The latest developments in fusion energy - with the UKAEA

[@TheRoyalInstitution]

If you liked this talk, check out our other lectures on fusion energy: - Could nuclear fusion energy power the future? kzbin.info/www/bejne/sIrNmoGgbqpnnpo - The need for fusion kzbin.info/www/bejne/iZC7i2CkncR1m5Y

[@ShonMardani]

How does the Hydrogen in the Sun remain separated from Helium and gradual and controlled Fusion occur? Does anyone know?

[@savage22bolt32]

Where has the desk gone? The famous desk..

[@nathanroberson]

That what they said about interphenomeners, but just look at what came to be in gravitational interstellar sensory gathering.

[@toni4729]

@@savage22bolt32 That desk keeps on vanishing and returning. Don't worry, it'll be back. There must be a hole in the floor or something.

[@savage22bolt32]

@@nathanroberson you are paying attention!

[@sixft7in]

Former US Navy nuclear reactor operator here! ~7:30 We like nice and boring, too! When a reactor gets exciting, that means something is going south.

[@vernonbrechin4207]

The use of the terms 'ignite' and 'ignition' are highly misleading in the nuclear fusion energy presentations by the advocates. As soon as the external energy sources are terminated the reaction quickly snuffs out. In the case of the mentioned experiment, at the National Ignition Facility (NIF) the fusion burn lasted only approximately 0.000,000,000,08 seconds before it snuffed itself out and blew away approximately 96% of the supplied fuel before it had a chance to react. These are the sort of details that the promoters tend to cleverly not mention.

[@sixft7in]

@@vernonbrechin4207 Was this intended to be a reply to my comment?

[@vernonbrechin4207]

@@sixft7in - It was. It was also intended to add some critical details that nuclear fusion fans tend to have no interest in investigating. Up to now huge amounts of energy have to be injected into the various controlled nuclear fusion systems to maintain them for even one second of time.

[@johncampbell9216]

@@vernonbrechin4207 Yes, highly misleading... as in, fraudulent.

[@moonasha]

@@vernonbrechin4207 what, do you expect them to press a button and magically have a working reactor? it's going to take baby steps. Fusion research barely gets any money because nobody really cares about green energy, and each of its problems has to be worked out one at a time. "ignition", a word you're misinterpreting willingly and maliciously, is one of those problems.

[@moonasha]

at the end she said 30 bil was put into fusion research by the government. The F-35 program was 1,100 billion. Imagine how much further along we'd be if we put real money into fusion, now that a lot of the necessary technology prerequisites are here

[@vernonbrechin4207]

It is likely that well over a trillion USD has been sunk into the dozens of nuclear fusion energy machines that have existed, beginning in the 1950s. Even though the NIF inertial confinement fusion (ICF) is highly unlikely to lead to a practical commercial nuclear fusion power plant the U.S. federal government has sunk approximately $11 billion into that project. That is because its primary purpose has always been a thermonuclear weapon (H-bomb) research tool. The lab management has always been masterful in obscuring that fact when presenting to the press and the general public. Many people find it hard to accept the concept that no matter how many billions are sunk into a goal it still may not result in a practical solution soon. Consider the quest for a cure for cancer as an example.

[@John_Smith__]

Fusion does not work. Everyone knows this for the last 80 years of failed research. All these project Prove Fusion will never be a viable alternative since it can not Produce energy, it Consumes energy. Even the best record of JET is a 5 seconds burst. If you increase the amount of money into the projects all you get is More wasted money with the exact same results. Waste of money.

[@richardmarkham8369]

I visited JET a long time ago and got to go into the reactor building and see a segment of the torus that had been removed for maintenance and upgrades. Amazing place. The machine itself is hard to describe as it looks like nothing else you've seen.

[@cambridgemart2075]

I also visited JET in the early 80's with our school. I recall the open areas of the torus too, plus the detail of the huge flywheel energy storage units they used to power the (non superconducting) magnets. I also remember the multiple overhead power lines supplying the facility!

[@rolf-joachimschroder917]

On inertial fusion, one thing needs to be made clear again: so far, the energy input of the entire machine is still much higher than the fusion yield, only the energy that arrives directly at the pellet to be ignited is lower than the yield! Therefore, the energy yield must be at least 15 times as high as the energy that reaches the pellet. Also, tritium must still be used in inertial fusion, which must first be bred from lithium in a nuclear reactor and is extremely expensive. Per ignition, and 1-10 per second are needed for operation, costs of 100K to 1M dollars must currently be expected. A stellarator will certainly run without tritium as fuel, possibly also without deuterium.

[@johnh6245]

It would be interesting to know what reactions will replace tritium and possible deuterium.

[@omegafile]

I already solved it.... look for remastered galaxy in a box. It's so simple and the parts already engineered.... no coils needed either... easily 1 trillion watts over unity. It's not fusion.. it's thermoacoustics and has a hole. Only 13 non moving parts... ready for a CNC machine.

[@geekswithfeet9137]

@@omegafilethat’s not a solution, that’s mental illness

[@LITTLEgiiant]

Lithium can be used to breed tritium inside the fusion core. Deuterium on earth is abundant in oceans, enough to last hundreds of millions if not billions of years. So no need for concern

[@moonasha]

she literally said that in the talk. She said the tritium could be bred from the chamber too

[@firefly618]

Yet again an amazing presentation. Thank you for making these available to all of us.

[@tjmozdzen]

The first time I heard that fusion was 50 yrs away was in 1979. Old timers said they heard the saying in the 50s. But looks like by 2029 we might get some good news - meaning it will be sooner than another 50 yrs. Then again, digging a hole 3 miles down to tap the earth's heat seems like a simpler way to boil water.

[@MikeJones-wp2mw]

I believe at the Earths core there is enough pressure and heat that we have some fission and fusion reactions taking place down there. It's on a much smaller scale than a star and a star is made out of much lighter elements. But the density of larger planet made out of metals like ours is should be able to have some sort of reaction kick off even if it takes the sublimation of minerals that contain microscopic bubbles of hydrogen or whatever gas in them down to the core. We have the additional heat input caused by the moons orbit squeezing the planet and all that heat the friction produces constantly. They claim they know what is happening deep in the core but the truth is they have very little knowledge of what exists down there because conditions are so different than they are on the surface. Even the minerals created a few miles down are constantly surprising us. I think that all the scientists that work on these fusion projects know that it is pointless as a method for creating energy but they are learning a lot about controlling magnetic fields and high energy plasma and things that have potential usages outside of that field. If we were really serious about it we could find a more efficient way to extract all the energy from oil and coal and never run out of energy. Boiling water to power steam engines with it is possibly the most archaic method possible. Our cells break down the food we eat all the way to extract energy at every point as the more complex molecules are disassembled. Why don't they find some oil eating microbe and try to replicate it's digestive process and harness it. Just like we figured out how plants leaves harness sunlight and copied it for solar panels. Now we are many generations away using exotic semiconductors, but we based that off the basic physics of what a plant accomplishes. I bet in the future we look back and realize we burned up millions of years worth of energy in this past 150 years.

[@johncampbell9216]

This entire escapade is nothing but a money laundering fraud. It's "jobs for the boys" and will go nowhere. It simply isn't possible to ignite a match and maintain its energy emission without adding fuel, and when you try that in a fusion reactor, you immediately extinguish any reactions in the chamber. It's effectively a more complex version of these silly perpetual energy experiments. 🙄

[@nexttonic6459]

Great video, thank you for the speakers.

