The future of fusion - with the UKAEA

[@SeventhCircleID]

...what I'd really like to see is a fusion video that properly focuses on the technical challenges in detail.

[@miguelJsesma]

And what is the future if ITER with those alternative not only big project but also emerging technologies getting stronger

[@johnjakson444]

you will be waiting for ever because almost every engineer in these project only understands their own tiny part of the whole project and the bosses certainly don't understand the totality, see what happened with ITER, 15x miscalculation of input outputs. right now its mostly entirely fantasy, grasping for new tricks to solve impossible problems. First light is currently thinking up something like a spinning molten lithium tank for breeding, the required tritium. If they threw away 99% of their IP, they could just puts some uranium into the flibe salt to heat it up, but no the heat must come from a fantastical devicel for shooting plastic devices at targets with imploded fusion even though Its loughably complicated way to heat up the flibe coolant. at the end of the day all we want is a coolant like flibe to recieve in the simplest possible way some heat from uranium fission or Thunderbird 17 to get some fusion device working

[@Urufu-san]

There are literally hundreds

[@orokusaki1243]

It is all in the laws of thermodynamics. They're trying to create perpetual motion devices in the form of a fusion reactor with net yield. The sun can do it because of it's specific conditions. We can emulate it, but only by putting external energy into the system, so we will never see a net yield of "free energy".

[@evelynricahrds2461]

One is that as the magnetic field gets stronger the power output from the plasma goes up exponentially, however it becomes more difficult to remove the exhaust to keep firing it and once the magnetic field is strong enough to make it viable the whole thing wants to rip itself apart.

[@TheRadischen]

did they send the marketing team?

[@dukeallen432]

Marketing rules the world.

[@ChrisDanger807]

Every video on this channel is PR at it's very core.

[@markTheWoodlands]

​@@dukeallen432maybe the world of fizzy drinks. Not the world of electricity generation.

[@shmookins]

This is disappointing. I thought I was getting a lecture about the technical challenges, achievements, and expected future milestones. Please change the title to be less misleading and more accurate to the type of talk given here. Thank you.

[@johnjakson444]

I would suggest building a detailed fusion plant by taking most of the gubbins of a Molten Salt Flibe fission reactor. So at least we have a heated salt and a method to move heat to storage tanks and make electricty or use the heat directly. Then because of our anti fission biases we not put any fission fuels into the Flibe loop. That leave several possibilities. use the sun to heat the salt at the top of a solar tower, it works but its about $20B to make 1GWe at scale based on Gemasolar stats, vs the likely cost of $5B for old nuclear and maybe $1B for Moltex type designs per GWe. But for the fusion die hards come up with some extraordinary boon doggle way to get fusion working and dumping the heat into the salt loop. So the lady mentions a liquid wall container suspiciously looking like a Flibe tank. The 1st light people have also mentioned a lithium liquid wall to catch those neutrons as well as to breed tritium. ironincally if they would just use Lithium Deuteride, the whole issue of DT reaction and breeding tritium goes away, but then they have to talk about LD instead. So the fuel is then Lithium 7/6 normal plus deuterium. I hope they don't want to enrich the lithium, that makes the whole problem another order of magnitude harder.

[@king_has_no_clothskul8635]

those days are gone fool. read. it is all on wiki-pedia.

[@davidmatthews9106]

Throughout my lifetime fusion has been the power source of the future. It looks like it will continue to be. We need to not let the hope for fusion stop us from doing modern fission plants.

[@BRUXXUS]

This isn't a video about science, it's a sales pitch... an extremely boring and uninspiring sales pitch, at that. I thought this was a science channel.

[@lukasgayer5393]

I fell asleep TWICE :D :D :D I just couldn´t finish watching it.

[@rockets4kids]

@@lukasgayer5393 Bookmarked for when I have trouble getting to sleep.

[@TotesRandom]

It will be ready within the next 30 years!...they've been saying since the 1960s!!!!

[@lapurta22]

When I was a kid in the 60s, it was 10 years. Just around the corner. 🤔

[@DSteinman]

My dad spent his 30 year career in the field... and we are where we are...

[@SebastianBeresniewicz]

This is not why I subscribe to this channel. I love the science. This is marketing, and it's not even good marketing. Stick to what you're great at!

[@biggityboggityboo8775]

Totally pointless video.

[@fparent]

How much did you pay for your subscription? Nothing, right? If you don't like it, wait for the next one.

[@tkermi]

​@@fparentIt's beneficial for any channel to also get negative feedback. That's helpful for them to plan and alter future content. Some can obviously been seen from other viewer analytics, but getting it in text form adds to that.

[@robindumpleton3742]

Reminiscent of RI Children's Christmas Lectures. As far às I can see there is a huge difficulty with Tritium both it's primary ignition seed and continuing it's production within the reactor envelope. ITER have had a recent materials problem and the program has been delayed, whilst stocking Tritium which is decaying.

[@JohnSmith-l7c]

Ah, like fusion, it's difficult being human. ❤

[@runcycleskixc]

I've switched from watching over-polished TED talks to these. Thank you for posting!

[@vernonbrechin4207]

Nuclear fusion energy presentation have largely become scamming operations since many billions, worth of U.S. dollars, are now involved in many dozens of experimental machines located around the globe. The public and private investors are being hoodwinked into supporting this research that has encountered numerous unanticipated difficulties since the research began back in the 1950s. The fusion energy gain figures are intended to mislead.

[@stevelenores5637]

500 MW seems like a lot but San Onofre in California has 2 nuclear power plants that put out 1200 MW each. At some point we will realize that is cheaper to burn Euros in a fireplace to keep homes warm in the winter than to use fusion power to heat the same homes.

