early sixties I've been reading about how nuclear fusion was just around the corner. I'm glad I wasn't waking to that corner.

[@17630973]

Fusion is the technology of the future, always has been, always will be. It is always 10 years in the future. I have been hearing this for over 50 years.

[@MrLeovdmeer]

Then look for yourself instead of just "hearing" ITER is almost complete and wil start testing in 2025.

[@martin36369]

I think a combined palladium electrode fusion & muon catalyst, might be the best system

[@rustemsubashi3868]

Hot fusion is crazy. The LERN is the future, we need a new math to explain the anomaly of LERN only this.

[@JACKnJESUS]

The Wendelstein 7-X experiment looks like a winner.... almost there.

[@theantdeezy]

I’ve created a Cold Fushion Time Machine

[@eklavyaraut7408]

Ok good

[@CBC460]

I hate how some countries aren’t taking this seriously. We have to stop using fossil fuels. We have to either use renewable energy and/or nuclear power for our energy. We can’t wait anymore. We have to make the full switch now.

[@johnsmith-so5do]

Did he say "little issues" , please tell me he wasn't talking about nuclear waste! Once we actually achieve fusion , battling the oil companies will be the biggest problem!

[@isn0t42]

So did they produce helium yet?

[@bkstyle3386]

Hello everybody, Is hydrogen only fuel or any other for fusion !

[@natentreyable]

Thank You.

[@AA-ez9cn]

If all fossil fuel usage were to halt tomorrow, we would still hit our greenhouse gas limits by 2030 from animal agriculture alone. Energy production isn't the problem for climate change. Fusion will shift energy production and geopolitics, but it's not going to prevent climate change.

[@cloudlessrainvisions3264]

+Sedrin Trynin You're right, but fusion will be a big step toward a sustainable planet. Animal agriculture is also very big, but technologically speaking, easier to deal with.

[@AA-ez9cn]

Cloudless Rain That's a great point. I imagine by 2030 we'll be eating more and more in-vitro meats created in tissue-engineering bioreactors, with no farm or animal needed. Cleaner, safer, and with an exponentially lower footprint and potentially healthier, too (cholesterol-free omega-3 only chicken nuggets, anyone?). And I imagine fusion power will help make that even more feasible.

[@4EverDubin]

+Sedrin Trynin lol! That'll be amazing! A nice juicy healthy burger with vitamins and minerals designed into it.

[@IbangedYaMama]

+Sedrin Trynin Nothing is going to prevent climate change. There were climate changeS way before humans and there will be long after we're gone. But it's a great excuse to tax people.

[@edydossantos]

+Sedrin Trynin I tell that everyone: in a nearest future, people will eat food produced in tanks by micro organisms or tissue crops! I bet, in less than 30 years all of this will be possible!

[@PacoOtis]

And just how many times have we heard this? Best of luck to us but reality needs to come forth once in a while.

[@66block84]

Small, Modular, Nuclear, Reactors. Distributed all over with multiple built in fail safes.

[@tullochgorum6323]

Good luck to him. Someone needs to think outside the box, because the conventional approaches to fusion are so complex that they are still decades from producing useful energy and may never be economically viable.

[@arachnid83]

ITER will do it, ITER must do it.

[@infini_ryu9461]

Those start ups always fail and so did his. ITER is not even predicted to produce more energy than it consumes in total. There's nothing outside of the box about this, everyone has been saying it's closer than we think for half a century. He mentions the abundance of deuterium but avoids the fact that Tritium does not exist in nature and requires weapons grade Lithium only produced in Russia and China. Lithium 6 only makes up 4% of all Lithium on Earth, it's incredibly scarce. We should be focusing on what we know already works and actually is abundant--Fission.

[@Sh0cKwavE__]

Is it still in reach 3 years later?

[@samhudson8836]

No

[@Perserra]

Four and half years later, how's it coming?

[@hugoortega195]

4 years later and we are not much closer........

[@dario2rnr]

Just 30 years away....again.

[@timothywilliams8530]

6 years is there an update?