[@iosebchikvashvili1864]

Great video But i cannot imagine how to build economical reactor on base of neutronic DT reaction. Today we only can state that if Tokamaks will be big enough, they will produce net power. No doubt. In ITER 840 m3 plasma is projected to produce 500 MW fusion powe for 3600 seconds. Then next shot. In about one year I am sure the condition of first wall and other critical components facing to plasma should be revised. If maintenance neede plasma facing components will be strongly radioactive and need remote handling. There 18 toroidal magnets weighing 310 ton each. Vacuum chamber weighs as far as i remember about 5000 ton. I quote these numbers only to show how costly maintenance will be. New creative idia is needed allowing us to go to aneutronic fusion. But ITER is projected for plasma temperature 15 keV. DHe3 reaction needs on order of magnitude higher temperature. And even bigger reactor or to invent method to run reactors at higher value of beta (ratio of plasma pressure to magnetic pressure) 20 years is unreal

[@toni4729]

Wow.... I'm old enough to remember back in the sixties when this was virtually a dream.

[@lenwhatever4187]

Still a dream, still _just_ 20 years away.

[@evilpanky]

@@lenwhatever4187 200,000 years waiting for flight. Industrial revolution in 1760s. 140 years later, we fly. 66 years later, we were on the moon. Technology’s not the issue; only the will to make it happen. I think we can achieve fusion. (We certainly would have had it by now if it received proper funding)

[@lenwhatever4187]

@@evilpanky We have "achieved fusion". That is not the problem.... Getting more out of it than we put in with some amount of control is the roadblock.... always has been.... might always be. Funding he says... it's making boat ownership look cheap already. (boat = a hole in the water one throws money into) Fusion = a hole in the universe one throws money into. The current technology being tried may just not be the right way... lasers and magnets both take too much power. Maybe some smart kid with a totally new idea will make this work one day

[@evilpanky]

@@lenwhatever4187 I reckon it can totally be done. JET achieved Q = 0.7, ITER (while not commercial or net electric) will achieve ignition (Q > 5 or so). I'm certain ARC and STEP will achieve net electric. I'm also hoping for positive results from the Inertial Confinement stuff. We've achieved amazing results with such shoestring budgets.

[@evilpanky]

@@lenwhatever4187 Also, when people say "achieve fusion", they generally mean commercially-relevant fusion. Fusion's been done in labs since the 1930's.

[@964tractorboy]

An outstanding presentation. Thank-you to all involved!

[@satkotech]

Great talk with really incredible speakers! They did an amazing job breaking down the achievements and what they are working on so even non technical people can grasp what fusion is, and why it's important for the future of humanity.

[@TheEducat0r]

Who else is feeling charged up about the latest breakthroughs in fusion energy? The UKAEA is turning science fiction into reality!

[@valuestocks8242]

why not just do thorium which is already proven and has no negatives

[@RippleEffectProductions]

Very informative indeed. Thumbs up

[@dinarwali386]

Great to know the latest work that is going on at JET, ITER and NIF. The FRC approach that Helion Energy in the US is pursuing with its 7th generation Polaris reactor is also very exciting.

[@jb76489]

No it isn’t, Helion is a joke

[@indutor]

@@jb76489 ....they have results

[@dewibermingham816]

7th generation? What happened to the previous 6 generations? How much electricity did they generate? Remember to put a minus sign in front of your answer!

[@juliane__]

Helion claims they do something never done before and forget it is 65 years of research backing them. Despite this they can't deliver on anything they claimed. Best example: commercial fusion in 2019! That is 5 years ago. Please explain the horrendoues dissonance in a way to build any trust in this componay other than they want to burn money.

[@JacquesMartini]

@@juliane__ The do it the Elon way 😂

[@jeffrooow]

I know this is all groundbreaking science. All of these will provide us with valuable information. It does seem typical that the American version of fusion is basically bigger explosions with lasers.

[@johnjakson444]

That is the mission statement of the NIF, it is to do research in understanding how fusion works in thermo nuclear weapons sometimes called hydrogen bombs. It has only recently been hijacked into a mission that will produce hyperthetical power plants. BTW, all of the energy that comes from so called hydrogen fusion bombs, only a small part is really from fusion. It is more acurate to describe them as Fission/Fusion/Fission weapons since most of the energy comes from the uranium blanket. Teller describes them as Super A bombs, fusion makes fission go much better.

[@evilpanky]

@@johnjakson444 It reminds me of Von Neumann working on the hydrogen bomb. Everyone wanted computers for the hydrogen bomb, and he wanted the hydrogen bomb for computers. Hijacking a weapons programme for the public good sounds alright to me!

[@Loroths]

The Amerucan version of everything is bigger explosions with lasers. Levity aside, yeah there are multiple ways to create the fusion. Magnetic conduction which is generally most talked about, the laser firing causing fusion in a billionth of a second is another. This industry is fascinating and exciting.

[@jb76489]

Why do you think you felt the need to say something so dumb Jeff?

[@jeffrooow]

@jb76489 Hardly dumb. Factually correct. It was funny because it is true. If you feel the need to correct me where I'm wrong please do so.​

[@AndersHaalandverby]

To all the skeptics with the "always 20 years away" argument.. Yeah, this is true, of course, we dont know how far away it is, or if its ever even possible to get a stable surplus of power from these things, but I still think we should double our efforts on this. The unbelievable (pun intended) advantages if we ever achieve it, would be worth the effort a thousand times over. And even if we never get a working reactor from it, research in this area will likely lead to unknown discoveries anyway. Everything impossible and futuristic is impossible until one day it isnt.

[@stupidas9466]

Not to say you are wrong, but it's also important to realize that just because a couple of times in the past an idea that seemed futuristic and impossible turned out to be actualized, millions of other ideas that seemed futuristic and impossible turned out to be just that. Turning over known science and the status quo is extremely rare. Newtonian physics wasn't overturned by Relativity, which wasn't overturned by Quantum physics, they built upon each other and apply equally well, depending on size and speed. Fusion, as is being looked at now, isn't such a case. To your other point that even if it doesn't ever work there may be discoveries made during the research that may be of great unknown benefit (whether in technologies or simply in knowledge) seems reasonable, but it is just as, if not more so, reasonable that if the billions of dollars being spent on fusion was instead spent elsewhere (there are only so many science dollars to go around) even more benefits would arise from that research.

[@D_0ktor]

I second this. Maybe I'm just too optimistic, but there's got to be at least some benefit to investing in fusion. Even if we don't get it working in our lifetimes.

[@firstnamelastname2669]

Maybe, but we need to remember that resources are always limited i.e. we sacrifice spending in other areas to prioritise this. We also need to face the reality that this is very unlikely to arrive in time to help meet UN zero carbon goals. Lets hope at least one of the 100 plus startup disrupts the field to falsify that assessment.

[@dewibermingham816]

Just don't use money for this research that could usefully be used to limit the effect of climate change! We must do that today! 20 years to get this tech working in the lab is too late

[@timsmith5339]

I am so 'on the fence' with this. I would always defend fundamental research, and have done many times, pointing out that without such research, we wouldn't have all the electric and electronic gadgets we have today. No-one could have foreseen this laptop when they were messing about with static electricity and wondering if it was related to lightning or chemical electricity. Fusion is a bit different though, and I think that is reflected in some of the comments here. We know what we are trying to do and understand the incredible barriers physics is putting in the way. Stars have incredible amounts of gravity doing the work, we have to provide all that with the very energy we are trying to get out. Yes, we should be researching this, we will get much more that just fusion knowledge from it, but to pin our energy hopes on it is not realistic I think. Twenty years away? I would be very surprised if we have fusion power stations in two hundred years.

