The Problem with Nuclear Fusion

[@Masterchief0397]

Humans are in a forever quest to find the most efficient way to boil water that spins something

[@stdesy]

If we ever figure out He3 + He3 fusion we won’t have to bother with that water boiling. All the products are charged so their energy can be extracted directly with a magnetic field

[@davisdf3064]

@@stdesy Yeah, but giant nuclear powered water boilers are cool

[@jameswu7850]

@@stdesy Won't be so easy tho (unless someone else has researched it). Plasma instability has been a major road block in fusion researches and I can only imagine that an inductive coil on the plasma only makes it worse.

[@thiccccc_chicke4869]

When you upgrade the steam engine to a higher level

[@simoncangguajila7743]

@@stdesy Helion's reverse configuration torus likes to have a word with you

[@ramuk1933]

"Technology is [almost] always overestimated in the short term, and underestimated in the long."

[@InnuendoXP]

I think warp drive in 200 years is a tad overambitious

[@t.g.2777]

Who is this a quote by or you come up with it?

[@bunsenn5064]

@@InnuendoXP We went from the Turing machine to a supercomputer the size of a suitcase in under a century, technology is developing faster and faster.

[@kingsman3087]

I remember my uncle said he had conversations with ET aliens, and he said that humans have been making so many mistakes with their pursuit of fusion like there's so many other ways different from a steam turbine to extract energy from fusion,etc, we need to change our perception of fusions and methods around it

[@piuthemagicman]

@@bunsenn5064 this is mostly due to microprocessor tech advancement making it possible. now we have reached the limits with our couple of nanometers big chips, waiting for quantum computing to kick off.

[@TasX]

Great video. I’ve worked on magnetic confinement nuclear fusion at a National lab. One of the big problems is that everything is a massive partial derivative. Let’s say you have a hundred million particles inside the reactor. Each one has 7 dimensions of conserved motion. So traditionally to simulate it, you need either an extremely watered down equation that can make dozens of simplifying assumptions or a supercomputer that can take days to do a short simulation. Each particle can massively change their trajectory in just 10 microseconds, meaning if you want a perfect simulation for like 5 minutes, you need to run (100,000,000 * 5 * 60 * 10^5)^7 calculations which is probably some number bigger than the amount of atoms on earth. The good thing is that machine learning and GPUs are perfect for this kind of problem. So it’s gradually becoming the backbone of confinement modeling so the particles won’t fly out unexpectedly or the machine suddenly crash. In fact confinements not much of an issue anymore I’d say. Like I was able to take a 42 hour long simulation, rewrite it in CUDA, and have it run the same thing in less than 20 minutes. And on the experimental side, people have been able to run their devices for almost 10 minutes now which is extremely stable. And on top of all that, MIT recently made a high termperature superconductor that can generate massive magnetic fields so the machines can be scaled down to like 1/10th the size and still produce more power than ITER. While it’s still experimental, it’s basically in its last stages. The only things to worry about now is elmo. The next stage will be finding the right materials to make the walls out of that will preserve the reaction and dissipate the energy over long runs. Tungsten has been generally used as the newer material but there’s still room for massive improvement. People have been experimenting with depositing an atom layer thick lithium gas on tungsten or using Liquid Metal walls that act kind of like a waterfall + cpu cooler inside the tokamak. The tritium breeding issue is still on the horizon. Theoretically it shouldn’t be too hard to carry out. Just get a slab of lithium metal and put it right behind the tokamak or whatever device. But that’s a issue for another day. Edit: also don’t forget that’s only tokamak fusion. There’s also like 20 other types of fusion techniques, some of which are very promising. ICF (kind of a budget laser-powered nuclear bomb) is experimentally like 70% (now >100%!) of the way to net energy. This is a massive jump considering how it was 5% just 3 years ago. Other ones are field reverse configuration with folding plasma whirlpools in the z direction, magnetic mirrors, z pinch (like a nuclear lightning bolt), and whatever that doesn’t need tritium and won’t produce neutrons so that the energy can be directly harvested with a magnet. Edit: from Joesph Li I do research currently at a fusion research institute. Some things worth noting: You're right that lots of folks are looking to ML and big data but traditional MHD and kinetic simulations are still the mainstay. Whole volume gyrokinetic simulation is widely used and actively researched to better understand transport as a whole. Neutral and wall interactions, and especially precise treatment of edge regions is mostly done via traditional methods rather than ML. Next on fusion techniques. You're correct that there are many different methods for containing a plasma, but the region the device landscape looks as it does today is because magnetic mirrors, Z-pinch, and other open designs have serious inherent confinement issues. As for ICF, the NIF actually reported a break even last summer on fusion gain in 2021 (not sure if published yet). One major issue the NIF faces is that ICF fusion requires several laser shots per second to be economical, but as of now I believe the rate of discharge is closer to once every several hours. Lastly, I want to comment on smaller devices and different fusion fuels. MITs technology definitely holds a lot of promise, but one should temper expectations on output in smaller devices. Neutrons don't interact strongly and slips through solid material given enough energy (like those resulting for D-T reactions), so any D-T fuelled device necessitates fairly thick blankets and walls to efficiently extract energy. Moreover, one must still shield the outside of the vacuum vessel from neutron irradiation lest we risk the creating of radioisotopes outside the device from neutron bombardment. The obvious solution of using different fuel isn't so simple when one considers the much greater activation energy of those reactions. We can't even break even on D-T, never mind considering continuous operation on D-D or D-He3. Progress is certainly being made but science takes time. And fusion is too expensive to get wrong. It's best to not get too hasty with our expectations. Edit edit: just now, NIF achieved laser Q > 1 which is amazing for science. But it’s still a ways away from economic Q > 1 (where you can actually use it to produce power). But definitely a milestone and not number fudging anymore.

[@venomous_zxs5493]

what did u study, how can i walk on the same path as you?

[@TasX]

@@venomous_zxs5493studied physics. Most people in this field do physics, math, material science, aerospace engineering, nuclear engineering, or electrical engineering. And the big 7 ITER countries should all have really good fusion programs that you can intern at. So US, China, India, Russia, France/UK/Germany, South Korea, and Japan. When you look for these programs, look for the word “plasma” instead of “fusion” research. I’m not sure why but it took me too long to figure that out.

[@gladlawson61]

Please please comment more.. excellent post.

[@venomous_zxs5493]

@@TasX thx

[@alphabetamathematical5016]

By fusion of gravitational and manetic forces like hydrogen atoms can assess the process. We need to engineer three concentric confinement bottles to develope the atmoshere for the fusion in space

[@kek207]

Advanced fission reactors are also incredible. Breeder Reactors that produce their own fuel are also possible. You essentially use something that doesn't slow down neutrons as much as water and add thick Uranium cladding to inner walls of the reactor. Preferably that uranium is deluded in a liquid so it can be refined easily. One of the issues is that we use about 1% of the available uranium and the rest is waste. But with a working Breeder reactor you could have so much more efficient designs that don't need a refuel in decades

[@jacksimpson-rogers1069]

Right! The USA had breeder reactors in the 1960s and the Nixon for a President. Another kind in the 1980s, which Clinton murdered in 1984. Both, in US labs, were meltdown-immune technologies and producing actual power before the infamous but exaggerated Chernobyl meltdown, that were capable of breeding their own fuel and did NOT create "long lived waste", most of which is wasted by edict of decent, genuinely Christian, but stupid, Jimmy Carter. ORNL, under Alvin Weinberg, who invented the PWR (Pressurized Water Reactor) that powers our Capital ships, the aircraft carriers and submarines, proved that the slight shortcomings (slight compared with any other technology, including oxen, peasants, donkeys, and even slaves and elephants) of his liquid water designs could be alleviated by using molten salt solvent instead of water for the energy carrier, and carbon instead of hydrogen atoms as the neutron moderator. Dear KEK, I quite like the idea of deluded uranium, but you probably meant diluted or better, dissolved. The MSR used alkali fluoride as the solvent, which in the pure LFTR (Liquid Fluoride Thorium Reactor) breeds Uranium 233 from Th-232 by letting the thorium capture a neutron, and decay to Protactinium 233 then U-233. The nice thing about U-233 is that thermal neutrons fission nearly all of it. But for bomb-making, that process is a bit slow. The ordinary civilian reactor produces neptunium 239 when uranium 238 captures a neutron, then the Np-233 captures another and becomes Pu-239. unfortunately, in a way, the three year exposure of the fuel rods only consumes a bit more than half of that plutonium, because some thermal neutrons get captured and kept. Pu-240 fissions spontaneously, which is a Good Thing if you don't want bombs. To breed bomb grade plutonium, which the Manhattan Project did in 1945, you can use very pure graphite and raw natural uranium, but you need to remove the fuel rods from the reactor"pile" in 90 days, and extract the plutonium, or too much of it will give you too soon an explosion.

[@isocarboxazid]

I love deluded uranium. It calls itself plutonium!!!