[@rickardeneqvist5445]

San Onofre has been shutdown for quite some time, only active Nuclear plant in CA now is Diablo

[@zeev]

3 gorges dam is 20 gigawatts. biggest powerplant in the world and the uptime is ALOT , downtime very low.

[@vaporisedair4919]

If only we had unlimited rivers

[@rayzsome8852]

we have not yet found a single safe place for the radioactive waste that will keep radiating some 100 thousands of years. No one calculates the costs of this problem. But there is no planet b for human kind and life on earth.

[@retromograph3893]

THIS WAS GREAT!.......could you please next do a PowerPoint on the challenges of intergrating time travel into the current tourism industry!

[@vernonbrechin4207]

Many troubling key parameters are left out of most of the public presentations in order to generate more public support and investments.

[@retromograph3893]

@@vernonbrechin4207 True, even ITER has some empty areas of its blueprint labeled "component made of yet to be invented material goes here"!

[@mattlambert6823]

This is real life applied to science - its good to hear about the practical implications, particularly for something newly potent

[@vernonbrechin4207]

They failed to mention that the experimentation on this technology began in the late 1950s and has experienced numerous unexpected problems during that development time. There have been numerous different development approaches using scores of different experimental machines. That factor wasn't made clear. This was a sales pitch by dedicated fans, not anything like a critical analysis.

[@johanlindeberg7304]

56:53 When someone tells you that you need them, try to make it not so.

[@markTheWoodlands]

Total click bait. Who are the users? What are the regulatory issues? Those are not questions that serious people are focused on. There was nothing of substance on the specific technical challenges and timeline.

[@antonyneil]

Not to mention the sourcing of the fuel and its cost.

[@7rich79]

Is there a risk that the potential of fusion technology overshadows the feasibility of actually developing it? Not to be disparaging, but to draw an analogy to food, the best food would be one that is nutrition rich, has no negative health risks, increases life span, helps to maintain a healthy weight, increases energy levels and improves our mental health while not being addictive. It is possible to devote research to making a superfood like this, but does it perhaps detract from other more limited scope but more achievable goals?

[@Islandmidfielder]

Very good analogy

[@FredMoorhouse-k9p]

This has to be one of the worst presentations I've watched on this channel over the years. It's just a corporate marketing exercise and tbh an outright sales pitch. I don't mind an individual speaker promoting their book but this is unacceptable Shame on this channel for allowing this !

[@shaneduryea7815]

How about some tangible facts? Data driven results not empty promises.

[@Firebird1005]

Hear hear

[@stphkp889]

I like how they start out with who will use it. The cart is about a light year ahead of the horse! I know, I know, it’s only 10 years away 😅.

[@vernonbrechin4207]

They always put a great deal of emphasis upon what they claim it will be bring about if successful. After all the primary purpose of such presentations is to sell their product to get public and private investors interested in funding the multi-million dollar and now often muti-billion dollars projects.

[@scottkidder9046]

I’m posting this before I watch the video, but I’m guessing another 20-30 years?… lol

[@donc-m4900]

Did you watch this 30 years ago? Lol. Well you could have.

[@johnjakson444]

you saved yourself an hour of dreary BS, there was some new ideas mentioned, but very short on details, fusion is now woke, fusion is borrowing ideas from fission without giving credit, fusion is doing very well indeed (it is not), I won't get my hour back though

[@PaulG.x]

I'm not sure saying "our fusion will target peaking" is a wise choice of words that will never lead to catastrophic misunderstandings

[@robgandy4550]

I agree, basics I have got. I want to know the current challenges, thoughts to overcoming those challenges, and what we can expect from the new devices (Fusion Projects)

[@vernonbrechin4207]

Many people assume if the existing devices are not living up to their expectations then the newer devices must be on the right track to fulfill those expectations. Few ask themselves if some of the technical dreamers of the past simply couldn't achieve what they projected to the public that they would do. All the original experimenters in this nuclear fusion energy field are now dead, or retired. They had no less enthusiasm than the young fusion fans of today.

[@umbertosantini4155]

How is it possible to estimate the costs of a nuclear fusion power plant before even knowing which technology will make it really work?

[@vernonbrechin4207]

Excellent point. Many billions of dollars have already been sunk into scores of different experimental machines, beginning in the late 1950s.

[@king_has_no_clothskul8635]

you can do paper work and estimate easily. it is not that hard if you have the pieces needed it. this is a projection. game on once you made breakthrough and private investment coming inn. if it is 6 bil world wide or just uk and usa are not clear. ------------- it has had 50 bil research as well. so all in all it is a very big deal that can change the way you produce and use energy.

[@vernonbrechin4207]

@@king_has_no_clothskul8635 - The calculated results, for a given hypothetical reactor, are dependent upon the the accuracy of the values provided to the calculator. If the input energy is based upon the energy to heat the plasma, and not the energy needed to operate the entire facility then the finally result could be off by an order of magnitude or more. If the fusion energy output is predicated upon the energy output of a brief pulse but the calculator was given the impression that is a steady state output, then again the resultant value can be orders of magnitude off. Many of the estimators don't have a clue if they are being provided with meaningful values because they are not familiar with the arcane physics.

[@umbertosantini4155]

@@king_has_no_clothskul8635 estimating something that you dont know how to do? roll a dice and you save a lot on the estimation time...

[@king_has_no_clothskul8635]

@@umbertosantini4155 add 250 bil research till today:what led to this.u need more a tril, then we talk.right now there is no muscle in the hustle.

[@dangerdackel]

This is total BS marketing. How the RI can commission such a presentation is an insult to Faraday.