[@johnh6245]

Excellent NIF lecture, but some comments: 1. The speaker talks about achieving Q=2, but this ignores the 500TW input to drive the lasers; 2. At 50.25 the diagram shows the four main parts of an IFE power plant - but where is the essential tritium breeding part??; 3. I’m told that the final laser lens will quickly be blackened by the fusion neutrons. Is this correct?

[@viperswhip]

NIF is not meant to be a commercially viable fusion power plant, it is for testing methodology. They can't really afford to put in more efficient lasers, they were built almost 15 years ago. Part of what they are researching is material that will survive the continual high-powered laser shots. Material sciences is probably the most important engineering discipline.

[@BartdeBoisblanc]

@@viperswhip Material Sciences is so unappreciated for Fission and Fusion to be achieved.

[@aceman0000099]

She did say that they would need Q=16 to make the plant self sustaining.

[@OzGoober]

We need a new mechanisim to convert heat to electricity. Progess towards this goal is still amazing. Forever 20 years away ... is closer.

[@evilpanky]

That would be amazing! We’re still making water hot! You should read up on “aneutronic fusion” and “direct energy conversion”; I think you’ll be pleased!

[@OzGoober]

@@evilpanky Thank you!

[@toddmarshall7573]

"We need a new mechanisim to convert heat to electricity.": Why? What part of a steam turbine and a generator do you not like? I'm assuming that you already know the Thorium MSR is the way to go for the heat.

[@wonderings8973]

@@toddmarshall7573 the race is on to see whether Thorium MSRs will be in commercial ops before nuclear fusion. I doubt that I'll be alive to see either happen.

[@Ademaisteri]

@@toddmarshall7573 Imagine where heat can be used up to 100% to create a magnetic field. With water you always lose a lot. Boiling water is just easy.

[@iancunningham7547]

Thank you - great talk.

[@LB-ng8ez]

best video in existence ☀️

[@ashleyobrien4937]

sure, if you have seen them all, which you have not.

[@r.b.l.5841]

Thanks for posting the vid, very informative. Lots of problems to solve, will take time, likely decades. I will continue to rely on the exsiting fusion reactor. Got some more PV solar panels to install. Will check back in every few years or so.

[@vernonbrechin4207]

The vast majority of the Earth's 8.0+ billion people have become masterful in excluding the following warnings from their consciousness. It serves as a coping mechanism. We don't have as much time as most believe we have to turn this 'Titanic' around. I urge readers to search for the following article titles. IPCC report: ‘now or never’ if world is to stave off climate disaster (TheGuardian) UN chief: World has less than 2 years to avoid 'runaway climate change' (TheHill) * This statement was made 5.5 years ago.

[@Urufu-san]

I fully understand that the scientists in this field are painting a rosy picture or leave out some details that would spark questions. If they were completely transparent, funding would drop sharply as investment these days is focused on short term success. In reality, actually producing meaningful amounts of energy via fusion is a lot closer to the year 2100 than it is to 2050. It’s a fascinating field, absolutely, but there’s A LOT of details that still have to be gotten right before we reach the big goal.

[@Vatsyayana87]

Anyone that claims they know when it will be feasible is a fool. The "20 year" scientists, the hype sellers, and you doing it here. You dont have the slightest idea when break throughs will happen in order to put the pieces together, but it seems like its coming together.

[@vernonbrechin4207]

Virtually all nuclear power advocates along with the vast majority of the Earth's 8.0+ billion other humans have become masterful in excluding the following warnings from their consciousness. I urge readers to search for the following article titles. They often do this to avoid becoming depressed. This 'Titanic' is about to hit the iceberg but we keep hoping. IPCC report: ‘now or never’ if world is to stave off climate disaster (TheGuardian) UN chief: World has less than 2 years to avoid 'runaway climate change' (TheHill) * This statement was made 5 years ago.

[@Qwerty-ff1cr]

THE LASER ONE WAS PRETTY COOL NGL!!!

[@loeffelm]

See you in 20 years

[@justingrey6008]

Fusion is like Zeno's paradox. Forever half way to completion.

[@williammatthews7735]

​@@justingrey6008 we are definitely far past halfway. The accumulated efforts of 3 generations, and every field of stem, has put us on the cusp of using this technology to power our grids. It may feel like we are halfway there because, for a few decades, we were. Then other fields of science made advances that advanced this technology as well.

[@justingrey6008]

@@williammatthews7735 familiarize yourself with Zeno's paradox

[@robertbriggs3578]

Great presentation and an encouraging perspective. It occurred to me however that wouldn't it be goodie the energy released could be converted directly to electrical energy without having to suffer the inefficiency of the heat/steam/rotational cycle. Is there any research in this direction (I'm imagining of some kind of plasma electric process analogous to the photoelectric effect) or is this too far fetched?

[@gregbailey45]

Yes, there is. It's very promising.

[@jonathanmacdonald9609]

There is one which essentially uses the magnetic field generated by the fusion as pressure against the magnetic field which contains the fusion, and generates the power using the pressure like some kind of magnetic engine. I believe Sabine Hossenfelder has a video on it specifically, though I forget its name.

[@jedi10101]

10:25 where's the chart for the sustained 1 minute operation?

[@vernonbrechin4207]

The widely announced December 5, 2022, NIF experiment left out many key details. One was that the microscopic fusion reaction lasted for only approximately 0.000,000,000,08 second. Only approximately 4% of the extremely expensive fuel reacted before the rest was blown away from the reaction center. It took around a week to set up the experiment.

[@JacquesMartini]

@@vernonbrechin4207 One shot wonder!😂

[@vernonbrechin4207]

@@JacquesMartini - Since the December 5, 2022, NIF shot they have recorded about four succeeding shots that achieved close to the so-called 'break-even' yield, and one that was almost twice the original announced value. That, in the face that they claimed they can fire the laser up to around three times a day. They rarely shoot so often. Still, the reaction last far less then a nanosecond and the input energy into the building exceeds 100 times as much energy as they measured from the fusion reactions.

[@hanswitvliet8188]

Well, it seems they secured funding for longer than one minute. Even beyond several years.

[@vernonbrechin4207]

@@hanswitvliet8188 - In the case of the NIF it has always been primarily funded as a thermonuclear weapon (H-bomb) research tool. When completed it was expected to obtain the so-called 'break-even' fusion reaction by 2012. It failed that by a factor of more than ten and took a decade of upgrades until they were able to make the Dec. 5, 2022, 'breakthrough' announcement. They didn't mention there was a weapon component aspect of the experiment. Since NIF has always been part of the U.S. nuclear weapons program it continues to receive federal funding. It's been estimated that the program has already consumed approximately $11-billion in federal revenues.

[@MoonOdelune]

I'd like presentations of the new concepts being pursued by commercial companies, like Helion. The issue of the scale of the instrument is also a serious issue in the possibilities of use, especially for remote sites. In any case, thank you RI and it would be nice to have a follow up sometime soon.

[@vernonbrechin4207]

Many private investors and fans have fallen for Helion Energy's CEO's clever sales pitches. Few have any interest in seeking out critical assessments of the glowing picture that they present. I urge readers to search for the following KZbin video title. You may be surprised regarding all the aspects of this project that most people have no clue about. The problems with Helion Energy - a response to Real Engineering

[@horridhippie9194]

18:36 that was a wonderful résumé, ty! and ty all the scientists who dont give up hope! maybe with the strategy for decrease of methane escape (if it would be done), our children and future generagions might have a chance still!