[@The_fusion_physics_guy]

I'm also a huge fan of fission reactors, a lot of the modern designs are fantastic and very safe.

[@michaeldavidfigures9842]

One Anagram: LFTR.

[@biohazardoussabre4519]

The reactors that start off with Thorium and produce Uranium, right?

[@tysenp8193]

Damn, this is really impressive timing. This video clearly took a long time to make, and you managed to release it right on the heels of the major fusion announcement. Props man.

[@mattpopovich]

Is it luck though? Cleo Abram also released a fusion video today... Not sure how they knew this announcement was coming! kzbin.info/www/bejne/rqTMnKqOo7qWeNU

[@thephilosopher7173]

Its apart of the documentary he mentioned so I imagine this was easier than that lol.

[@NazriB]

Lies again? MLS NFL Ramenten Rakuten

[@drunkpaulocosta]

@@mattpopovich well if you know how alot of media releases rhese days work this wouldnt suprise you at all. Plenty of people in the wings and who know people working on it ect, unless something is classified entirely. Then often content creators will be fed information to ensure they are controlling the narrative ect. For example if you have 5 YT journalists saying the same thing before the news does. Its alot harder for some anchor with no clue to change the narrative. So yeah its common for things to be fed to specific channels with an already cultivated and respected community. This is 100 times more effective in todays world than giving the ibfo to the news first. When i want to know something i check reddit or youtube. I dont check news sources and other places for new news. This is alot of people. You have to use the same brain as reading a newspaper and be skeptical and ask questions. But for live up to date info. Social media has the most instant pull in permiating information to the masses

[@CosmicBackgroundRadiation01]

Suspiciously so. I had to go check the dates because what are the odds.

[@Muonium1]

Hi, I've been an engineer on one of the largest laser driven nuclear devices for a couple decades now and while I disagree that actinide contamination of a beryllium multiplier will be a major issue for future machines (several common chemical purification techniques could refine the Be such that it is a nonissue), I liked the video overall and thought it was a good layman's overview to the present state of MFE research problems. I can also offer your viewers a bit of "inside" rumor-mill information on fusion that I don't see being reported anywhere in the press yet that they may be interested in. Perhaps you heard of the record yield shot on the NIF laser in summer of last year that produced 1.3 megajoules of energy for an input of 1.9MJ laser light and that this was 25 times the previous highest record shot taken just a couple years earlier. Well they've been trying to recreate that magic shot for over a year and a half now without success....until 2 weeks ago. The rumor is a shot in the last week of November exceeded 2.5 megajoules in yield. The scientists are in the process of crossing their t's and dotting their i's before going to publication in the coming days and issuing a press release to make sure the result is real, but it's likely to be confirmed and is beyond any shadow of a doubt an unambiguous achievement of thermonuclear ignition and breakeven in the laboratory. This is a MAJOR breakthrough (and that's coming from someone who loathes the overuse of that word) that countless scientists and engineers have devoted their entire careers to attaining without seeing it happen over the last half-century, and now it is done. NIF is of course not a power reactor, just an experiment, and so this is the achievement of scientific breakeven rather than engineering breakeven. But keep in mind there is on the order of roughly 100 times more fuel in one of these capsules yet to be burned, and the laser driver can be increased from its current 1% efficiency to >40% efficient with the use of diode laser pumps and a crystalline lasing material. Even in the very unlikely event the fusion yield of these implosions isn't increased further, this is still a tremendous milestone that brings an entirely new ultra-bright neutron source "tool" for research into the laboratory. EDIT: looks like the cat's out of the bag much earlier than I thought it would be - article is up on the Financial Times titled "Fusion energy breakthrough by US scientists boosts clean power hopes"

[@_acwangpython]

Please post a link to a reputable site summarizing some details and the publication itself when it's published!

[@BlueZirnitra]

Boss I'm trying to park at NIF so I can go clean the toilets but you're in my parking space shilling on KZbin again. Don't you have some bolts to tighten?

[@Muonium1]

@@_acwangpython will do, but it's a major milestone. I expect it'll be everywhere in mainstream media when the announcement is made. EDIT: Ok everybody, looks like the cat's out of the bag even earlier than I expected, there is an article with some details in the Financial Times titled "Fusion energy breakthrough by US scientists boosts clean power hopes" (I can't link to it lest youtube's artificial stupidity algorithm autodelete this comment). Looks like the 2.5MJ yield was sufficiently and unexpectedly high enough that it damaged some diagnostics on the machine complicating yield quantification. The official announcement is coming from the DOE on Tuesday.

[@smdutton]

Very much looking forward to this news being published to the masses!

[@penguinswithdynamite]

This is very exciting if its true, I wonder if its using their new magnetisation technique with DT fuel. However to make a viable ICF power plant they still have the big problem of how to produce ~800,000 targets a day of exceptonal quality, which is something the other fusion approaches don't have to deal with. This is a problem almost as challenging as getting to net fusion gain.

[@PNurmi]

Breeder blankets: being a nuclear engineer who has researched tritium breeder blankets, one material being considered is F-Be-Li molten salts. It gives you a combination of features: as a heat transfer fluid, Be for neutron multiplication, and the lithium to generate tritium. It would also maximize tritium generation if enriched to nearly 100 percent as Li-6. Looking forward to your documentary on Helion since I have been reading up on them.

[@mikemurphy5898]

I have a Fl-Be-Li blanket on my bed right now... it's pretty good👍

[@davidhimmelsbach557]

It'll NEVER work. 'Hot' Fluorine destroys ALL containments. It's the universal solvent. The US and USSR spent billions on just this issue. After 25-years, Congress cut off funding. Only then the boys with the iron rice bowl admitted that they'd reached a dead end -- in 1960. (!) That's twenty-years of just screwing around.... In sum, it'll NEVER work. It's a materials problem.

[@John-sp7ne]

What happens if uranium or another fissile material used in fission reactors is used to line the walls of a fusion reactor to add heat from fission to the steam generator. Would that be a way to "turn on or off" fission? Adding a layer of safety to fission reactors and added efficiency of direct electric induction of fusion reactors? Also would this allow longer use of u235 and it's byproducts?

[@gigabyte2248]

Quick question: 'Fl' - *flerovium?!* Is that a typo?

[@PNurmi]

@@gigabyte2248 Yes, it's Fluorine. I'll fix that.

[@obi0914]

The intro from start to 1:30 is aw inspiring, but it's also why it would never happen. To many people will lose to much money.

[@emcd3589]

Sadly I thought the same thing.

[@Nick-bh5bk]

Given the last 24 hours, I'd love to hear an update on opinions of where this is all going.

[@autohmae]

I read The Atlantic article and it's basically saying: great achievement, which shows it's possible, but has no real world solutions yet: "Two megajoules is about the amount of energy released by burning a small chunk of kindling, so thousands upon thousands of such shots a day would be required before the energy production became in any way usable. Unfortunately, NIF’s lasers use huge slabs of glass that take hours to cool down between shots" So or: we would need to be able to do it faster or with much higher yields. I suspect the last of those two will improve the most.

[@marvelaturraz5405]

There is deep deception behind this. But just as doctors and nurses and bankers, etc. may be authentically doing what they believe is right, Admin often is operating under a hidden agenda. Investigate the fusion research being done by David LaPoint.

[@meltdown6165]

@@autohmae And they need 400 megajoules of grid power to pump the lasers for the shot. Huge conversion losses until the energy finally reaches the Hohlraum with the fuel in it.

[@agranero6]

The news are misleading: National Ignition Facility uses inertial confinement: this will never, ever , ever create a working practical fusion device. The proof is that nobody else researches inertial confinement. NIF was not even created for that it was created mainly to get a way to research nuclear devices without doing the banned tests. Now it is trying to reinvent itself. The stellarators and tokamaks is the real future (meaning: magnetic confinement). Inertial confinement is as useful as muon catalyzed fusion (meaning it is useless). But news ALWAYS misunderstands science and must put all in terms of grandiose words, major breakthrougs and clickbaits. And yes I am a physicist. Lets remember when news insisted in calling the Higgs boson "the God particle" (a name coined by an opportunistic editor), when it said ISON would be the brightest comet ever, when press made all that fuss for faster than light neutrinos (that never existed), more recently headlines saying dark matter does not exist (a gross overstatement), and that brain uses quantum mechanisms just to cite the newest ones.

[@zapzapzarap6148]

It’s still a really really long way. I’m hopeful that I will still see a fusion reactor in my lifetime tho.

[@The_fusion_physics_guy]

As a fusion researcher, titles like this are pretty frustrating since we have very little control over the public image of fusion, and impressions that don't click on the video get a negative impression. However, this video itself is pretty solid, i'm halfway through and it's been all good and accurate points. The key is we need a societal push to produce effective fusion, ideally similar to space-race level support. otherwise it will continue to take a long time. People like to say it's always been 20 years away, but fail to mention that that's primarily because the funding for fusion research has been slashed over and over again ever since we stopped competing with the soviet union over it as a technology. If you don't fund something, it stops moving as quickly.