[@andycordy5190]

Sorry to be scathing. " That's why we're really excited about fusion." Those of us who used to be interested in fusion as part of the energy crisis resolution and hopeful of new ways to combat the continuation fossil fuel exploitation have mostly dismissed fusion from the equation. ITER has rescheduled first plasma current from 2024 to 2034 at the earliest deuterium operation 2039 at the earliest. If it works, by the time we can build clones of the plant to ease the burden on other main generator systems, the battle will either have been won or lost. I'm not saying stop. I'm saying stop selling it like it's the anser to climate change or even part of the answer. It's flagrantly dishonest and devalues the work of those who really ARE making a difference.

[@lapurta22]

But even those working on ITER know they are on a fool's errand.

[@markstaniford9965]

Too expensive? Resource constrained? Long lead time? Massive footprint? Tritium? Life span? Not looking good.

[@marsspacex6065]

We already have the best fusion reactor ever created and it is fast becoming the number 1 source of electricity in the world and its free, its called the Sun.

[@robinwhitebeam4386]

I have not watched the video series yet , but we have a stable and proven fusion reactor already. Please can the energy capture technology that uses the sun be the RIs next series of talks.

[@richardplane2155]

Content free.

[@RoyPounsford]

The now low cost of solar, wind and batteries make the future of fusion redundant

[@johnjakson444]

batteries store electrical energy about 10,000 times more expensive than storing chemical or heat energy, that is just plain physics you could read a physics book or two, start with the free pdf "Without The Hot Air" by David MacKay, it will rather burst your bubble about renewables and batteries

[@maxthemagition]

Could the sun’s rays create fusion if focused? Answer..,. While focusing sunlight can indeed generate immense heat, it's not enough to initiate nuclear fusion. To achieve fusion, we need to create extremely high temperatures and pressures, conditions found in the core of stars like our Sun. Here's why focusing sunlight isn't sufficient: Temperature: Even with perfect focusing, the maximum temperature achievable with sunlight is limited by the Sun's surface temperature. This is far below the millions of degrees Celsius required for fusion. Pressure: Fusion also demands immense pressure to force atomic nuclei together. Focusing sunlight cannot generate the necessary pressure. While the idea of harnessing solar energy for fusion is intriguing, current technology is still far from achieving this. Scientists are exploring various methods, like using powerful lasers or magnetic confinement, to create the extreme conditions needed for fusion. In other words…..Impossible!

[@vernonbrechin4207]

Many of the experimenters and fans have left the impression with journalists, the general public and funders with the belief that the experimentation, which began in the 1950s, is now so mature that with many more billions of USD worth of funding that a commercially competitive nuclear fusion energy demonstration pilot power plant can be constructed by 2032. They have learned to capitalize upon the general ignorance of this esoteric field and the public craving for a solution to the dire warnings coming from mainstream climate scientists.

[@Scubadooper]

Ouch!!! The comments are BRUTAL

[@vernonbrechin4207]

It's important for people, who have immersed themselves in echo-chamber information bubbles that reinforce what they prefer to believe in, to be exposed to alternative perspectives that they have completely overlooked in their quest to reward their deeply entrenched beliefs.

[@johncarter1150]

​@vernonbrechin4207 not a belief question.

[@Scubadooper]

@@vernonbrechin4207 never a truer word written

[@Scubadooper]

@@johncarter1150 in what way?

[@orokusaki1243]

Fusion with net production is always 10 years away. Like light, that is from all reference frames. On Earth, the conditions don't exist nor can they sufficiently be created to sustain such a self-perpetuating reaction, it would've been done by now if it were not for actual physics and the techniques being used. We do still learn stuff from the experiments, though, and that is where we might find some value.

[@vernonbrechin4207]

Many technologically lovers believe that as long as we are learning new things form such endeavors than it is justified throwing billions of dollars at those who are having so much fun in such fields.

[@vernonbrechin4207]

Many technically oriented people believe that as long as we are learning something from such experiments it is worth spending billions of US dollars on them. Keep in mind that the nuclear fusion experiments began back in the early 1950s. Those experimenters were just as confident and driven as todays young experimenters in the field are. Most are either dead, or long retired now. Virtually all nuclear energy promoters, are in line with the vast majority of Earth's other 8.0+ billion humans, who continue to assume that we still have at least 20 years left to turn this 'Titanic' around using their favorite nuclear technology. They have become masterful in excluding the following warnings from their consciousness. 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 5.6 years ago.

[@FARDEEN.MUSTAFA]

That was a great lecture about Fusion energy. I think Nuclear Fusion is the real deal in Plasma Physics for ITER. The heat temperature is 150 million degrees celsius which is 10 times hotter than the core of Sun to build Fusion energy. If the heat is 10 times hotter than Sun, then Albert Einstein's famous equation E=mc^2 has been used to build Fusion energy. Don't you think something is missing in between. E=mc^2 explains the energy with speed of light, but theoretically Fusion energy explains the energy that 10 times faster and hotter than Sun. How do the data analysts work on Fusion energy's data? How do they analyze the data?

[@vernonbrechin4207]

The ITER project is many tens-of-billions of Euros over its original projected budget and it is well beyond a decade behind its original schedule. A couple of years ago major defects were found with some of its major assemblies that are now expected to cost over five billion Euros to remedy. They now project that they won't be able to generate their first fusion reactions until 2039. Most nuclear fusion energy announcements are filled with sales hype so as to attract investments in the projects. The presentations are filled with the future prospects if all goes as planned, while lacking in key operational parameters of the current generation of machines.

[@carlyellison8498]

Solar doesn't count as fusion?

[@colinmoore35]

A most excellent comment 👍

[@eddyr1041]

The far far away one😅😊

[@johnjakson444]

it does if you want it to, but only at capacity factor at best 20%, and often half that in the EU north, and in say the US NE, its 5x better in the summer than in winter. So all those solar PV fans should consider how the energy is produced when the sun don't shine, it comes from lower efficiency nat gas or even new clean brown lignite coal in Germany.