[@vernonbrechin4207]

Many people look to the younger generation to solve many of the problems that the older adults failed to find answers to. All the nuclear fusion physicists, that worked on these issues during the 1960s and 1970s, never saw the dream that they worked on get anywhere close to turning into practical results, by the time they retired. Some of them are now dead. There was a push to continue funding the JET experiment until the ITER began operation. At that time it was believed that the ITER would begin such operations by 2026. Due to more problems encountered there it is highly unlikely that ITER will produces its first fusion reaction by 2030. These issues weren't mentioned in this very recent video. The much of the fusion derived energy will need to be fed back to the plant to sustain the plasma high temperature and containment. At least you are aware that increasing methane emissions are just one of the many positive feedback mechanisms that are contributing to the warming of this planet.

[@CoffeeKatastrophe]

They dug out an entire chunk for this

[@VeritasPraevalebit]

The big problem for nuclear fusion to become the power source of the future is rarely mentioned. This is the fact that the tritium needed for the operation of a fusion reactor has to be produced by the reactor itself. It is possible to breed tritium in a fusion reactor but producing enough of it will probably turn out to be impossible. The reason for this is that each fusion reactor produces one neutron that could in principle be used to create one tritium atom. But inevitable neutron losses and losses in extracting the tritium will cause the yield to be far less than hundred procent. The only hope to make the losses up is to utilize nuclear reactions that produce more neutrons than they consume. Nobody knows if this will be a solution to the problem.

[@ashleyobrien4937]

well, no, there are other forms of fuel, both neutronic and aneutronic, each with it's own cross section issues and efficiencies and so forth, but of course i'm sure you know all that. And it's spelt "percent" not "procent"....but i'm sure you knew that too........

[@VeritasPraevalebit]

@@ashleyobrien4937 Yes, there are other possible fusion reactions but deuterium-tritium is the lowest hanging fruit. Still, you will need a rather high ladder to reach it. For other reactions I don't think that even the tallest skylift would suffice. That's right, "procent" is Swedish. I was let down by the spelling checker.

[@aceman0000099]

​@@VeritasPraevalebitattans!

[@riverbender9898]

Wonderful presentations! Thank you for the updates.

[@jrvanzijl1999]

Power from fusion was the sole source of energy for Earth for aeons before the present era. The sun, which is powered by fusion pour massive amounts of energy on Earth every day. Furthermore there are methods available to collect some of this energy for use at night.

[@vernonbrechin4207]

The natural incidence, of solar energy hitting the Earth, is stored in numerous ways including in the potential energy of water bodies sitting at two different elevations.

[@imager8763]

Excellent presenation!

[@ShonMardani]

How does the Hydrogen in the Sun remain separated from Helium and gradual and controlled Fusion occur? Does anyone know?

[@bullkathos4358]

it happens because helium is more dense than hidrgen so it ¨sinks¨ to the center of the star meanwhile hidrogen in the other inner layers can continue fusing, but it is no gradual or controlled fusion it happens very violently and widespread around the particular layer of the star and is contained thanks to the enourmus gravity that pulls to the center.

[@ShonMardani]

@@bullkathos4358 It is hard to imagine sinking Helium at 15 million degrees, how do the atoms know which way to go? Do He atoms push / sink toward the center and the H ejects out all the way to the earth at which point H atoms convert to Photons?

[@krabkit]

​@@ShonMardani the helium does not need to move in any particular direction, on average it will have an easier time moving towards the center and slightly harder time moving out which over time randomly moving makes it sink.

[@JohnDunne001]

@@krabkit nicely put. There’s a subtly to the nuclear processes happening inside the Sun which is hard to grasp intuitively at first. Appreciating how the core and the envelope of the Sun differ and over the huge scale of the inside of the sun, averages matter greatly. Fascinating topic!

[@JohnDunne001]

@@ShonMardani you’re asking good questions. Remember the Sun is huge, and a helium atom will be feeling the force of gravity over a travel distance of 100,000’s of miles so it all adds up to an eventual pull toward the center. Consider this, the photon emitting from fusing H atoms in the core takes on average, millions of years to finally be emitted as sunlight! The core is complicated!

[@walkabout16]

Gather 'round, seekers of knowledge bright, As we delve into the depths of cosmic light. At the Ri's embrace, on a February night, We journey into the realm of fusion's might. Fernanda Rimini, with expertise profound, Unveils the secrets of JET, where wonders abound. In plasma's dance, where temperatures soar, We glimpse the future, in fusion's core. Pietro Barabschi, with vision clear, Guides us through ITER, without fear. A monumental project, on a global scale, Where dreams of clean energy never fail. Tammy Ma, with passion ablaze, Reveals NIF's experiments, in cosmic maze. In the heart of fusion's fire, they strive, To unlock the secrets of energy alive. Compered by Melanie Windridge's keen insight, We journey through fusion's dazzling light. At the Ri's embrace, where minds ignite, We glimpse the future, burning bright. So let us celebrate, these pioneers bold, Who journey into the cosmic fold. In fusion's embrace, we find our way, To a future bright, in the cosmic play.

[@jedi10101]

47:14 how much energy was used to make the pellet?

[@Sekir80]

How much energy was used to power the lasers? She conveniently "forgot" to mention that one.

[@Kerbezena]

@@Sekir80 She didn't "forget" that. At 52:57, she stated that they'd need a gain of 15-16 to have a self-sustaining plant. They already increased the gain by a factor of 1000 so 7 or 8 times more is maybe achievable in the foreseeable time, but on top of that they'll have to come up with a way to reload the machine with targets for a firing rate of 10 Hz, about the rate of fire of a Maxim gun. From my layman perspective, it seems like inertial confinement has a lot more challenges to overcome to go from experimental to industrial when compared to toroidal magnetic confinement. On the one slide, they talked about bringing down the cost of a pellet down to 30 cents. A typical coal fired power plant of about 750 MW consumes about $330 in coal in 1/10 of a second. I don't think the energy that goes into making the targets is going to be the big issue here, when these things are produced at scale.

[@jedi10101]

@@Sekir80 she mentioned that & it's lower vs the output, thus ignition -more out than in. however, i suspect the energy used to make the pellet wasn't included.

[@danzvash]

2 boiled eggs and a pickled cabbage

[@vernonbrechin4207]

The lab announcement made no mention into the energy that went into creating the diamond shell fuel capsules. They did mention that hundreds of them are manufactured but only a few can meet the extreme standards needed to be used as fuel pellets. In the December 5, 2022, experiment announcement, one estimate was that the vaporized target assembly cost was greater than $100,000. The experiment resulted in about enough fusion energy to boil two liters of water. In such presentations numerous details are left out.

[@codewizard58]

Once fusion is available, how do we disipate the waste heat? Use fusion to scrub greenhouse gasses?

[@motor2of7]

It’s hard enough to develop the technology required to achieve stable fusion……but we know even less about the inner workings of the global ecosystem. Scrubbing greenhouse gasses gets into the realm of climate modification, and because we simply don’t know where to stop….some level of greenhouse gasses are required to sustain life……I for one think Mother Nature is infinitely more capable of managing the environment.

[@aceman0000099]

You mean like waste heat of the plant? Cooling towers.

[@aceman0000099]

You mean the excess heat of the earth's climate? Then yes, carbon capture and storage.

[@sarcasmo57]

I hope it works and we can live in energy abundant plenty.

[@dewibermingham816]

Don't hold your breath!

[@hanswitvliet8188]

Sure, pumping unlimited amounts of energy into Earth’s thermo equilibrium???

[@Ken00001010]

There are still many steps that have to be taken, and problems solved, to get to practical fusion power. Many talk about getting to higher Q values, but even a Q value of 1000 would not matter if the reactor costs too much to build, or keeps having to be re-built because the plasma destroys the materials. If we get to reactors that work, at all, in the next 10 years, look to many, many more years before the technology matures to be both reliable and economical against other energy sources that exist now, and are expected to become ever lower cost in the next 20 years.