[@The_fusion_physics_guy]

Hm, okay, follow up, didn't realize you were with Helion, just so everyone knows Helion is a private "fusion" company who makes their money by selling technology and components to public fusion research, while on the side developing a very unresearched method of fusion. They use a "Field Reversed Configuration" confinement technique, and their understanding of it is about 40+ years behind modern tokomaks, since they just recently announced they've mostly figured out neoclassical confiment. The arguments about Berrillium blankets in this video are kind of niche and very manageable.... you can just purify berrillium.... I think it gets caught up in the weeds at the end (these are not the main problems with fusion) because private fusion makes their investment money off of calling mainstream fusion research misguided and their approach a miracle. Other than the last few minutes, great vid.

[@cod6guy12]

@@The_fusion_physics_guy I don't see how modern tokomaks like ITER are ever going to be economical but then again I'm not the physics guy

[@Beanskiiii]

The laws of physics don’t care about how much “support” you put behind something it’s says isn’t going to work. Just like with the space race. Humans will never colonize Mars or leave the solar system

[@88Superphysics88]

If you want to make a working commercial fusion reactor in two years, and get commercial heat, I can help you. I have made a great world-class scientific discovery about nuclear fusion in the atmosphere of the Sun. The assumption by scientists all over the world about nuclear fusion in the core of the Sun is well known. This is a fallacy. For over 72 years, scientists have not been able to make a working commercial thermonuclear reactor, and will not be able to make one for many years to come. The reason? The misconception of nuclear fusion in the Sun. Nuclear fusion in the Sun's atmosphere begins under the physical conditions existing there at an initial plasma temperature of 5,000 K; by the end of the fusion reaction, the solar plasma temperature reaches 1,500,000 K, on average. Sunspot temperatures on the Sun from 3,000 K, sunspots can be up to 100,000 miles in size. Doesn't this prove that nuclear fusion occurs on the surface of the Sun, not in the core of the Sun? If we take a good look at and study sunspots, it is clear that nuclear fusion takes place in the Sun's atmosphere. I know how to replicate the physical conditions for nuclear fusion in the Sun's atmosphere. I propose a reactor design with the same physical parameters for nuclear fusion and excess heat as in the Sun's atmosphere. kzbin.info/www/bejne/fJTcoaqli7R0d7s To make a small working prototype confirming the principle of nuclear fusion in the Sun's atmosphere and obtain commercial heat needs about 10 million euros, manufacturing time 2 years. It could be less. Depends on the country where the prototype will be made.

[@evrythingis1]

Thats the whole point, disinformation to keep public opinion against Nuclear power until Oligarchy owned oil companies can guarantee themselves a monopoly over the inevitable transition.

[@adamh1228]

I ran a copper alloy foundry for a while, and several of my customers made me sign agreements that said that the facility did not work with ANY beryllium alloys (they are common in electrical contact gear made of copper alloys). I always thought it was because Be is insanely toxic, but in hind sight, there may have been radiological considerations after watching this episode. All of the customers asking for those "no Be" contracting were defense contractors, and it would make sense that they were sensitive to background radiation in their bearing components.

[@edwelndiobel1567]

Hmm. What do you think about stuff and things?

[@kylemccormack1785]

@@edwelndiobel1567 what a mindless response.

[@abrammedrano4392]

@@kylemccormack1785 burns compressed farts...that'll work

[@TVAProject]

@@kylemccormack1785 I feel like he is a joke bot made by a troll just to make the bot comment something that is really nonsensical.

[@bunsenn5064]

What I’ve wondered is how Beryllium, the fourth lightest element on the periodic table, could be radioactive.

[@tadvanacanakapalli6461]

I'm not entirely sure, but my understanding is that He3 (for the most part) does not fuse with another H1 atom to become He4 (it does on occasion, but it's a miniscule amount of the He4 atoms that are produced during fusion in a star). The main branch of the proton proton chain which produces He4 is when 2 He3 atoms fuse together into He4, releasing two H1 atoms.

[@prateekkarn9277]

Wendover and real engineering fighting each other like siblings always makes me chuckle

[@RagaarAshnod]

Shots fired.

[@LuisSierra42]

Top 10 anime rivalries

[@rosskrt]

lmao fr

[@HypnosisBear]

Bruh

[@PolkaTrapeze]

Real engineering vs guy who reads Wikipedia to you

[@erikgranqvist3680]

The good thing with fusion always being 20 years away, is that one day you can honestly say it's 20 years early.

[@jessedaly7847]

Apparently we’re there. But the Livermore apparatus may take quite some time to get to commercial production.

[@TG-bq1kn]

@@jessedaly7847 don’t count on it. They didn’t add up the energy needed to fire up the lasers so they are still in the negative. A new way is needed.

[@Furiends]

@@jessedaly7847 "Apparently we’re there" not really. We've successfully proved that we can achieve on earth whats been happening on the sun for millennia. It proves that we're going in the right direction but not how close we are to getting there.

[@jessedaly7847]

@@TG-bq1kn why do I keep reading that they put 2mw in and got 3.5mw out? If that 2mw wasn’t used to power the lasers then what the hell was it used for?

[@TG-bq1kn]

@@jessedaly7847 they didn’t factor in the losses to get it fired up. They just considered the energy delivered to the pellet.

[@HenningAndersen]

Thanks for keeping your integrity, trying to stay unbiased and bringing us great informational videos

[@utuberme1]

Yes. Sponsored by Helion fusion.

[@Airton2]

@@utuberme1 the next one, this is is just an 'introduction'

[@davemccombs]

Idk half the vids are yellow/red arrow/circle clickbait

[@HenningAndersen]

This thanks is in reference to the text-post made by real engineering the other day

[@Airton2]

@@paulhaynes8045 so, are they just kidding with us?

[@csdn4483]

6:24 - Incorrect, the byproduct of the D + T fusion reaction leads to a neutron along with the He nucleus. The neutron is very much a danger radiation hazard. The neutron will be captured by the fusion reactor components and activate those components causing them to become radioactive. The other aspect is also the fact that we actually want that neutron to effectively create more Tritium as well with a Li blanket as part of the reactor structure as Tritium has a ~12 year half life (so it has to be produced).

[@trinitrojack]

I want to say a big thank you for highlighting the challenges engineers face in making research breakthroughs a viable solution. I work with research, and they come up with interesting prototypes, but a lot of them won't make it any further due to fundamental problems (be it economic or resource limitations). I don't think many people understand that research this is just a first step in developing a successful product.

[@tubularguynine]

I was thinking of a gravity-powered generator that you might like to research: Build twin towers with twin, water-filled weights on cables, turning a generator. One filled more, heavier, than the other, and when the heavier one gets to the ground, pump the water from it to the other one, and it comes down, pulling the other, now-lighter weight up, and continuing to turn the generator. The only energy needed is to pump the water back and forth. If you make a billion bucks, contact me, and I'll send you my PayPal number - 80% for you.😀👍🏻

[@derpderpy3075]

Then why didn't you hear the news they achieved fusion with lazers

[@datta1601]

mn

[@donaldkasper8346]

There are no viable solutions or breakthroughs in fusion. Hitting a pellet one time in a special enclosure capsule to get a strong output reaction achieves nothing for production fusion. Spending your life runs joltomatic donuts seems really sad and a waste of talent.

[@stormevans6897]

Our human limitations are literally holding us back, we need a singularity so we can connect it all and think about it for just a few moments.

[@drone51]

My dad works at LLNL and has worked with top scientists at NIF. He’s the one who brought many of them into the lab by hiring them as his post-docs. These are the smartest people in the world. I knew we could do it from day one. Just didn’t know it would be this soon. It’s been a proud day for my family.

[@rockman1942]

just don't let the Asian steal the tech

[@mcmystix]

@@rockman1942 you won't have a number for your IQ without Asians (Aryabhata to be specific)

[@rockman1942]

@@mcmystix I am Asian, and I m sure they are just too smart to put this technology into wrong place to not benefit the mankind

[@jeremias-serus]

@@mcmystix Conflating all Asian cultures as one is extremely problematic and low key racist. Indian culture is not Asian culture in anything other than a name that was invented 3000 years ago. Do better.

[@pierreviguie]

My grand dad win the ww2.

[@JesterHorse]

I love the jabs all of you educational creators take at each other in your videos. It offers a nice break to laugh during such complicated Videos that contain such vast amounts of information.

[@toadofsteel]

Nebula Cinematic Universe has been fantastic over the years

[@timwatts9371]

@David Brown "nattering nabobs of negativity" Nice alliteration but you're avoiding the fact that problems can only be solved when all the negative considerations are taken into consideration and dealt with. It's a fallacy that "positive thinking" actually solves anything. Careful, coherent thinking that addresses major problems will solves them.