[@carlyellison8498]

@@johnjakson444 - thank you, good points! I prefer fission, myself.

[@johnjakson444]

@@carlyellison8498 indeed, I will take any fission over any fossil fuel RE combination, but I esp like MSRs, the thorium/uranium argument is redundant though, fav is Moltex

[@noeliamedina4583]

Congratulations because it is a future , our future. Thnks so much

[@vernonbrechin4207]

It was a lot of hype that plays upon the fears of many regarding the threats of Anthropogenic Climate Disruption. Most of the experimenters and fans continue to assume that we have at least two decades left to turn this 'Titanic' around based upon their favorite nuclear technology. Most 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 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.

[@alexanderbrinkley4332]

Is there really any need for further research into thermonuclear weapons? The W88 with a Teller-Ulam design yields 475 kilotons from a device that weighs less than half a ton. Most of the yield from these weapons is from fission, particularly from the tertiary stage of normally non-fissile U-238 utilizing the neutrons from the fusion secondary. What’s wacky about the T-U design is how old it is : 1951! Transistors were barely commercially available and were not yet part of computing.

[@johnjakson444]

The T-U device is an amazing piece of engineering, the more physicists are familiar with it the better as it shows the brilliance at work in combining fission and fusion in a recursive sense. I suspect any successful fusion plant is going to steal a great deal from fission, likely Molten Salt Reactors, esp Flibe, but it begs the question, the heat source for the Flibe from uranium dissolved within, or the most complicated way mankind could ever come up with to transfer a fusion blast into a liquid salt with 100,000 times the temperature needed. Its nuts.

[@vernonbrechin4207]

@@johnjakson444 - Many people have a fascination for the technical design of nuclear explosions and nuclear reactors. That helps explain the reason that there are now nine known nuclear weapon powers in the world. Typically such technically oriented people don't bother spending much time considering the consequences that will result if a nuclear weapon exchange takes place between different countries. They see that as being determined by other experts. The T-U devices is an amazing piece of engineering. It has been tested at least 100 times, many of them in the atmosphere. The fact that the design produces most of its energy due to fission reactions means that the resultant blast ejects many kilograms of highly radioactive fission products into the surrounding environment. In the case of the atmospheric tests much of that was boosted into the stratosphere to finally fall out at great distances downwind. Typical fans of nuclear power tend to not concern themselves much with the SNF waste issues associated with nuclear reactors and atmospheric nuclear explosions.

[@roberthutchison8197]

When fusion is made possible will the radioactive waste from fission be used in fusion?

[@Firebird1005]

Not really, if we could split all the way down to hydrogen there would not be a nuclear waste problem.

[@jim-a74]

Disappointing for the reasons that others have mentioned. Come on RI!

[@سیدسعیدساقی-ر3ه]

thanks

[@mpisaco]

The future is here !!! Congratulations 👏👏👏

[@sdfglkjhdfkjdhldskfj]

We really need Generation IV fission plants using molten salts and Thorium. We could build them tomorrow if we wanted, even if we need to replace the reactor vessel every 10 years that's not a problem because they are cheap and simple compared to the vessels in old-style Generation II plants.

[@vernonbrechin4207]

There are thousands of fans on social media sites who promote thorium fueled molten salt reactors (MSR) as being game changers. The campaign began around two decades ago, started by a couple of aerospace engineers in Alabama State, USA. They were hoping to generate pressure for federal and private funding to revive the old scheme so they could start benefiting from the spending. During the intervening two decades little progress has been made on this front. Still, the proponents claim that we could have hundreds of them operating within the next decade. Most have little knowledge of the past promises for conventional fission power and the decades it takes to build even a few. Search for the following article that indicates that small modular reactors are unlikely to live up to what their fans promised. Small modular nuclear reactors get a reality check in new report (NewAtlas) All promoters of nuclear energy are in line with the vast majority of the Earth’s 8.0+ billion humans who have masterfully excluded the following warnings from their consciousness. They continue to assume that we have at least 20 years left to turn this ‘Titanic’ around, through the use of their favorite technology. 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 5.8 years ago.

[@dred267]

I wish the UKAEA would not shy away from discussing the major problems and costs associated with wind and solar. They are intemittent and unpredictable and gas is the only viable backup for these renewable sources. Nuclear fusion could replace wind, solar and thus we wouldn't need any fossil fuel power generation.

[@maxthemagition]

There is a fundamental question about Fusion Power and that is, can the very high energy that is achievable in the plasma be controlled by magnetic fields?. The Sun contains the plasma or whatever it is by the force of Gravity, nothing it seems can escape the force of gravity. But will the force of electro magnetism be able to contain and control the fusion reaction in the plasma. One thing that bothers me is that the huige magnetic coils will suffer back emf if the magnetic field needs to be changed rapidly.....Fundamental theory of electricity and magnmetism.... Bard on Back EMF in Electromagnetism... "Back EMF (Electromotive Force) is a voltage that opposes the applied voltage in an inductor or transformer. It's generated when the current flowing through the coil changes. How it Works: Current Flow: When a current flows through a coil, it creates a magnetic field around it. Changing Magnetic Field: If the current changes (e.g., increases or decreases), the magnetic field also changes. Faraday's Law: According to Faraday's Law of Electromagnetic Induction, a changing magnetic field induces an EMF in a nearby conductor. Back EMF: In the case of the coil itself, the induced EMF opposes the original current flow. This is the back EMF. Significance of Back EMF: Inductors: In inductors, back EMF is responsible for the inductor's property of resisting changes in current. This is why inductors are often used in circuits to smooth out AC currents or to store energy in magnetic fields. Transformers: In transformers, back EMF is essential for the transfer of energy between the primary and secondary coils. The back EMF in the primary coil opposes the applied voltage, while the back EMF in the secondary coil induces a voltage. Circuit Protection: Back EMF can also be a concern in circuits with rapidly changing currents, as it can cause voltage spikes or even damage components. In some cases, diodes or snubber circuits are used to mitigate the effects of back EMF. In summary, back EMF is a fundamental phenomenon in electromagnetism that arises from the interaction between current-carrying coils and magnetic fields. It plays a crucial role in the behavior of inductors, transformers, and other electrical components."