[@omegafile]

I already solved it a year ago and can produce over a trillion watts.... but nobody of importance has seen it. Already engineered all the parts.. but they need to be tuned to a specific note. My device uses a hole and it's really simple... and is more advanced than the Tokamac and actually works. It's over a trillion watts and the size of ... 2 ft x 4 ft....... under 100k dollars to build too. It gains mass so it may actually slow time around it if made large enough. It also makes it's own water and uses it as fuel.. it gets cavitated from the radio frequency.

[@jeffpeachman]

@@omegafile No one of importance will see it because it's nonsense.

[@سیدسعیدساقی-ر3ه]

پیشرفت هاتون فوق العادست این مشکل انرژی حل بشه به نفع همه است

[@MikeJones-wp2mw]

It seems to me like fusion without the natural pressure created by a large gravitational field would take more energy into the reaction than it would yield. You are essentially attempting to replicate the gravity of the mass of a small star with magnetic fields and lasers and it takes such a large amount of electricity to reach this point even on a small scale that whatever reaction you make on any scale is going to give you less energy than you spend creating, controlling and containing that reaction. It's a pipe dream. It violates the laws of thermodynamics.

[@vernonbrechin4207]

In the case with the National Ignition Facility (NIF) the lab has finally begun to admit that the input energy to the lasers was more than 100 times more energy than the measured nuclear fusion output energy. It is misleading to employ an input energy parameter that comes well after the laser beams have entered the hohlraum. Additionally, the term ignition is misleading when once the fusion reaction began in the center of the compressed fuel the vast majority of the supplied fuel is blown away from the reaction center and there is no longer any significant propagation of the fusion burn possible. The December 5, 2022 shot fusion reaction occurred in a microscopic volume and lasted for only about 0.000,000,000,08 second while it took about a week to set up the experiment.

[@MikeJones-wp2mw]

@@vernonbrechin4207 Not to mention that to create those fuel pellets would require an immense amount of industry and infrastructure and use an insane amount of energy to do so. A star works because it converts the kinetic energy of the pressure applied to the core of the star by the entire body of the star into the ignition, containment and stable conditions necessary to sustain the reaction. The resulting reaction is proportional to the size of the star. Which means it's going to put out energy equivalent to how big the star is, which increases the ability to contain it at the same time. We can't scale technology up or down to at a level that makes this reaction controllable and yields usable energy because essentially what you would be attempting to do is set off hydrogen bombs inside a magnetic field and somehow manage to turn what would be an incredibly destructive force into usable energy. By this logic we should launch satellites into space by setting them on top of nukes and detonating them. It's ridiculous. Don't get me wrong, it's a cool experiment, but to think anything useful will ever come of it is laughable. I hope I'm wrong, unlimited almost free energy sounds great, but seriously speaking eventually if it worked we would start running out of water and a far more renewable power source would be geothermal because the heat generated in the core of the Earth is largely generated by the tidal forces of the moon squeezing the planet and doesn't require a fuel to be spent generating it. We just need to focus research on using lasers to do deep core drilling because that is where the technological barrier preventing us from doing that everywhere is at right now. If we could just drill down 25 miles anywhere on Earth until we hit lava and pump water down the hole and get steam out of a hole we drilled 100 feet away and stick a turbine on it would would be set with free energy forever. This isn't a pipe dream, there are countries that get all of their electricity this way. Using lasers to drill would also give us access to oil reserves we know are present but are not economical with present technology.

[@vernonbrechin4207]

@@MikeJones-wp2mw - Thank you for your analysis. I urge you to pursue an education in some of these fields. You might eventually find some errors in your current understandings, such as the gravitational field in a star is a form of kinetic energy. I do admire that you've taken a critical view of the above presentation. Most fans are so enthralled with such presentations it never occurs to them that they have been fed a bunch of BS. I urge you to consider that having access to vast new sources of energy isn't going to save us. The many new touted drilling techniques such as those using microwave and laser heating is not going to be the holy grail that saves us. Part of our problem lies with our belief that no matter how many of us populate this planet we will always find ways to power our extravagant cravings for more energy. Just because most humans think that our species is wonderful doesn't necessarily translate to mean the more of us on this planet the more wonderful the planet will become. Most humans would have plenty of energy resources if we just chose to not populate the planet by more than 100,000 million people. As it is the population is now 8.0+ billion people and still growing rapidly. Most of the growth took place in the last few hundred years compared to the ~300,000 year period since modern humans evolved. Most of the 8-billion are clueless about this exponential growth rate. The vast majority continue to assume that we have several decades left to turn this 'Titanic' around. I urge you, and other readers, to search for the following two warning articles. IPCC report: ‘now or never’ if world is to stave off climate disaster (TheGuardian) UN chief: World has less than 2 years to avoid 'runaway climate change' (TheHill) * This statement was made 5.5 years ago.

[@alexwilsonpottery3733]

I’m curious about the investment returns in the fusion acronym industry.

[@BenjineGerber]

Perhaps the IR from condensing steam could be another source of energy to feed back into the system

[@aceman0000099]

The water/steam containment would surely be reflective to IR wavelengths

[@stephenmacisaac5820]

I have a question. If gravitational confinement is needed to produce a star, why not use centrifuge technology to create gravity? Thanks.

[@vernonbrechin4207]

In order to create the kind of gravitational forces that are found in the center of the sun the centrifuge would be required to go at enormous speeds. At such speeds the materials that form the centrifuge rotor would be strained beyond their breaking point. Additionally, the fuel would still needed to be heated up to plasma temperatures that is many thousands of degrees centigrade above the highest vaporization point of all elements on Earth.

[@ismailnyeyusof3520]

Though there are sceptics aplenty, and while it’s true it is a very difficult task to create a star on our planet, the fact is that fusion energy has been created and is being scaled up. On top of it all, achieving a succesful scaled up fusion energy power plant is of vital importance to achieving a long held goal to leave our planet better than we found it. However, if it proves too elusive despite all our best efforts and expenses, then we still have our natural, gravity confined, succesful fusion plant in the sky.

[@Jacobk-g7r]

If they can get that projectile and energy food that ignites then we could have a machine use fluidlike dynamics to predict the flow and maybe use multiple explosions in an order in dynamics and instead of cancel waves, build bigger energy waves. Like when you push a swing while it’s swinging to give it more energy or slow it down. A series of explosions detonated by projectile and then using the dynamics to carry the chain reaction or something. Magnetic fields can help guide and circulate the flow maybe.

[@ClassicRiki]

From what I can make out from the (sorry) not particularly clear comment is you’re talking about rapid but small explosions which are timed to detonate just before the peak velocity is reached, thereby increasing the peak velocity. This is potentially a “thing” in terms of space travel but it’s extremely difficult to sensibly propose the use of that method A) because of course there’s an issue with which fuel to use which I believe is what you mean by ‘energy food’? B) In addition the cost of getting the fuel into space is just incredibly problematic. C) Then just think about any kind of fine controls. We can’t even guarantee there will be an exact number of food items like cocktail sausages. If we use an explosive charge to breach a door, we still say “stand back” because things are not calculated well enough and there’s many variables otherwise we could just stand next to it. Lastly…always consider the energy in vs energy out…if we’re talking about Fusion…what you seem to be suggesting is to put it simply….perhaps not relevant but wildly unnecessary and it’s unclear what you would start using explosives for.

[@ClassicRiki]

40:54 I see why you’re talking about it now. The rest of my point I think is still fair

[@Aj-kl7nl]

Wow. They have used the merger of all the visible spectral wave lengths to simulate the sun more closely. I am looking forward to the results!

[@hennermartin9260]

Wonderful!