[@timothywilliams8530]

@mrmichaelmw Darn

[@Verifraudreports]

yeah bill gates is build a whole slew of molten sodium fast reactors.. runs on nuclear waste... comes online in 2026 terrra power

[@Mobunto]

If we manage to use graphene as energy source which one would you think is better fusion or graphene?

[@dijjit]

graphene is a material not an energy source...

[@Mobunto]

graphene is both a material and it is able to generate energy and store it :)

[@dijjit]

Oybek Kamolov No graphene cannot generate energy. Its a super thin layer of graphite layered up nicely. If Pencils could magically generate energy, we would not be having this conversation.

[@aranw]

I don't even ...

[@Mobunto]

dijjit pencils are graphite... do some research, scientists are even trying to bring graphene based batteries.

[@DaveWhoa]

nuclear fusion sounds like it could be awesome, but putting that aside for a moment, in 2015 i find it disappointing how we haven't fully harnessed other clean energies, particularly solar (speaking of free lunches!) granted you probably cant have a single solar station powering a whole city like you could a fusion reactor, but each building can have its own solar array

[@daniel_danet]

But solar (i think you are talking about PV panels) is not 100% clean,you also have to think about producing the panels,wich uses vehicles powered by fossil fuels(for mining and transporting the materials needed) wich emit carbon,however,you could recycle old ones and transport them without using traditional vehicles,you can either use electric cars or...a bicycle. But even if you take in account the things listed above(mining +transport),they are still pretty clean,compared to something like coal.

[@--Valek--]

pulse fusion is doable today. Using boron as a fuel. But because it doesn't require a lot of money to be thrown at it (kickbacks) it doesn't receive and public funding.

[@stevenos100]

I might be wrong but it seems to me = xz yz high magnetic coils could precess cosmic background radiation into matter

[@smasher123ism]

steven stallings You can’t make matter...

[@martin36369]

Laser fusion whilst having research value, would be almost impossible to produce usable energy for the grid, as it is all generated within micro seconds.

[@CrimeEnjoyer]

I would have loved a Q&A

[@oliverantony19]

Fusion techniques or making energy that is from a man made star has been here since more than half a century, But when you hear from new scientists those are barely in their teens like Taylor Wilson is a hope that can save mankind and that to much sooner than expected.

[@depthoffield4744]

It does not matter that they are teens if they have strong arguments and evidence.

[@Aurumk1]

I reached fusion years ago. Wait for Iter.

[@robinbinder8658]

fusion is right around the corner, the same as the last 50 years

[@veganath]

The frustration of this speech was not the wonderful insight into an alternative way to contain, start and harness the subsequent energy from the fusion reaction, but the question of the cost effectiveness. What exactly does he mean? Do we or do we not have the resources to design, build & maintain this device? The question should never be 'do we have enough money?'

[@ildanny80]

You gotta be kidding... They spent 1'600'000'000'000 USD for the war in Afghanistan and yet the science that will give a chance to the mankind to face the biggest challenges is not..."COST EFFECTIVE" ???. The question is not "do we have enough money ? " the question is "where are we going ?"

[@veganath]

Daniel ilDanny exactly my sentiment, for this science, the only relevant question of cost is do we have the 'resources' and NOT do we have enough 'money'. Harnessing virtually unlimited energy would resolve the worlds problems of scarcity, poverty, crime, corruption, environmental degradation and our greatest admission to failure 'War'

[@insidemechanics]

+veganath cost is not the main issue, it's having resources to maintain a perfect environment to sustain a plasma state in the reactor. Because we don't benefit of gravity as much as the sun, we need to be able to super heat the plasma to over 150 million degrees Celsius and we need to run a magnetic field around it to keep it in place, but this obviously brings on complications as I'm sure you know. So it's not money, it's how much research we can put into this project and how many resources we can use up before it becomes unreadable because of its incredible requirements

[@veganath]

Taylor Made if I understand you correctly u are saying, we need to ask ourselves, at what point do we throw our hands in the air and say this is mission impossible, i.e. we have over extended our intellectual & physical resources that could have made better gains & contributed more elsewhere....

[@insidemechanics]

+veganath yup!