[@vernonbrechin4207]

The back EMF issue has been taken into consideration in all these Magnetic Confinement Fusion experimental machines. Occasionally a superconducting magnet very abruptly shifts to the conducting state. The current is rapidly switched into a dump load resistance and the maximum back voltage is taken into consideration. Careful design can usually prevent any physical problem from occurring. Keep in mind that the efforts to control the plasma has been going on since the experiments began in the 1950s. The vast majority of nuclear fusion energy experimental machines have never employed fusion fuel, such as tritium, so they have never generated more than trace levels of nuclear fusion reactions.

[@EdwinaTS]

Errmmm, never mind economics, geopolitical competition & ideologies, supply of building PhDs, manufacturing capacities, . . . 😅

[@2CSST2]

So you think anytime any engineering planning is done for future use of a developing technology, they're supposed to take into account just about anything that could go on on the globe including economics, geopolitical, etc., just pretty everything? That's just utterly dumb...

[@oliverjamito9902]

Beloved what is dumb? Is like saying, HIS shared "i" AM, came with sincere conversations given just for thee, and even shared HIS FEET RESTING UPON HIS DRY GROUNDS NOR THE WORLD. FEET RESTING UPON HIS FOOTSTOOL.

[@oliverjamito9902]

Dumb come here in front and remind! LORD thy time will say, a waste of time! Why? Lord thy shared "i" AM all made just for thy OWN!

[@oliverjamito9902]

Now Dumb come here in front! Who are you? Lord thy shared "i" AM all exist! Now where is Dumb? Under our shared Feet in front of thee! Gratitude and Honor!

[@vertigoz]

I lovr pipe in the skyes, pretty much as anyone' else, but why all the dismissal of fission? The more weapons the better

[@rickardeneqvist5445]

The really big weapons are fusion bombs

[@johnjakson444]

@@rickardeneqvist5445 no, the really big fusion bombs are mostly getting energy release from fission of U238 and Pu239 triggered by DT in an endless loop, see T-U device

[@joyboricua3721]

10 years from now. You're welcome.

[@vernonbrechin4207]

The experiments in this field began back in the late 1950s. All the earlier experimenters have either died, or retired in disappointment that their dream never got very far. This fact wasn't mentioned in this sales pitch. Most of Earth's 8.0+ billion people continue to assume that we have at least two decades to turn this 'Titanic' around. They have become masterful in excluding the following warnings from their consciousness. I urge readers to search for the following two 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.

[@lapurta22]

Since I was a little kid back in the '60s.

[@SnapDash]

My country privatized its power systems, and the results have been awful: More expensive power provided by greed-driven corporations who fight against the decolonization of the grid. While I don't think it's likely, I sure wish my government would take control of fusion and return power generation to a public, service-driven crown operator. Seeing the corporate vulture circle the newborn field of fusion generation is a bit sickening.

[@Bultish]

30:35 Hopefully some technical information att this point 🤞

[@king_has_no_clothskul8635]

many comment folks have no clue about the degree of difficulty. they seem to think it is way too easy. if you properly attended school you would know how difficult the challenge is. you think nearly 100 countries are loafing around? it is common to see 75 to a century for a tech to mature. most of what you see today was done in early 1900's and some late 1800's. in fact they are doing at break neck speed which is not really needed. you have to do it right otherwise you will have another problem on your lap. there was gap of 250 to 300 between newton and einstein and nearly 500 to 1000 before that. --------- you want it easy and quick. not so fast. there is price to pay. you do not deserve it yet period. you have to earn it!!!

[@vernonbrechin4207]

Many people never consider that the very clever early engineers, who managed to extract and burn fossil fuels to power modern civilization, believed that they were creating a better world for future generations. Even people, who expend enormous energy into making technologies safe, can later be judged by historians as being careless. The triple reactor meltdown at the Fukushima Daiichi Nuclear Power Plant was the product of reactors that were designed to operate independently from each other and with numerous backup systems for each reactor, including multiple sources of external power feeding the plant. How easy is it to forget such things that instilled confidence in its design. We don't have as much time as most people like to assume we have. Virtually all nuclear energy promoters, are in line with the vast majority of Earth's other 8.0+ billion humans, who continue to assume that we still have at least 20 years left to turn this 'Titanic' around using their favorite nuclear technology. They have become masterful in excluding the following warnings from their consciousness. 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 5.6 years ago.

[@rjhealey]

Wow, so many words...how do I unravel this utter failure. Easily, not one comment complains about wanting it right away or now. Not one..the overall sentiment is clear...stop wasting valuable resources on an obvious boondoggle. 30 years and a definite climate catastrophe heading our way seems clear that WE don't have Time for this nonsense.