[@davedsilva]

Looking forward to watching to see if there is serious merit, requiring a discussion on rhe quantum mechanics of fusion, referencing the low power requirements of the quantum fusion experiments.

[@ashleyobrien4937]

are you kidding ? "serious merit" ??? Do you seriously think that nations and multinationals would spend billions on a "maybe" ? is it not likely that they just MIGHT just have experts who know a bit more about it you ? or I ?...come on man....

[@liamreed8636]

@@ashleyobrien4937 people take a few lectures on quantum mechanics, or watch a few videos on fusion and suddenly think their opinions weigh more than the actual engineers and scientists working on the projects themselves.

[@shmookins]

Korea managed to have a fusion going for 48 seconds.

[@BilichaGhebremuse]

0:18 AS spaceship print is it possible to print tecomact

[@HotPinkst17]

Though these talks were focused on extremely valuable experiments it always disturbs me when researchers never discuss the most intractable problems of fusion energy research, nuclear transmutations from neutron radiation destroying the reactor itself before enough energy was harvested to justify building it and what will be done with the spent reactors that have become high grade radioactive waste due to neutron radiation induced nuclear transmutations. It is often noted that the worst of the radiation is very short lived, which is true, but some of it remains dangerous for over a hundred thousand years. Expecting humans to keep radioactive waste out of circulation in the biosphere for such a time is ridiculous and far beyond what we can have any confidence in doing, not to mention the costs of securing nuclear waste from bad actors. There are so many reliable sources of energy that produce no waste, let alone long lived radioactive waste, geothermal and molten salt solar platforms for instance, that the extreme costs and risks of making a star down here on Earth only makes sense from a research perspective and not for a for profit electrical power reason.

[@vernonbrechin4207]

You are correct that most nuclear fusion sales pitchers tend to avoid any mention of the problem of neutron activation that will convert some of the elements, that surround the fusing plasma, into radioactive isotopes. In these transmutations though the produced radionuclides tend to have relatively short half-lives. That still means that some of the reactor components, that require replacement, may present a radioactive hazard for more than one-hundred years.

[@hanswitvliet8188]

Great talks. They all make huge steps. But as with many of those projects, they deliberately only shine light on possible positive outcomes. Sure, when fusing hydrogen, you got no waste products, but the required conditions can not be met. So, they moved to deuterium and tritium, and regrettably those do produce waste…. It’s good to hear that they refer constantly to the sun as a great example. But even at 8 light minutes away, we have to deal with harmful radiation from the sun (no, not the bursts) And when they finally do have plasma/ignition, they revert to ancient technology like steam turbines for generating electricity (with huge losses) I do love engineering and marvel at their progress, but it seems some stared into the sun too long.

[@vernonbrechin4207]

Many such presenters are blinded by their love affair with the technology and the massive machines that they play with. The tritium is a problem in itself because of its natural radioactivity and not all of it participates in the fusion reaction. In the reported NIF experiment approximately 96% of the supplied fuel was blasted away from the microscopic reaction center before it could react. The term ignition is used deceptively in nuclear fusion energy presentations. It is not like the fuel on a match head that once the reaction is started at a single point the reaction then spreads to consume the rest of the fuel. Typically, there is little propagation of the reaction energy in even the experiments that employ nuclear fusion fuels. Typically, the reaction rate is highly proportional to the amount of energy needed to maintain the plasma in a state where significant fusion reactions can take place.

[@김승주-j2e4j]

좋은 영상이네요

[@Erik-rp1hi]

Not sure if there is anything out there for the public but how does the NIF work for the study of the nuclear weapon stockpile research? I'd watch a 90 minute video on the subject intensely.

[@holretz1]

I am astounded by the level of ignorance in these comments here. Fusion is the most technologically challenging project in the history of mankind. So how can anyone wonder that it takes a lot of time ? - and the progress is undeniable. Fusion is now done routinely everyday. So people here in the comments talking about it beeing 20 years in the future are either ignorant, stupid or both. Fusion is NOT science anymore it is engineering. It's pretty obvious for anyone with just a small bit of sound reason that ITER will be a huge succes despite smaller setbacks. It's a very good idea that they build it large, so it can convincingly demonstrate the feasability of fusion power.

[@ajctrading]

Correction, The illusion of Fusion. As the old joke goes- and has been said for the last 70 years- fusion is still 30 years away.

[@ShonMardani]

Google say: Ionization is the process by which ions are formed by gain or loss of an electron from an atom or molecule. How do you remove the only electron Hydrogen atom has? If you do atom collapses in to the size of a proton.

[@cryptonitor9855]

If the plasma disruptions are so forceful.... Count on those disruptions and feed back from there?

[@whoguy4231]

I use fusion energy everyday as I'm offgrid. The Sun is the perfect fusion reactor and is free everyday. If all the monies spent on fusion had been spent on space based solar, we would have unlimited energy today.

[@antonylawrence7266]

Still not sure how they would siphon off the energy from a plasma ring to a steam turbine ?

[@evilpanky]

The plasma produces neutrons that carry away 80% of the energy of the fusion reaction. These hit and heat the coolant, making it hot. This coolant then goes out to power the turbine! Most of the remaining 20% of the reaction power stays in the plasma as charged particles, helping to keep it hot enough to keep the fusion reactions going!

[@entropiceffect]

Water is a fantastic neutron absorber. (one of the reasons its used in nuclear reactors)

[@MarkYoung-l8f]

Yes lets all try and create Fusion when we have already created it. If you have a large Deep Cubic pool of water with expansion tubes equally on four sides, which expand into an outer pool, you can create an absorption pool. say 100m x 100m. The inner pool is enclosed and confined. You can set of very small 99.9% efficient Fusion Explosions to heat the pool to 150'c. That turns the Turbines and the hot water returns to the pool. Rinse and repeat. That system retains max amount of heat energy and increases efficiency.

[@vernonbrechin4207]

This commenter clearly has no clue that the most efficient nuclear fusion energy experimental record holders have achieved less than a 0.01% efficiency, of input vs. output energy when averaged over a 24 hour period of time. The December 5, 2022, NIF shot required over 100 times as much energy to pump the lasers then the energy that was deposited in the 'hot spot' to begin some fusion reactions before most of the fuel was blasted away from the reaction center. The fusion reaction lasted only about 0.000,000,000,08 second and released about enough energy to evaporate about two liters of water.

[@MarkYoung-l8f]

@@vernonbrechin4207 So the Lead Scientist is Lying about the Results of the Experimental Tokomak that achieved Stable Fusion ? The Nuclear bombs dropped in Japan were 5% Efficient. Modern Nuclear Bombs can be >50% Efficient. Using Deuterium and Tritium Fuses They can be 99.9% efficient as Hydrogen Bombs.

[@tim40gabby25]

Should AGI appear, and this task could be delegated to it, then our primary task should be to make AGI safe before it exists?

[@mikemauck2192]

Doesn't the reaction need to be substantively exothermic for this to work? Maybe the extra energy is added by hot air?

[@alvarorodriguez1592]

Representativos of a stellarators should have been present. I am curious to see what the NIF representative says, but their research is not about fusion for peace, but thermonuclear bombs.

[@UMBERRRTO1]

Italian women seem to be spearheading all of humanity's science these days. Take notice!

[@jeremytaylor3532]

If they combine all the current fusion efforts, Imagine A tokomak donut magnet with two rail guns firing deuterium foam frozen pellets into the center of the donut from each side ( the donut on edge). With six lasers at each side, on 45 degree angles, aimed at the center. All controlled by AI. The guns pulse foam pellets, into the center at regular times. The magnetic donut holds them in place, while the lasers add extra heat, and keep the fuel in the center, by AI control. The heat can be removed by liquid lithium, and direct electrical power

[@vernonbrechin4207]

Haha. There are no shortage of dreamers. They are bound to solve all the world's problems.