[@deaddocreallydeaddoc5244]

The best solution for the future of energy supply is the construction of Molten Salt Thorium Reactors. Besides providing abundant, cheap electricity, they can provide a myriad of other functions that will completely defuse the Green New Deal. They cannot melt down because the molten salt is the fuel carrier. Thorium is preferred over Uranium because it has 200 times more energy potential and it is literally dirt cheap. Thorium is abundant and has been the "waste" product of rare earth mining in the past. The reaction occurs between 600-800 degrees F. If the molten salt should ever overheat the reaction stops and a freeze plug in the bottom of the fuel jacket melts and the molten salt flows into a holding tank where it cools down naturally. They can be set up to burn the waste from light water uranium reactors because they are so efficient. They can be used for producing non-carbon diesel fuels. They can be used to cheaply desalinate seawater, and scrub carbon from the atmosphere. They are safe and can be built anywhere. They can be made small enough to power a car or big enough to power a city. The U.S. has about t a dozen companies that are either ready or near ready to construct them France is developing them and Denmark has one company developing them. I don't know about Germany, but Germany would clearly benefit from them and could erect them quickly if they desired. They must get over their anti-nuclear sickness, however. There is no time to waste. here is a four-minute introductory video to MSRs. - kzbin.info/www/bejne/oWeliamta9Krqtk

[@KaiserThanatos]

I’d like a citation on how fission reactors are uneconomical. I googled it and yeah they’re expensive to start up but they make a lot of power for a long time after startup. Most of the reason for shutting them down recently is fear mongering and concern trolling about nuclear accidents.

[@mechantl0up]

New nuclear reactors have recently been built and are even now being built in Europe, at least. So they do seem still viable economically even under strict regulations.

[@stephenmatt8300]

Nuclear is actually the cheapest form of electricity in the long haul once the startup costs are amortized over the of the plant. The reason fewer plants exist is the click bait fear-mongering resulting from social media and main stream media trying to generate views. Take a stroll over to Kyle Hill's channel and get some balance. Now don't get me wrong... I like a lot of this channel but his bias does show. Take this particular video as an example.. free neutrons can't be controlled by the magnetic containment. Neutrons fly off in all directions. They will be striking surfaces not coated in berylium. Even with the berylium some neutrons will still pass through creating neutron damage or creating other radioactive substances through neutron activation to materials not encapsulated or shielded by berylium. I believe that even if (big IF)physicists and engineers do manage to create a net positive fusion reaction, the cost of basically building a new reactor at the end of it's life cycle due to neutron damage will be cost prohibitive. Let's not forget, engineers and physicists have yet to come up with a way to efficiently capture the energy from a net possitive fussion reaction. At the end of the day, the efficiency of whatever solution they come up with needs to be factored in to the actual net positive calculation.

[@clivedinosaur8407]

Fission reactors are not uneconomical when compared to traditional power sources such as coal or gas fired power plants (as the lower nuclear fuel costs balance out the greater startup costs over the lifetime of the power plant), but they are becoming less economical as alternative energy sources such as the solar & wind industries advance and mature.

[@manfredvonkarma4752]

I’ve come to realize all of electricity is based on finding the best way to boil water

[@Poctyk]

Wind and photoelectric solar literally doesn't. Same as tidal.

[@TasX]

@@Poctyk wind is ocean water being heated

[@Rippedyanu1]

@@Poctyk which is also part of why they are terrible at generating energy comparative to other types of energy production.

[@HSuper_Lee]

A slightly more accurate statement would be that all electricity is based on finding the best way to make stuff spin, and it just so happens that boiling water is a good way to make stuff spin.

[@Rippedyanu1]

@@secretname4190 even the most advantageous and well placed solar panel or wind turbine capacity factor and efficiency is lower than hydro, nat gas, coal and especially nuclear fission. They still don't hit the necessary EROI to be sustainable and still require backup power which right now is predominantly fossil fuels. They're better than nothing but considering the cost and resources for manufacturing and the carbon released, that's not saying much.

[@callumsmith1516]

unfathomable is a fun word, love your channel dude. you have the same vibe as economics explained and I'm here for it. keep up the good work and I wish you success in all your endeavours

[@azgarogly]

Except the idea that "cheap and clean" energy technology would change the "face of the world" is indeed a pipe dream.

[@rphb5870]

Well here is the definition: kzbin.info/www/bejne/r5fTn2mNgcd0npY

[@azgarogly]

@Thawne whatta'bout it?

[@azgarogly]

@Thawne You mean Albert Einstein born 14 March 1879 in Ulm, Kingdom of Württemberg, right? He was a scientist, mainly in a field of theoretical physics. Engineering is a totally different thing. And no, not _every_ successful engineer is _always_ talking about "positive mindset", you are wrong. Successful engineers tend to do engineering work designing and building stuff rather than giving talks. So unless you are just trolling, please, make a point. How this "mindset" thing is connected to the topic?

[@Elijah-2000]

In light of breaking news in the US on Nuclear Fusion, I find the TIMING of this video very interesting, because it must have taken time to do all the animation in this video, so clearly you were not influenced by the Breaking News. I don't know what to make of all this, so I remain a skeptic until I'm convinced otherwise.

[@TheOneHandedCooksman]

I'm also a skeptic about the announcement and what it actually means. I just found out about it literally 5 minutes ago, and before then I felt that it might be unobtainable in my lifetime. With it now supposedly being done, I'm curious to see what comes of it, but I'm not getting my hopes up at all. Would I like it to be true? Absolutely. Would I like it to be utilized in renewable energy? Well obviously. It is the DOE though after all...

[@adamschaeffer4057]

Interesting achievement, and technically does advance the technology. But it doesn't address the age old problem of moving the energy. Making it is one thing, using it and getting it to where it needs to be still requires a lot of energy. In this experiment they still haven't created usable, viable "free energy" because they can't harness it for anything useful. I think in this instance they used 2 terawatts of electricity and got 3 back out. But in order for this to be sustainable and actually power our society it would have to be something like 2 terawatts in and 5-10 terawatts out. Still a long, long way to go.

[@david_4246]

Looks like it's just a bunch of stock footage he edited together. Probably didn't take that long to put the video together.

[@cinavik]

Of note: (And this is a common error in media) when you mention cooling of MRI machines, the clip is of a CT machine. This is likely a common error because CT machines are safe to film when not actively scanning, while MRI magnets are always active even when not in use.

[@amackclassic6737]

The fact that we can all learn about this stuff whenever we like is absolutely incredible. Thank you so much for sharing this content with the world!

[@Z3R0US]

@@oneaboveall1895 /rwooosh

[@Z3R0US]

@@oneaboveall1895 obvi that’s what he meant lmfao 😂

[@smilemore1997]

​@@oneaboveall1895 you act like every country has easy access to the internet let alone KZbin.

[@ulmasbekrakhmatullaev8808]

@@oneaboveall1895 Is it? I thought it’s a cable TV

[@dogwalk3]

for real. i learned more in this video than i have in entire semesters.

[@jamesbentonticer4706]

Just had a mega milestone in human history! 50% more power harvested than used for the reaction. This is actually a pivotal moment in our species' history.

[@matthewnyberg3151]

Not exactly. 50% more energy out than the laser energy on the capsule. To create the laser took ~100x what they got out. The NIF is a weapons facility, not for energy generation

[@foxwithaplan858]

Well, they send in laser photons of 2MeV and got products with 3MeV thermal energy out. But to produce the laserphotons in their absolutely not optimized laser generators, they needed 200MeV electric power.

[@cashboys-j9m]

Wouldn't that break the laws of thermodynamics?

[@foxwithaplan858]

​@@cashboys-j9m The laser generators produce mostly waste heat

[@AnAntidisestablishmentarianist]

After decades of useful fusion power always being "20 years away" I'm shocked how few people bother to question the LLNL announcement.

[@HelionEnergy]

This is a great overview of the potential of fusion energy and some of the current challenges, Brian. We're looking forward to welcoming your audience into our facility in next week's video so we can go deeper into our approach to fusion.

[@TasX]

Ooh Helion

[@mucia55]

Looking forward to seeing your methods on the subject as well as the work at your lab and progress you've made this far.

[@SpencerFH]

This is so cool I can’t even stand it.

[@williamyoung9401]

There's a reason we haven't utilized Nuclear Fission. Chernobyl. 3-Mile Island. Government incompetence and Corporate Greed combined to make the worst of both worlds to destroy ours.

[@Bjawu]

Looking forward to it! Would be especially interested in currently identified bottlenecks for scaling up to a global level (from materials to supply chain issues, and plain old economic inertia).

[@markdecker111]

Thanks!

[@paulyiustravelogue]

Maybe, just maybe, that fusion power plate I “built” in the original SimCity in the early 90’s could become a reality before I die… and nice touch on that Wendover Productions bit 😂

[@D370n470r]

Thats completly how everyone alive heard about the existence of Fusion Power.

[@sfsrocketking3787]

@@D370n470r that’s true

[@peterknutsen3070]

There wasn’t a fusion power plant until the sequel game, Sim City 2000.