[@johnjakson444]

What a massive dissapointment as I expected, I have watched it all the way through, pity we never see the questions. So we learned a few things of little importance. So DEI thinking is alive and well in this field, how nice. Also alot of the ideas in direct use of thermal fission energy have been approriated by fusion, technitium, medical isotopes, direct use of high temperature heat for making hydrogen, concrete, steel, etc etc. But all of these will need an exchange coolant, in fission that would be molten salt the secondary or third loop can take heat away and use it directly in the Sulfur Iodine cycle to split water into hydrogen and oxygen, its is precisly 50% efficient, much more efficient than converting heat to electricity and then using Hydrolysis with rare platinum like metals. They even talk about using fusion energy to destroy nuclear fission waste material, this is remakably dumb as an idea, since the waste is not waste at all, it is just spent fuel that can be used in breeder reactors. Oh the irony that it is the Candu fission reactor that has produced pretty much all the existing tritium and all of the Candu reactors will be turned off long before any fusion plant is ready to use it. And of course tritium has a half life of 12 years so it is going away pretty quickly. There will never be enough remaining tritium to start up a single 500MWe fusion plant let alone the 1000s the world needs. He even mentions that fusion could have hugely variable energy outputs, this idea almost certainly is directly lifted from MSR designs which produce nothing more than baseload heat and trasfer it to salt loops and a storage tank. But if fusion plants are turning on and off all day to follow the grid, this is an incredibly stupid idea, instead the thermal plant needs to run constantly at maximum rate and dump the heat into molten salt tanks and use that in decoupled power plants. The lady mentions NIF quite a bit. She never mentions that LLNL NIF is not in the business of fusion energy, only in weapons testing. She never mentions that they in fact do not use D and T because they don't have to. They use Lithium Deuteride which creates the tritium in situ in the fusion burn, in exactly the same way that thermo nuclear weapons do. D and T have not been used in decades anywhere because they are problematic being in gas form, while LD is a solid like salt compound. Its just a variation of a hydride of lithium. See wikiipedia for more details. She mentions the xcimer laser as a huge improvement over the xenon tube lasers, no doubt that is true but never mentions the energy inputs at the entire machine vs the energy out of the holruhm.She mentions a new type of chamber that uses a liquid wall, but no details of what that is, I am betting it is molten salt, esp Flibe, the same material used in Molten Salt fission reactors. So if we have a fission reactor and a fusion reactor both using molten salt as the primary coolant, then we can have secondary molten salt as the exchange coolant to either a CO2 super critical engine or a regular steam power plant. But again the MSR only needs to disolve some uranium or plutonium into the flibe, while the fusion reactor is looking at the most complicated way possible to heat the liquid salt wall. She also mentions that unlike fission plants, fusion plants can be turned on and off at will. Lets revisit the 1st MSR at the Oakridge labs in the 1970s, it was turned off every friday night by the last person out the door and turned back on on monday by the first person in. This on off was nothing more than a heating system to move the solid salt from a bottom pan back into the coolant loops to flow through the system. Now conventional PWRs and BWRs don't get turned on and off, but MSRs can be turned on and off at will and they can not go out of control. Its common for the fusion guys to up talk about the extra safety of fusion and downplay fission safety. Buts let remember these fusion systems are unbelievably complex, turning them off will be no problem at all, keeping them on will be a huge problems because they have so many complex parts which can not fail, if the smallest part fails, the system will be down for months at a time. And when they are off they will have many parts that must be kept on ie the super cold magnets. And she mentions that fusion not being like fission should have a lighter touch on regulation playing right into the play book of all anti nuclear laywers that have made fission licensing so impossibly dificult. Ff fusion and fission evolve to use mostly the same systems to take heat away from the chamber the only remaining difference is the source of the nuclear heat into the chamber. A few kg of fission materials disolved into the Flibe is 10 orders simpler to deal with than all the hoopla that fusion is going to use. And since the DT discussion never even shifted into the Lithium Deuteride discussion, we have the main fuel ingrediant of a thermo nuclear device being used to heat the coolant salt. The other guest said a lot of things I remember nothing of it. Its obvious that none of these fusion people knows a thing about how modern fission works and that MSRs are incredibly simple by comparison, they don't need more than 1000k, they don't need cryogenics or high temp superconducting magnets, they don't need protection from high energy neutrons since neutrons have no effect on Flibe or any liquid salt crystals, they don't need whole world order industry to create structures that only a world level can build since many MSR designs can fit in a standard shipping container and move on the back of a truck.

[@vernonbrechin4207]

Obviously you are one of the many thousands of MSR fans who have immersed yourself exclusively in echo chamber information sources so as to reinforce what you already prefer to believe in. Such people have little interest in seeking out critical assessments of the technology they assume will serve as our savior. You are correct regarding the rarity of radioactive tritium and the likely cut-off of the current sources. Currently the market value of tritium is approximately $30,000/g. It certainly isn't as plentiful as the hydrogen in the oceans as was first pitched to a clueless audience. Most of the many experimental nuclear fusion energy projects assume that someone else will supply the tritium fuel component. They have no interest in planning for the production of it. You are correct that all thermonuclear weapons (H-bombs) employ lithium deuteride as their primary fusion fuel. That is not the case in the announced experiment, on December 5, 2022, at the National Ignition Facility (NIF). The nearly perfect hollow diamond sphere was injected with deuterium and tritium gas that then condensed into a solid film on the interior surface of the fuel capsule. It took several days to achieve the best film distribution. Once compressed, by the ablating wall, the fusion reaction lasted for approximately 0.000,000,000,08 second before being blown apart by the force of the reaction. Many nuclear power proponents have no actual technical training in the field. They have learned mostly from immersion in promotional echo chambers. Many have bought into the concept that nuclear waste can actually be consumed in special reactors to produce more energy. They haven't bothered to look critically at the claims. It is true that the un-fissioned uranium and plutonium can be chemically extracted from the Spent Nuclear Fuel (SNF) pellets and that can be re-fabricated into new fuel pellets. It is a very expensive process. The proponents tend to not mention that the SNF also contains highly radioactive fission products that must be chemically removed by the recycling process. It then needs to go into long term storage casks for eventual geological disposal. Most of the fission products can't simply be irradiated by the neutron beam to convert them into non-radioactive elements, or to extract energy from them. One of the above presenters pointed out that the fission product radioactive iodine could be made harmless by bombardment with fusion energy neutrons. He conveniently left out mentioning that first it has to be chemically extracted from the rest of numerous fission products before being irradiated and he failed to state that this doesn't work for the vast majority of the fission products found in SNF. Some of the speakers were not technically savvy regarding the details of nuclear fusion energy production. One result is that they have been duped just as many of the other fans have been.