[@flotsamike]

Why do fusion proponents keep saying it won't have radioactive waste? Operational activation products aside, how do you make 15 kg of tritium a year without losing any?

[@vernonbrechin4207]

Most of the fusion proponents know that this physics field is well beyond the comprehension of most news reporters and members of the general public. Almost all who work in the field have become masterful in excluding significant problems that they are still facing. There is far more completion in the field now for these experimental machines costing in the tens-of-millions of dollars. Many private operations are trying to attract venture capital investors. Many of those investors don't bother to search for critical reviewers. Typically the sales pitches fail to mention that the tritium is very rare at the beginning and is radioactive. Of course their will be tritium leaks. The processing is complex to purify it. The fusion energy neutrons will bathe the reactor structure, including the supperconducting coils that are likely to require cooling to near zero kelvin to prevent the magnets from quenching. The thermalized neutrons will also result in transmutations of some of the elements in the structure, often resulting in those elements becoming radioactive. Pulled structural parts and the final disposal of the reactor will likely require disposal at a radioactive waste repository. Those who pitch these projects believe it is best to not cover such issues when trying to get public support.

[@emmettobrian1874]

If you listen carefully, they say no "long lasting" nuclear waste. They actually don't say no nuclear waste. The difference is that any radioactive wastes either decay quickly or at most last a few hundred years. We can maintain nuclear waste containers that easily last that long. Don't forget that burning coal puts radioactive materials into the atmosphere. Your own body is very slightly radioactive. Point being, the amount of material that lasts for any significant amount of time is not a big deal.

[@vernonbrechin4207]

@@emmettobrian1874 - You are correct about that. These pitches are not aimed towards people who have the technical background to know the differences between high level radioactive waste and other types of arcane radioactive waste categories. They are aimed at people who make assumptions about claims about "a clean source of energy." Nuclear fusion energy promoters also often state that the fuel is as common as the hydrogen in the oceans so it is virtually limitless. They do that without clearly stating that a key fuel is the extremely rare isotope of hydrogen, tritium. It has long been the practice of nuclear energy proponents to mislead others in order to promote their beloved technologies. Such people often assume that all those who are opposed must be naive. I worked in the field and I have been trained in radioactivity safety and the field of health physics. You believe that there is no problem in overseeing waste containing things such as Cesium-137 and Strontium-90. Such waste materials will require containment for at least 300 years. Virtually all nuclear power promoters, like the vast majority of the Earth's 8.0+ billion humans, have become masterful in excluding the following warnings from their consciousness. Most are certain that some technological miracles will save us. I urge readers to search for the following two article titles. IPCC report: ‘now or never’ if world is to stave off climate disaster (TheGuardian) UN chief: World has less than 2 years to avoid 'runaway climate change' (TheHill) * This statement was made 5.5 years ago.

[@NoferTrunions]

Very interesting. I'd like to know if the presenters would prefer the traditional podium instead of the "Ted Talk" format.

[@dimuthrubesinghe7319]

All we're very nervous, i hope it's gonna materialize soon

[@vernonbrechin4207]

The nuclear power promoters have learned to capitalize upon the general fear that we have little time left to turn this 'Titanic' around. They do this often to promote their favored technology. They, along with the vast majority of the Earth's 8.0+ billion people, continue to assume that we have 20-30 years left to find a magical technological fix. They have become masterful in excluding the following warnings from their consciousness. I urge readers to search for the following article titles. IPCC report: ‘now or never’ if world is to stave off climate disaster (TheGuardian) UN chief: World has less than 2 years to avoid 'runaway climate change' (TheHill) * This statement was made 5 years ago.

[@ferrellms]

I'll believe it when I see it.

[@marsspacex6065]

A fusion reactor i think will always be out competed by indirect fusion (solar power) but where fusion will really shine is as a mobile source of power that works anywhere without connecting to the grid and will be invaluable in space as both surface power on other planets and in fusion rockets and spacecraft powered by fusion for interstellar travel.

[@ashleyobrien4937]

"indirect fusion" (solar power) lol oh boy that's a good one ! haha! that's like saying Trepanning is just like a paracetamol tablet....

[@marsspacex6065]

@@ashleyobrien4937 the sun is a fusion reactor and we just capture that energy. Fossil fuels are even more indirect or stored fusion as organism gained energy from the sun long ago and became fossil fuels.

[@johnhopkins6260]

Fission reactor powering a Fusion Reactor? (that is the fundamental function of thermonuclear weapons; fission reaction triggering a fusion reaction, typically via hydrogen) Likewise, how many Watts (or Joules) of energy to maintain a fusion reaction?

[@vernonbrechin4207]

The National Ignition Facility (NIF) has always been primarily funded as a thermonuclear (H-bomb) research tool. The announced December 5, 2022 shot was part of that program but the management has always been masterful in obscuring that primary function when presenting to the press and the general public. They finally revealed that it required more than 100 times the measured fusion energy to power the laser. There citation of fusion input energy is a parameter that occurs after a great amount of energy is already expended to produce that 'input' energy. That fusion reaction took place in a microscopic volume and lasted for approximately 0.000,000,000,08 second before blowing approximately 96% of the supplied expensive fuel away from the reaction center. it took approximately a week to set that experiment up.

[@michaelmueller9635]

In thirty years ...©since 1950

[@Norfolk-in-chance1]

Cold Fusion and Zero point energy is the future.

[@vernonbrechin4207]

Both these things have been looked at for many decades and found to be lacking in credibility and repeatability dozens of times. The fans of it dismiss all criticisms of it as part of a globalist conspiracy campaign.

[@xeoncat]

NIF looks like science fiction

[@Longknose7360]

I Must find out how to fuse my different personalities to be more energetic and useful to society in general. Quench my turbulences

[@robjpatterson]

Great talks. Always interesting. Fusion energy can be low carbon but is not inherently sustainable because the fuel will run out relatively quickly. Also the product helium does not cycle back to fuel, deuterium and tritium, so not sustainable. Really nice science though.

[@alvarorodriguez1592]

Relatively quickly? Thousands to millions of years is not good enough for you?

[@dr.zoidberg8666]

Fusion is infinitely sustainable for a spacefaring civilization -- the two technologies are complementary. Perhaps they will mature alongside eachother.

[@stephenarmiger8343]

We know something about civilization generally and city size specifically. All this before the internet. Some of our fellow humans probably can speak to the number of humans needed to sustain a scientific community. Do any of us know the minimal number of humans required to advance as a species and to allow for natural ecosystems? Do we actually need to travel off planet earth so as not to destroy her? Big questions!

[@torussaga3428]

Intriguing

[@BilichaGhebremuse]

Could we print the whole plant by using mining and prduction robots and AI...thanks great explanation

[@Lazarus-z6v]

How did u ask u guys can use this body?

[@sceptic33]

all this trouble to generate heat that can be turned into electricity. people should be using the "waste" heat generated by data centres to generate electricity. simple heat pump and stirling engine combo would do the trick. on the subject of fusion, i find the LPP dense plasma focus system much more interesting than these options, shame it wasn't covered in the talk. same is true of the first light projectile system.