[@novadeathstar9961]

1989 SimCity didn't have an fusion reactor I'm quite sure

[@paulyiustravelogue]

Thanks for reminding me guys. Now that I think about it, perhaps it was SimCity 2000. Cheers

[@TheSateef]

i love you get into the real details, not just simply regurgitate the basic pop science stuff

[@IwanPieterse-iwanzbiz]

You timed this video perfectly 👌 Not being sarcastic, this highlights what a breakthrough today was. Ignition has happened! I know it’s still years before anything resembling a power generating reactor is realized but I feel the forever 20 years away has today become actually 20 years away, maybe even less. Excited!

[@Nauda999]

The saying was fusion reactor is always 30 years in the future.

[@Rkcuddles]

I don’t think it’s going to take 20 years… this is limitless, clean, energy. This is the civilization tipping point. Incredible amounts of money are about to be pumped into this technology. I wouldn’t be surprised if within the decade, we had working power plants

[@Nauda999]

​@@Rkcuddles pumping incredible amounts of money into science doesn't guarantee success, I wouldn't be surprised that the age old saying a fusion reactor is 30 years in the future, even after 30 years would be still true And scaling is no joke, for example an ant can lift 50 times it's own weight, doesn't mean there are any humans that can lift 50 times own bodyweight.

[@maxsim_racing]

the breakthrough tho was announced a day or to before saying: scientists to announce a breakthrough in fusion but never said what exactly, and then this official confirmation happened today/yesterday. i’d guess they were confirming everything before making it public. it’s really HUGE!

[@ThomasJr]

Yes, but the breakthrough doesn't use either of these 2 methods shown in the video

[@randomguy2108]

Just had a nuclear module and this video basically covered the first introduction lesson, thanks for the quick and easy explanation.

[@fushumang1716]

US DOE just announced a breakthrough in Fusion. Would love to hear an update of this so-called breakthrough and if they had really solved the fusion problem

[@NiklasLarssonSeglarfan]

They really havent solved the fusion problem at all.. Just proven that it is possible to get more energy out of it (which we kinda knew already since we've had hydrogen bombs for 70 years and, you know, the sun).. Its a cool breakthrough, but they "sustained" the process for a millionth of a second and used 100 times more energy to power the lasers that started the process. Still cool though!

[@zimriel]

In short: it's hype. In long: the Powers That Be want us to keep chasing after fusion so they can distract us from the lack of cheap energy we can get from fission - and from orbital-redirected solar. Meanwhile we get the lockdowns, which they'll impose upon us for The Climate.

[@bvbxiong5791]

@@NiklasLarssonSeglarfan spoken like a salty european. the method used in the US is completely different from the stuff in this video and what the europeans are doing...alot of the stuff in the video doesn't apply. and what does it matter that they used "100x" more energy to power the lasers? (which is a baseless claim anyways) they got 1.5x the energy out...which is the whole point of fusion and what everyone has been trying to achieve.

[@cartanfan-youtube]

@@bvbxiong5791he would probably still find a way to complain if nuclear fusion was handed to him completely and for free ☠️”yea but the reactor is painted a color I don’t like” headass

[@qwertygirl334675]

@@kentw.england2305 Except they literally got net positive energy out of it.

[@catcatcatcatcatcatcatcatcatca]

I am very sceptical of any tech-startups that try to solve such a long researched problem. Just considering the needed resources it always begs the question why hasn’t someone with more resources tried this before? And usually the answer is that they did, and it didn’t work, or the company is actually stuck on the same key issues as everyone else, and in reality had no trump card or skeleton key to advance the technology. And its not that the private sector doesn’t do valuable and good research - rather that their marketing often promises ridiculous viability compared to other research efforts. Where researchers have optimistically promised 20 years for 60 years, private company saying they will do it in 5 sounds like an advertisement, not a honest estimate.

[@TasX]

A lot of them are spin-offs of well established research and they try to scale down with more prototyping/less theory. In fact a lot of them directly collaborate with the institutions. For example CFS. They’re relatively new but they’ve made some of the largest technical advances. But you’re right, there is a lot of marketing/hyping going on right now. We’ll have to see where this all lands 10 years down the line.

[@MrJdsenior]

Yeah, and often people talk about energy out/energy in=1 as the holy grail. Fact is that it has to be a fair bit over one, as energy is needed for supporting processes, etc within the generator. and the economics don't get interesting until the ratio rises a fair extent beyond even that. You need to be able to extract a lot of energy before very expensive plant construction is preferable to other sources, specifically fission.

[@MrJdsenior]

@@TasX I can tell you that. Based on previous performance, ten years down the line we will be twenty years from realization, just to continue the eternal, never shortening estimate. Shortening that already demonstrably ridiculous time frame does nothing. It is just nonsensical marketing. Just sayin'. I hope I'm wrong, but I likely won't be. The investing disclaimer, past performance is not always indicative blah blah blah..., and all that aside. Eventually we may get there, probably will, but, unless some pretty serious advancements are made in multiple areas, probably not during my lifetime. HEY, maybe AI will come to the rescue! And IMHO, if it does (or doesn't) a short time later it won't matter, not to the human race, anyway. Working the bugs out of the 'program' may have a whole new meaning, if you catch my drift.

[@BlueZirnitra]

Everyone thought private spaceflight was a fools game until a company came along and blew all expectations out of the water. Startups have less red tape and bureaucracy involved, which is an immense factor in their favour. As we move forward private scientific endeavours will make more of an impact as science becomes liberated from being the sole purview of nation states, politics and taxpayer money.

[@mattsoup4121]

I definitely agree that there should be a healthy skepticism with these fusion startups. I don't have the knowledgebase to verify their claims and if it's anything like the smallsat launch market there's a ton of hype and investors dumping their money into bad companies (SpinLaunch, Phantom, Arca, etc.) That said, having many less funded groups trying to solve a problem can be much more effective than having one group of people do so. A lot of these startups will be attracting passionate, driven engineers and scientists who don't like the more academic nature of the huge national projects. Having small budgets to work from will lead to innovative solutions. Will all of them succeed? Certainly not. But, if each one of them effectively solves a small part of the problem then collectively the field will be advanced.

[@h.d.h]

What timing! I would love an update considering the most recent developments in Fusion energy.

[@darknight991]

You’re in for a wonderful video on Helion ☺️

[@JamesSmith-qs4hx]

No cohencidences....

[@Thph793]

I've seen some comments asking how we are even making any "profit" energy in fusion so here a quick breakdown (im not a scientist this is self tought , pls correct me if I'm wrong): So basicly you remember that little law that they told you in physics in school about how "energy can't be destroyed / created, neither can matter" while this is technicly true there is one thing that comes close to creating or destroying enerygy or matter. They can switch. The amount of energy and matter added together in the universe can not be changed but matter can be transformed into a lot of energy and the other way around a lot of energy can be made into "new" matter. This is what happens at a fusion reactor. We smash to elements together (under a lot of input energy) and (in theory ) get a new element out of it that is slightly lighter than the mass of the 2 input elements combined shouls be + a lot of energy that is also more than we put in. What just happened is that while combining those 2 elements under such great power a bit of the matter got transformed into energy. And as you might remember if if we transform matter into energy we get a lot of energy for a tiny bit of matter. This is why (in theory) fusion is such a great concept if working under perfect conditions. The exact amount of energy needed to be put in and the stuff we get out and so on can all be calculated using Einstein's famous formula: E = mc² where E is the energy, m is the mass and c² is the speed of light². Oh and btw sorry for the spelling / grammar mistakes I'm german and still learning English

[@MikeMaragni]

I want to say, your videos are always amazing. I've always loved physics, but after high school I was scared off of engineering, and went to management and economics... Finding your channel has reignited the interest i have in physics and engineering as a whole, and i want to thank you for it. I hope i can find it in myself to actually pursue this interest while i still have the time.

[@benene055]

Tbh, this kind of story where it says something like "they do everything differently and achieve goals everybody dreamed of" sounds like a scam... Really looking forward to the documentary!! :) Great work! Thanks for addressing this subject.

[@maybecriminal]

My dad worked on nuclear fusion all his academic career , he always said that it will be the future, he's gone now and I miss him lots. He had a TOKOMAT he would go and play with every day. Interestingly this was not in China or Russia but in the west.

[@dsprofdoc2201]

Culham Lab?

[@maybecriminal]

@@dsprofdoc2201 Sydney Uni , yet the major government funding was to the Fission Reactor at Lucas Heights.

[@Dr.Schlitz]

As a kid, I did a science fair project on nuclear fusion, and back then nuclear fusion was 20 years in the future. Problem is: this science fair was over 40 years ago.

[@jucom756]

It's so infuriating how fission plants get shut down because hazardous waste management is expensive, while fossil fuel plants get to just launch their hazardous waste into the atmosphere... like wtf contamination is a valid issue so make all power plants handle it.

[@aggressivefox454]

Yeah it’s really sad.