[@johnh6245]

Excellent comment. Will the U.K. build a reactor and HOPE that there will be enough tritium to start it, and HOPE that the tritium breeding will be sufficient to keep the reactor going??

[@vernonbrechin4207]

@@johnh6245 - Since the experiments began in the 1950s it has become standard practice, for those involved in the projects, to promote the work by emphasizing the promises while not mentioning key issues such as the actual rarity of the key fuel component, radioactive tritium. Few of the numerous projects currently plan for lithium blankets, assuming others will work out those difficulties. Many were looking to ITER work in that field which has been cut back and now their first fusion reactions will likely not be possible before 2040. I decry the use of the esoteric nature of the field as a tool to mislead the press, the public, government funders and private investors.

[@SiOli1965]

Is it possible to extract the Tritium from the water that Fukishima is pouring into the Pacific Ocean?

[@johnh6245]

As I understand it, the tritium content of the water is extremely low. To extract it would be absurdly expensive.

[@vernonbrechin4207]

Much effort was made to find a way of extracting the trace levels of tritium from that stored water. The tritium is part of the water molecules. It was determined that to attempt to separate it would require enormous amounts of electricity and it would be very expensive. That is why making controlled releases was considered the only option left.

[@Firebird1005]

​@vernonbrechin4207 the only economically sensible thing. Not counting the damage it would cause.

[@d.Cog420]

I like to be positive about fusion but I wonder what the carbon footprint over the last hundred years of trying to get this going is and how much to build and maintain the plants and distribute the energy will be? How many years of operation until it breaks even? If it doesn’t start operation soonish it’s kind of contributing to the problem it’s trying to solve, assuming that problem is a happy planet with low environmental cost energy.

[@ajward137]

The carbon footprint of nuclear research is incredibly small, when compared with the planet or even the UK. Until we turn off jokes like Drax, and replace gas power stations and coal burning steel foundries, UKAEA's carbon footprint is a rounding error.

[@d.Cog420]

@@ajward137 yes, compared to the planetary footprint or indeed that of an entire country, compared to other science projects it might rank up there though. Many decades of scientists driving and flying all around and between countries working in this, many attempts at the engineering, I believe the lasers put out a considerable amount of energy, then there is the mining of materials for construction and ignition. Again, over many decades. I just find it a bit weird that at a time when we are told by other scientists we are in a climate crisis, the environmental cost of this long experiment aren’t even considered, just the financial cost. The financing itself also lends itself to environmental critique. Where did the billions and billions come from? I think everything has to be held to account now, science included. Think also of the redundancies of all present energy capturing technologies that might come about if fusion kicks off. What happens to all of the solar and wind apparatuses if fusion becomes way cheaper? Then the dark side of the coin: what would military applications be if it could be downscaled to fit into transport or robots in the distant future. The good people in uniform already have the robots and the AI, they are just missing the power source. That is way off, of course, but we’ve had an Oppenheimer moment so must be cautious in that area also. Not bagging fusion it’s just the present now is quite different to the present where this all started and we need to be smart. The fact the sales team here only mentioned the good things has me wondering whether they are focused solely on making it work, not what it might mean on all sides. Energy is power, if you’ll excuse the pun.

[@mrp8811]

lol. took a break when i thought it was going nowhere then rejoined when a positive result occurred.

[@vernonbrechin4207]

Most of the recent announcements, regarding nuclear fusion breakthroughs, are filled with sales hype, often to attract potential venture capital investors to their fun projects.

[@alexmirza5210]

No more oil could mean no more wars?

[@Harekiet]

Just give us more money!

[@DrJTPhysio]

What happens first? String theory confirmed or Fusion at usable scale?😂

[@vturiserra]

Both will happen after an infinite amount of time. So it's quite hard to say which will happen first.

[@lapurta22]

Neither. It's Dark Matter! No, Dark Energy!! No, it's...Ancient Aliens!!! 👽

[@metalhead2550]

This was somewhat interesting but the whole NIF energy gain ignition is blown out of proportion from a real world engineering perspective... Yes if you assume an ideal world case where the input lasers are 100% efficient then it would be more of a big deal but if you compare actual energy in to actual energy out then it becomes apparent that it's just America shouting how great they are with the aim to pull in investment into the US fusion market

[@craig7350]

Fusion energy is great on paper, but there's one major issue. It creates HEAT, and heat is a big problem.

[@elabijt1715]

A new kid on the block, a steamengine!

[@Nachocastro15]

This was an incredibly insightful talk on nuclear fission! It's amazing to see the potential of this technology and how it could shape our energy future. Thank you for breaking down such a complex topic in an engaging and understandable way!👀

[@vernonbrechin4207]

This presentation was primarily promotional in nature. All the presenters were fans of the technology and had no interest in engaging in a truly critical analysis. Numerous details were omitted in order to pitch the product. It was a pitch aimed at those who crave reinforcing their pre-existing beliefs in the technology. It failed to list the numerous problems that have been encountered since the experiments began in the late 1950s.

[@Firebird1005]

Sarcasm is an artform

[@saknk1]

You think China is having those types of discussions ? Or they just moving ahead

[@Hank-x5q]

It willn't until the missing link is included.⚫️✔️

[@king_has_no_clothskul8635]

IT WAS A BROAD PRESENTATION AND NOT A TECHNICAL GRIND FOR A REASON. IT IS GONNA BE THERE . A BIT SLOW BUT SURELY IT WILL GET THERE.

[@komolkovathana8568]

The next one is LFThR.. Lithium Fluoride (molten Salt) Thorium Reactor ; still same old Fission (none Fusion on the List).