[@tonic.1871]

If it did not have a decent chance there would hardly be poured bill of $of private equity in to start ups

[@dougg1075]

Wouldn’t it be crazy if aliens tell us “ you are so close, the only thing you need now is peanut butter “

[@KevinDC5]

As someone whos worked in oil&gas for twenty years, I cannot help but hold many reservations for fusions future; and not even for its current theoretical/technological voids , but when our governments and economies seem to be proactively against fission! Nuclear has been available and now, old plants are only getting older, Germany is just deleting nuclear wattage, no new permits in the states etc... (Im speaking to the falsehood of man caused climate change. And dont argue Chernobyl, that plant was a piece of sh*t even by 1970's soviet era Russia standards!) True, Usage and Demand is one thing, but when I hear the man made climate change rhetoric used to garner investment into theoretical unproven tech, it makes me wonder why these type questions aren't front and center!....spoiler, usually its because there's a lot of money and politics behind the scenes feeding the rhetoric and steering the narrative. Seriously, (when developed)which government is just going to "allow" fusion reactors? Sure At macro, but what of micro scale? It feels like the old dystopian promises of cheap abundant nuclear for all, all over again! J/s, I hope fusion development enhances the quality of life for Earth and its peoples, rather than being monopolized/rationed by governments the way of nuclear! ~ Cheers from Texas!

[@crhu319]

You know what they dont say? Floating wind and floating wave and on-building solar as cheap as dirt, and thermocoupling breakthroughs making ground heat easy to turn to electricity, and new materials making everything lighter. None of which requires a costly brittle radioactive neutron scattering sheath. The thing that made fission uneconomic. Nor about harvesting static potebtial or lightning from the air.

[@johnh6245]

One can hardly fail to be impressed by the ITER project but the word on the ground is that a reactor this size will be completely uneconomical - this is shown by the move, eg by Tokamak Energy and the UKAEA, to small spherical reactors. This will leave ITER as the biggest white elephant in scientific history. Even the hyped factor of 10 value for Q is argued by some to be about 1.

[@LITTLEgiiant]

"argued by some to be about 1" who are these people?

[@stephenarmiger8343]

Some humans, however many, are concerned about our fellow creatures. Not so much domesticated animals. Cows, pigs, cats, dogs. But wolves, bison. Untamed animals. Some envision fewer humans utilizing less space. More grasslands, forests. Hopefully teeming with untamed animals. I dream that we can achieve fusion energy and bio diverse landscapes. Sufficiently large enough for migration. Even as I write, I know that I do not have long as the entity that I am. Soon the chemicals from which I consist, will decouple and become something else. Perhaps living. Perhaps not.

[@jamesmorton7881]

End of Oil. LOL. Not renewable, ever!! OK. Thorium SMRs. NOW. . . . . Not after we are dead. ❤❤

[@stevencurrie8171]

Boiling water to make steam,60 years,30 bil per year, no idea when it will be done, how hot planet by then

[@sarcasmo57]

Man. Good luck with all this. And hurry up.

[@AhmadEjaz]

Great presentation but latest in fusion as a topic should cover new approaches and recent improvements made to in relevant technologies and not just cover the achievements of well known public institutions

[@mrp8811]

isotope fissures should be discussed

[@toddmarshall7573]

What makes her choose to pursue fusion over Thorium Molten Salt Reactor? Is a MSR too simple and cheap?

[@vernonbrechin4207]

About three decades ago a pair of engineers in the U.S. started to pitch for Thorium MSRs using a variety of social media platforms. They were trying to get the government to invest in their plan. Very little has happened since then despite tens-of-thousand fans now pitching for those dreams. Typically, such fans have no interest in looking critically at such efforts that have become love affairs for them. All nuclear promoters tend to assume that such technologies are the holy grail that will save us. They continue to assume that we have 20-30 years left to turn this 'Titanic' around. They, like the vast majority of Earth's 8.0+ billion humans, have become masterful in excluding the following warnings from their consciousness. I urge readers to search for the following article titles. IPCC report: ‘now or never’ if world is to stave off climate disaster (TheGuardian) UN chief: World has less than 2 years to avoid 'runaway climate change' (TheHill) * This statement was made 5 years ago.

[@nettlesoup]

The AI generated subtitles are very poor, doesn't anyone check these things any more? I'm seeing about one misinterpreted word every 30 seconds.

[@cryptonitor9855]

Growth factors are the main variable adding to declining lifeworks of humans.

[@peterwhite8424]

Can fusion be profitable without gravity

[@bmobert]

When you're a jet, you're a jet all the way; from your first cigarette to your last dying day!

[@WWeronko]

We need fusion energy. Progress is being made. However, describing the progress as glacial gives glaciers a bad name. I would be surprised if my grand children's children see a practical commercial power plant. The more I read about fusion energy and watch these sort of videos I get the feeling it is more of a jobs program for physicists than it is a urgent developmental initiative.

[@vernonbrechin4207]

It has become common, for those involved in the over a dozen nuclear fusion energy projects, to over-hype their particular machines, often to attract venture capital funding. Typically they fail to mention the numerous problems that they have encountered since the research began in the 1950s. In the case of the National Ignition Facility (NIF) almost all the funding has always come from the U.S. nuclear weapons program because its primary purpose has always been as a thermonuclear weapon (H-bomb) research tool. The administrators have become masterful in obscuring that fact whenever they present to the press and to the general public.

[@WestyHighlander]

Actually the rate of progress in approaching Q=1 has been faster than the progress in semiconductors [aka Moore's Law] We are getting close except: 1) powering the magnets with Tokamaks and Stellarators [like JET, DIII] so far not included -- need working Hight TC Superconductors 2: NIF's Ignition claims ignore the "astronomical" amounts of energy going into the power amplifier stage lasers -- at least 200X the fusion energy that they claim was released

[@WWeronko]

@@WestyHighlander That sort is the point.

[@vernonbrechin4207]

@@WestyHighlander - The promoters often state the gain as Q but they rarely mention that is Qfusion, not Qtotal. The difference can be a factor of 100, or even greater. That is misleading when presented to the vast majority of the public that has no understanding of the technology. It is similar to the original claims that the fuel was as common as the hydrogen in seawater. The graph of the Q gain over time shouldn't be compared to Moore's Law. The Moore's Law was about an entirely different technology that was generating huge numbers of commercially practical products during the time-line. The 60+ year quest for nuclear fusion power generation remains in early experimental stages with most projects not even employing fusion fuels. Perhaps you have a problem facing that reality like most lovers of this technology do. The pitches for High Temperature Superconductor magnets suggest that they will solve almost all existing remaining problems, including plasma instabilities. The pitchers often leave out the fact that the current HT superconductor magnets need to be maintained at around liquid nitrogen temperatures. The NIF staff presentations tend to be misleading on numerous fronts. Though the laser pumping required over 100 times the energy than was generated by the ~0.000,000,000,08 second fusion reaction the experiment took about a week to set up so that totally input energy should have been stated as the energy consumed by the building during the set-up week. The management of that lab has alway been masterful in obscuring the primary purpose of the lab which is as a thermonuclear weapon (H-bomb) research tool. It has been that way since the initial planning stages. That is why it continues to be funded despite its early failures to even get close to its original goal. It's been estimated that over $11 billion USD in federal revenues have already been dumped into that project. The term 'ignition' is also highly deceptive. There was very little propagation of the fusion reaction during the announced experiment and approximately 96% of the supplied expensive fuel was blasted away from the microscopic reaction center before it had a chance to react. I have no respect for those who use their esoteric specialized knowledge to mislead the public so that they can continue to play with their multi-million dollar fusion energy toys. All those nuclear energy lovers tend to be masterful in excluding the following warnings from their consciousness because they desperately want to believe that we have at least two decades left to come up with a commercially practical fleet of nuclear fusion power plants. IPCC report: ‘now or never’ if world is to stave off climate disaster (TheGuardian) UN chief: World has less than 2 years to avoid 'runaway climate change' (TheHill) * This statement was made 5.5 years ago.