[@cam609lee]

And then ridiculous amounts of money are dumped into dead-end fusion projects instead of fission.

[@squidwardo7074]

It's because Oil companies pay billions to lie and disguise the dangers of it. Exxon even knew climate change could be caused by carbon dioxide in the 80s yet they kept it a secret until the 2010s. Meanwhile nuclear is controlled in a big part by the government, so there's not as much lobbying there.

[@limabravo6065]

Until recently I worked in the nuclear industry. And that waste really isn't waste. What they call spent fuel is actually over 80% unused uranium 235. The build up of fission products are why it's removed, the u235 and the plutonium made in the reactor actually mean your reactor will be more efficient the longer the fuel burns but other crap builds up that could be processed out fairly easily and the u235 and pu239-240 put back into reactors. But because of decades old treaties we don't reprocess our fuels. So its a massive waste of money. France is the only country at the moment that is reprocessing their fuel. And as for fuel we have laying around well all the thousands of nuclear weapons we dismantled after th cold war, the plutonium and enriched uranium is still stockpiled and could be used in reactors for a few hundred years. That fuel was paid for decades ago and Is just sitting there in case we need more than the 5,000 or so nukes we still have in the arsenal. Kinda fucked huh?

[@robertanderson1043]

This is a great video, and answers several "why this way and not this other way" basic questions which are not obvious and are actually not easy to find online. Great job!

[@logh88]

Man the animations gets better and better every time, nice work!

[@SpottedHares]

The thing is that unlike some other technologies were their was something missing we didn't know that made a massive leap forward, theirs doesn't appear to be anything as of yet like that with Fusion. We just have to do the hard work and make out plasma hotter and more stable till its hot enough and stable enough for it to be cost effective.

[@heidirabenau511]

I watched the Engineering The Future episode about Fusion, and found it fascinating and hopefully this renewable energy source can become a reality soon! Please could you make a video about space mining, and why we haven't seen it yet!

[@linecraftman3907]

the answer is pretty simple, it's hella expensive to launch mass into space and really tough to bring stuff back

[@kingsman3087]

I remember my uncle said he had conversations with ET aliens, and he said that humans have been making so many mistakes with their pursuit of fusion like there's so many other ways different from a steam turbine to extract energy from fusion,etc, we need to change our perception of fusions and methods around it

[@Bramble20322]

@@kingsman3087 Yeah, your schizo uncle is tottally right, bud.

[@funveeable]

Somebody like China or Russia will build a fusion plant which is gonna explode and vaporize a dozen people and HBO are gonna make a drama series about it and the entire planet will proceed to hate fusion so it never gets deployed world wide.

[@xponen]

​@@funveeable to deploy Fission reactor worldwide it has to be intentionally made cheap.

[@sjsomething4936]

The news out today regarding the ability to generate more power than consumed in producing it makes this video all the more timely, especially as it was achieved in a tokamak. Thanks for bringing the various details to your audience in a very clearly explained way Brian!

[@andrews6013]

I was about to say it seems like this came out a day ahead of the news

[@haywire4686]

It wasn't actually achieved in a Tokomak reactor, it was in the National Ignition Facility using Lasers.

[@shaunwu3910]

To my limited understanding, this was achieved using inertia confinement fusion, not through a tokamak

[@sjsomething4936]

@@shaunwu3910 oh, I’ll have to go look, I could swear the article or video I saw on it mentioned a tokamak because it stuck in my head about this video. Maybe I’m hallucinating though. Thanks for mentioning it.

[@sjsomething4936]

@@haywire4686 ok thank you, odd I could swear wherever I heard it they said tokamak but it’s probably memulti-tasking, they might have said something like “unlike normal fusion reactors which use tokamaks” and I was try to pay attention to a call at work at the same time as the news 🤣🤣

[@ricktrickshots2642]

I can really see you spending weeks on that script and animations. Through only consuming it we never really apreciate the work behind it, so I want to say THANKS!!!

[@zhad895]

Even if someone pulled this off and invented it, the idea that it would lead to a new era of clean, and more importantly, cheap, energy is a pipe dream. There is far too much money to be made in making energy as expensive as possible, as we all know.

[@RingoBars]

Really appreciated the Proton-Neutron-Electron quantities included in the atomic particle animations. Though your material is already top of its class, you still manage to find ways to make it even better! You and your Real Science colleague are always putting out truly top tier content. Much appreciated, mate.

[@magnusschlosser5927]

To be honest, it looked nice but it was not so scientifically correct. A) the neutrons were aways depicted as smaller silverish marbles in the nuclear pictures. In fact both neutrons and protons have the same number of quarks and are almost identical in mass. Thus it seems weird to draw a triton as if it was a water molecule made of large O and two smaller Hs. B) the elementary form of hydrogen (protium, deuterium and tritium) is H2, D2 and T2 (=2 nuclei + 2 electrons) and not the atomic forms (=1 nucleus + 1 electron). These exists as well but don't play any role in the fusion plasma. Here one only needs look at reactions of the nuclei since the electrons are completely stripped.

[@fear7356]

@@magnusschlosser5927 it's useless to talk about quarks etc, for someone like me who doesn't know much deep into these, stuff this video is perfect to explain whatever is going on in the reactor. And it does the job.

[@jenda386]

@@magnusschlosser5927 Exactly. I had to stop watching the video after like 4 minutes. If such an elementary thing is so wildly incorrect, how can I trust anything else in there? For Real Engineering: 1. Protons and neutrons are the same size. Really important fact that has been known for a hundred years now. 2. There are no electrons bound to nuclei during fusion. The whole thing is ionised plasma and electrons are moving freely within the whole volume. They don't spin around the two fusing nuclei. 3. You even point out at 3:03 that the nuclei are ions and then proceed to show them at 3:05 with electrons. WHY?

[@hassankrisht718]

I had a presentation in my masters class few weeks ago, and my topic was about why nuclear energy is fine to use.. every single question/problem that I had encountered, I found a solution and an answer for it, the whole thing was amazing and very convincing. However, one point i didn't mention in my presentation, because i knew it will demolish my entire thing, is cost. Since i wanted my presentation to be as an advertisement for the nuclear energy (I live in France where 80% of the energy is nuclear), i wanted to give the best of the best in it, and show how every safety issue has a solution, as well as every public concern is being dealt with.

[@TurboHappyCar]

I don't have a masters in anything, but you could use the argument that the cost of "cheap" hydrocarbon fuels is their emissions, both pollutants and greenhouse gasses. How much effect they have / how long they last are up for debate, but nuclear fission waste can be partially consumed in fast-reactors and/or stored in a barrels. So do we want the effect to be on the atmosphere, or in a storage facility.

[@radarpinki]

Cost surpasses every argument that you have for it, unfortunately. If we can use inefficient energy sources that cost cheaper to produce per megawatt then industry would prefer that because it's better for their bottom line.

[@hassankrisht718]

@@TurboHappyCar Regarding this approach, i talked about the energy to cost ratio of uranium compared to fossil fuel. This included the mining, the purification and finally the transfering, just without the building cost of a power plant. Although i think that nuclear power plants have more lifespan than their rivals, in terms of cost to lifespan i think nuclear will equalise a little but still lose in this aspect.

[@hassankrisht718]

@@radarpinki To be honest, we look at the outer edge of the projects in terms of cost. But when the big companies get into a real project, their engineers calculate every single detail, to be clear, let me give you an example that blew my mind back then. They even calculate how they affect the environment in the area, the government restrictions and taxes, thus they add this to the maintenance cost of the fossils, the cost of fixing the environment after messing it up with fossils, the cost of the health care of those who get affected... literally every single detail that might come into mind, Also i disagree that we are moving away from nuclear, i have been following up the news since 2015, and all i see is a growth in the overall share of the worlds energy production. Here in France, the nuclear energy production share rose 10% in the past decade.

[@reuven2010]

@@radarpinki Also Why use outrageously expensive fusion if solar and wind are way cheaper

[@DJRaffa1000]

I'm really looking forward to the documentary on helion. Full scale documenteries on such topics always excites me.

[@arkatalukdar4472]

What timing. This video gets released on the same day as a "breakthrough" in Nuclear Fusion is announced.

[@tomlabooks3263]

Right. Coincidence?

[@JB-mg5lw]

Look up how many "breakthroughs" fusion has had, you might find it is a bit overdone.

[@tomlabooks3263]

@@JB-mg5lw You’re probably right. Today the news has already morphed to “a small step forward”…. living history day after day is so boring !!

[@tyvaughnholness1985]

That was really engaging, it went in depth about the challenges and provided information you don't typically hear about fusion

[@Billy_D]

The scale of this machinery looks insane. Props to all scientists who make this possible

[@MrSeta]

so basically, the children yearn for spinning boiling water

[@gustavderkits8433]

Thank you for mentioning the beryllium problem. I have been watching lectures on the promise of fusion for decades. Some common memes are the claim “cheap and clean” and “seawater”. They want the audience to concentrate on the shiny nuclear physics and ignore the dirty engineering. The costs of the non-ideal engineering tech are minimized. The cases for solar, wind, and cleaner safer fission are stronger. My view as an old physicist is that the Tokamak lobby is strong politically and keeps the fusion bubble aloft by politics.

[@scottslotterbeck3796]

Nuclear fission is the future. Safe, clean, carbon-free 3rd and 4th gen plants. Fusion and solar/wind are the past.

[@pauldietz1325]

The big engineering obstacle is volumetric power density. For DT reactors, this will utterly suck compared to fission reactors.

[@JonathanRootD]

Welp, this aged badly in 1 day. Major breakthrough just announced. More energy produced from ignition than was put in.

[@dregonzz]

This video and production quality is PHENOMENAL. Bravo on all the hard work!

[@Xeno7001]

9:00 so dont know if you mention but As i remember a lot of H3 and H2 is continental on the moon as a moon dust and other rock etc So another reason to colonize space And jump start warhammer 40k universe

[@jdbrinton]

Ha! The stock footage shot of the helium tanks at 6:50 was taken at XCOR Aerospace, a defunct commercial aerospace company I worked at in the early 2000's. Lots of history there.

[@ProfessionalScofflaw]

What a difference 24 hours makes.

[@ohareport]

this video has achieved what so many don’t quite get- amazing responses and comments from industry experts and on-the-ground commentary. these comments are amazing, get those people an interview!

[@justingolden21]

Well explained and researched, and well presented too

[@cubetamalvada893]

You sure are the soul of the party

[@mattmarzula]

Sure it has...

[@karlmadson4277]

I never can understand Einstein’s equation e=mc squared. Is it possible to explain in simple terms where this equation comes from and why it works?😢

[@mosca204]

Awesome video! Explain really well the Magnetic Confinement Fusion, especially the Tokamak. I would love to see a video about Inertial Confinement Fusion, mostly due to the breakthrough by Lawrence Livermore National Laboratory.

[@zidbits1528]

The coolest thing about the Inertial confinement fusion breakthrough is that they did it with lasers that are 20+ years old. They are ridiculously inefficient compared to the solid state lasers the U.S military is utilizing. I believe one researcher said with those lasers, they'd need only 10 MJ of power for the same result.

[@rayyansayed6265]

I love how someone finally alluded to wendover production’s insane change in voice over six years 😂

[@terramater]

Breaking news just one day after your upload: For the first time, scientists were able to generate more energy than they invested in the process. The researchers used 2.1 megajoules of energy, with the help of laser beams, to initiate the fusion of two hydrogen isotopes. The fusion reaction in the facility generated 2.5 megajoules of energy.

[@manatoa1]

Keep in mind that it took around 500 megajoules to generate the laser pulse. 2.1 megajoules of which hit the fuel pellet, initiating fusion, and producing 2.5 megajoules. It's a breakthrough, but also an extremely tiny OVERALL energy return.

[@epicspacetroll1399]

@@manatoa1 While I am skeptical of inertial confiment fusion being in any way practical for electricity in the near future, I would like to point out that the laser inefficiency is less of a hurdle than it might seem from the numbers. As your numbers show, the lasers used in the experiment have something like 0.5-1% efficiency. However, as I understand it, the lasers used in many of these facilities are rather old and outdated. They're bulky and use flashlamps and other older tech to pump the lasers, mainly because that's what was available when the facilities were built. Modern diode-based lasers can have efficiencies of roughly 40% or something like that, which would bring down the input energy required to run the lasers drastically. Personally I think magnetic confinement fusion is much more likely to become effective for electricity production in the (relatively) near future than ICF, simply because current ICF setups typically have to obliterate a metal houlram (might have misspelled that) with every shot. Considering electricity costs and typical material limitations, I find it hard to imagine getting enough energy from a shot to cover the cost of the metal being expenses with the fuel. Then again, I'm not a nuclear engineer. Just a aero/mechanical one. Ok sorry for the rant lol.

[@manatoa1]

@@epicspacetroll1399 I thought it was quite a thoughtful reply. Firstly, I'm not any kind of engineer, I just read some longer articles and got really annoyed with the way this story has been reported. The majority of people seem to be under the impression that we've achieved a net return on energy invested, which is horribly wrong. If we have diode based lasers that work in this application, I think that's great. I'm a fusion skeptic, overall, but if we could actually do it effectively it'd be a godsend. I agree with you that if we can do it, it'll probably be magnetic confinement that works. Mostly, I'm a nukebro who hates seeing people say we should skip fission in favour of waiting for fusion. When people are fooled into thinking fusion is a lot closer to commercial reality than it is, the argument for waiting gains traction. I think there's a rapidly closing window where we can decarbonise, and I hate the distraction fusion represents in the short and medium term.

[@neon-john]

No they didn't achieve breakeven. The press release lied. The input energy of 2.1 megajoules was only the energy contained in the laser beams. It does not account for all the energy the NIF consumes getting ready for and making a shot. From the NIF website, the NIF consumes 200 MWe continuously during make-ready and the actual shot. Taking that into account, the plant is only a few millionths of a percent efficient. Many orders of magnitude away from break-even, much less net energy production.

[@ct6502c]

@@manatoa1 If I hear the words "carbon footprint" or "carbon neutral" or any other of that nonsense just one more time, I'm going to be nauseous. If environmentalist nutters hate CO2 (a naturally occurring gas) so much, they can just learn to stop breathing...

[@nerdydude1.882]

The brightest minds of several generations working with increasingly more precise methods of measuring reality just to make fire spin. And it's awesome.

[@twotails]

6:40 Best crossover of the year.

[@Bryzerse]

I think it would be a bit overly simplistic to say cost is the primary reasons fission plants are being shut down. In France and Germany, where the some of most are being closed, the reasons are a lot more nuanced, but otherwise this is a really good video on the topic.

[@ARabidPie]

Exactly. The problems facing fission power development are mostly political, not economic.

[@v0ldy54]

Not really nuanced: political propaganda, that's all.

[@kellymoses8566]

Irrational fear is the main reason nuclear reactors are being shut down

[@Bryzerse]

@@v0ldy54 Well France also wants to shut them down to be less reliant on nuclear, but it does all stem from the same place so you are right really.

[@nickodellmurphy4]

Agreed. I think that part of the video is just incorrect

[@MrRolnicek]

So it's not just the Lithium but you actually WANT the Beryllium as well. MIT's ARC reactor is to be built with a molten salt FLiBe blanket and the reasoning was pretty clear, you want something that doesn't get destroyed structurally by the neutrons (it's liquid so no problem) you want something with high heat capacity to carry off the heat of the reaction out where it can be used (which it has and at high temperature too which is a bonus) and you want to breed Tritium from it (for this I assumed it was only the Lithium that helped but apparently the Beryllium helps too). And then there's the fact that FLiBe molten salts are very good for molten salt FISSION reactors as well so the science around them such as what pipes to use and how to prevent moisture etc. is already being worked on for some time with pretty good results so far.

[@korakys]

Making the walls liquid is a pretty interesting solution to the problem of them being destroyed by neutron radiation over time. I imagine it's not exactly easy though, there will need to be some solid parts in there still.

[@MrRolnicek]

@@korakys Of course it's not easy ... I'm a staunch proponent of investing into molten salt fission reactors right now because the issues there are basically solved already and the "pipe dream" of clean cheap abundant energy is fulfilled by those as well at least for the next few hundred years

[@armaanoo]

It's amazing to see how every question we think we have an answer for needs sooo much more thinking.

[@JamesDoylesGarage]

I would love to hear what you think of Thorium-based nuclear power?

[@tarakivu8861]

Its not as clean as its made to seem.

[@danielstory2761]

It’s good in the meanterm though, in SMRs

[@spacefacts1681]

@@tomassakalauskas2856 the corrosion problem is not a showstopper at all. There's two ways you can deal with it: Going for small and modular reactor "cans" that are designed to be replaced every 5 years or so, where the amount of power produced will easily pay for the recycling of the cans and their replacement (ThorCon, Terrestrial Energy) Alternatively just denature the salt mix with elements that the hot salt will preferentially corrode and thicken the reactor walls somewhat, so it can have a long healthy lifespan

[@spacefacts1681]

@@tarakivu8861 expand on your point please?

[@leerman22]

@@tomassakalauskas2856 I say who cares if you have to replace a metal tank and heat exchangers (abet with more expensive alloys) every couple of years or decade, it's not like the gigantic heavy steel forgings to hold back the insane pressure of PWR reactors, it's for a molten salt reactor under much more mundane pressures.

[@HunchoVids]

The timing of this video is nuts!

[@HiddenMasters]

this aged well

[@Safetytrousers]

Wrong.

[@INOT-h1c]

I have worked in ITER for 6 years. Extremely good video.

[@TaikiMMT]

Quick note, France's peak power consumption is between 80 and 100GW. A 800MW reactor only provide 1% (or less) of the supply, not 2%. Also, it's a bit early to call fission power plant a thing of the past, considering we're pretty much in the middle of a resurgence :)

[@lolturtle13]

Especially with all the untapped potential in the fission process. Generation 2 PWR and BWR designs are very inefficient in their fuel use since they were designed to function only with thermal U235. Fuel in commercial plants is only enriched to 3% U235 because of the proliferation restrictions. "Spent" fuel still contains significant amounts of usable uranium isotopes. Thorium and Plutonium are also fuel candidates for future designs. Not to mention general improvements in the secondary and electric plant designs that have the potential to raise the thermal conversion efficiency from 30% to over 50%. Generation 3 reactors don't solve any of this since they focused only on safety features. Generation 4, however, promises to make progress on the fission plant designs. Progress was stunted for so long because of poor public opinion and understanding..

[@seijirou302]

U.S. department of energy is expected to announce a net energy gain in a fusion reaction tomorrow!

[@arandomyoutuber6634]

I'm applying to uni currently and I wrote about fusion in my personal statement. I want to go work on it eventually. Long road ahead of me but it's my current and hopefully a goal that will stick

[@marcusmason3440]

Dont hold back my friend........there hiring right now. Good luck.

[@arandomyoutuber6634]

@@marcusmason3440 I'm not going to get a job soon in that industry. I'm 17 and with little experience at life. Just gonna continue my studies and get a normal job and work my way up to it

[@freetrade8830]

Just keep in mind that fusion may never become an economic power source. It's not enough to create more energy than you consume. The machine also has to be cheaper than all other alternatives. Fusion machines tend to be quite complex, which drives cost. Fission reactors are by comparison much simpler. They also require less input power than fusion reactors. I suspect fission will be more cost-effective for the foreseeable future.

[@Kraynium_XIX]

Just finished my masters in nuclear physics and the future is bright for this field, you’re making the right choice, good luck lad!!

[@asliceofcheese7152]

You people bring me hope for humanity

[@stevenpike7857]

If it's the repulsion due to the electromagnetic field... is it possible to temporarily weaken that field with like an EMP or something?

[@Ben-kq1qx]

As someone who has followed the channel since my undergrad, it was very cool seeing the lab I work in featured in one of your videos. I thought the video gave an excellent overview of the science behind Nuclear Fusion energy and the basic engineering of the Tokamak. One thing I'd note - fission power stations are insanely expensive in large part due to the very stringent regulations they need to meet due to the potential harm an accident could cause as well as the somewhat unfair public perception of the risk associated with them. This wouldn't be an issue with Fusion power and they could be regulated like any other energy generation technology which would help reduce the build costs. The costs to build a Tokamak will be very high at the beginning as there is no supply chain for a lot of the components we need so these need to be made bespoke, this should change once there is a proven design which can be built in larger numbers.

[@cabbage_cat]

I really hope more people get to know that fusion and fission are different

[@wcookiv]

I'd love to hear you discuss Fusion General's concept of repeatedly collapsing a sphere of mercury and using the heated mercury to generate steam, but I guess that's not gonna happen now. I find Helion's idea of using the magnetic fields very elegant, but General Fusion's ideas seem much more straightforward, scalable, and easy to manufacture than all the other fusion concepts out there. Also a fusion reactor that functions like a nuclear diesel piston is exceptionally pleasing to my aesthetics.

[@cosmictreason2242]

This is perhaps the most excellent educational video I’ve ever seen. Everything that was discussed was defined, quickly and concisely

[@stickiedmin6508]

I don't disagree with any of that in any way, but I've gotta say - the idea that abundant energy would lead to the end of war and a peaceful, prosperous utopia, seems almost adorable in its naivete. Surely, it must be pretty clear at this point that we're in the 'Bad' reality? Y'know, the mirror universe where Mr. Spock has a goatee and everyone is evil, rather than the 'Utopia' reality? If fusion power ever becomes truly accessible to humanity, in a useful and productive way, it's going to lead to one thing, and one thing only : Profits, and not for any of us.

[@stevesteve8098]

No it was not...... it is a fluffy feel good piece.

[@FundyTheAstronaut]

Hello, so later the same year he posted it which I think was 2023, the first fusion reactor put out more energy than it took in.

[@Ablimify]

In the United States not the fusion reactor he hypes up in this video. (Not sure he even mentioned the one in the US)

[@bobthepurpleninja]

Oh man, what unfortunate upload time

[@sebaufiend]

I feel the need to point out U-238 is also fissionable. At 14 MeV the fission cross section for U-238 and U-235 are nearly equal.

[@skipperg4436]

You need a neutron with certain energy to make U-238 to split. There are reactor designs - even large scale one! - that make it work. In most of existing commercial fission reactors U-238 captures neutron and eventually becomes Pu-239 or Pu-240 which are also perfectly fine fuel, however since Pu-239 can also be used for nuclear weapons there have been an immense political pressure to not go ahead with this technology. As if countries who can afford nuclear weapons already don't have them...

[@sebaufiend]

@@skipperg4436 the point was there was no need to distinguish between u238 and u235 in the case of this neutron field. Yes I'm aware there are fast reactors.

[@alatereview3141]

And the day this video is posted we get a breakthrough in nuclear fusion technology and are finally able to get net positive energy from a reaction. Life is funny sometimes

[@nelsc9051]

I came here just to see what the updates are. I’ll bet they release an update asap

[@Deathempire666]

In the video he said that the nuclear fusion heats up so much that it could melt any matter in the universe doesn’t that mean if we could harvest the heat as well the nuclear fusion we could harvest a lot more energy.

[@brendanrisney2449]

I was considering a nap before work, but I thought "You know what I'd really like? A Real Engineering video. Maybe I'll go rewatch the A-10 warthog video again." And imagine my surprise when a video, on _nuclear fusion_ no less, came out.

[@krunchy3761]

This is the first video on this topic I've watched that actually explains how to get the heat you are going to use to generate energy. Thank you!

[@jennwickers146]

We will probably be using whats essentially a fusor, but instead of the physical ''cage'' inside to control the plasma, we will make a ''virtual'' cage using electromagnets. This will allow the plasma to get a lot hotter without the relatively cold cage inside. We can then weaken a part of the em cage to allow plasma to be funnelled off for use making steam.

[@jeremyguillory8304]

I stood inside the largest fusion reactor about 6 months ago while on a shop visit…. The one being installed in France… Absolutely amazing.

[@LMSI998]

The more I learn about nuclear fusion, the less attractive it becomes, while for fission is the opposite the case. And also, nuclear fission reactors are not everywhere uneconomical. While in Europe and the US this technology became very expensive due to loss of competency following a halt in construction of more than two decades, the Russians, Chinese and Koreans manged to build nuclear power plants cost effectively.

[@Cosmic_youtuberr]

If we somehow find a way to handle the challenges put forward by Nuclear Fusion, we ll have energy for the generations to come .. Maybe the real deal is we'll be able to build Iron man armor

[@MultiSciGeek]

My god this is so comprehensive! Thank you!

[@HughWarner-p9i]

The final proof of greatness lies in being able to endure criticism without resentment.

[@eoghangeoghegan1317]

Imagine watching this video and then 2 days later the US announces the first fusion test that produced excess energy. That's fun!

[@justeunfan3364]

except it didn't produced exess energy. The lazers energy is not accounted for, so its just american bullshit.

[@mrzerogaming4012]

Uhhhhhhhhh.......

[@eoghangeoghegan1317]

@@mrzerogaming4012 cause that's what happened in my case

[@austincummins7712]

There is a good amount of "fine print" to that reported excess. An interesting breakthrough, yes, but it is been over-hyped. You might just look into the 300 MJ (or 400 MJ according to some sources) of additional energy required to create the "excess" 50%.

[@eoghangeoghegan1317]

@@austincummins7712 ahh no, I'm aware it was very little excess but I don't think it's over hype cause I didn't think we'd have even that little bit for a while longer. Also I think it's good to big these stories up as it helps with awareness and funding. Just a cool story that surprised me really.

[@andyandroid5345]

This was timed well, U.S. Energy Chairwoman just announced Fusion produced more energy than it consumed.

[@mikejohnson5900]

With the announcement that they've managed to make more energy than was put in from a fusion reactor this video is very timely. Thank you for explaining a very complex and making it more understandable for those of us who are not physics people.

[@NiklasLarssonSeglarfan]

You should know though that the "make more energy" was only on a atomic scale.. The energy needed to power the lasers was 100 times greater than the energy output.

[@wingchunelsner]

This video is absolutely brillantly done!!! Thank you!

[@EvocativeKitsune]

7:54 I think you meant to say "given off during nuclear fission" instead of "fusion". Unless we're using heavy water in experimental fusion reactors?

[@ArcherOfJustice]

Deuterium-Deuterium reactions are a common fuel in experimental reactors such as JET but they don't yield enough energy. Deuterium-Tritium reactions are the ones we will have to use in actual power plants.