[@vernonbrechin4207]

- The recent promotion of molten salt thorium fueled reactors began about two decades ago by a couple of aerospace engineers based in Alabama, USA. They employed social media platforms to create a very large fan-base in order to advocate for investments in their project. Since then almost no funding has come forth. Most promoters are unaware of that failure history and are not informed about it so that they keep applying pressure to make it happen. Such fan tend to immerse themselves in echo chamber information bubbles in order to reinforce what they prefer to believe in. Such believers tend to have no interest in seeking out critical assessments of the technology that they have fallen in love with.

[@Vile_Entity_3545]

It is just a grift that keeps some people’s mortgages and large pay packets getting paid.

[@jamesohara4295]

It'll work when we can hold a wave upon the sand :)

[@Ray_of_Light62]

ITER just stopped, because of engineering errors, and because run of of money. The various participating Nations must now decide on its future. I was expecting something of the sort...

[@vernonbrechin4207]

It is estimated that those engineering errors will add an additional 5-billion Euros to correct. The project has become to gigantic to now end it. Many of the other nuclear fusion energy projects were assuming that ITER fusion experiments would aid them in completing their projects. Now ITER will be lucky to generate its first DT fusion reactions by 2040.

[@johnh6245]

@@vernonbrechin4207Only if there is enough tritium left in 2040.

[@redsky1433]

That was so bad I skipped through it. Any mention that ITER has cracks and it has put the project back years?

[@vernonbrechin4207]

ITER is unlikely to generate its first full fusion reaction by the year 2040. They have admitted that that is way to late to deal with the current climate crisis. Even then they will be at least an order of magnitude away from demonstrating that a commercially practical nuclear fusion power plant can be built.

[@noeliamedina4583]

Amazing!!!

[@lukasgayer5393]

It will work when governments devote more money to science instead of dismantling civilized society.

[@lapurta22]

So, never?

[@lukasgayer5393]

@@lapurta22 Exactly :) Never. Never in near future. It´s too complicated, there isn´t even enough fuel in the world. It´s not even economically viable. It´s a great endevour, I absolutely support it, but sadly, it´s not the way to go for mainstream energy production.

[@jasonsmith7809]

I miss the bright green intro screen

[@SmartAndTidy]

Stick to the science, guys. Governments have no capability to back a winner. Leave the investor community to determine and direct the pathway to commerciality with the benefit of motivated and savvy scientists and engineers.

[@vernonbrechin4207]

Many investors evaluate nuclear fusion energy projects by paying for 'critical assessments' provided by contractors who's only interest is in promoting nuclear fusion projects. Many of those investors lack the technical expertise needed to do their own critical analysis.

[@macbuff81]

Nuclear fission was once considered impossible as well

[@johnjakson444]

fission is 10 orders of magnitued easier than fusion so no fusion will always be impossible on earth because we don't have the suns gravity well to get the plasma hot enough to fuse the nuclei. But see Oklo fossil reactors 2B years ago before a single ape walked the earth, fission was already working in Africa based on simple natural physics, it helped that the U232 isotope ratio was much better then than today, so it wouldn't work now.

[@johnjakson444]

Look up Wikipedia, Oklo natural nuclear reactor in Gabon Africa about 2B years ago before animals roamed the planet, it required U235 to be higher enriched than today, which was true back then.

[@Firebird1005]

He's obfuscating they have never gotten more energy out of a fusion reaction than they needed to run the fusion facility (meaning the total energy to run the testing facility). They just got more energy out than needed to start it of.

[@vernonbrechin4207]

You are correct. Many of these administrators have turned into master obscurers. It has become common practice for the nuclear fusion experimenters to only refer to the Q-plasma ratio, not the Q-total value. When they do mention Q they often obfuscate what they are referring to. The input energy parameter that they use to determine the gain, Q, is simply the energy coupled into the plasma that heats it. The energy needed to generate that plasma input energy can easily be over 100 times greater. In this field the term 'ignition' is used in a misleading way. Most people assume that, like in the ignition of a match, that once the reaction begins it propagates through all the supplied fuel until all the fuel has reacted. That is not what happens in contained nuclear fusion reactions. In magnetic confinement fusion (MCF) experiments, that employ the D/T fuel mixture the alpha-heating can lead to a progression of some of the reaction until the waste product (He-4) snuffs out further reactions, or other contaminates spoil the reaction. In the case of most of the inertial confinement fusion (ICF) the compression last for only an extremely brief period of time before the energy, emitted from the starting point, blasts away the remaining quantity of supplied fuel that didn't become compressed enough to react. In the case of the widely announced December 5, 2022, National Ignition Facility (NIF) laser shot the fusion reaction lasted for approximately 0.000,000,000,08 second before any further reactions could occur. It was determined that only approximately 4% of the supplied fuel reacted while the remaining 96% was swept away into the target vacuum system pumping system. Essentially their approach is to create microscopic thermonuclear explosions on a very infrequent basis with a 'duty cycle' of less than 1/1-billion. It is assumed that a future ICF nuclear fusion energy power reactor would withstand periodic, 1 nanosecond blast of energy that would be captured to generate an average of over 1,000 Mw-thermal to drive a steam turbine.

[@buosten94]

Regulations does not equal safe

[@Davidbrucekeene]

And the billions? Wow.

[@wizardiez6830]

Elon is right. We have a fusion reactor in the sky. We should develop solar kites that gather energy and send the energy back as massive batteries. We could have a lift that hangs from space into earth. Imagine a hovering needle. i dunno maybe ive watched too much sci-fi, but all the technologies and science, if any of that was, we know we could start building the solar panels now, but we'd rather learn if a hypothetical is theoretical beats me.

[@ahuman1616]

Humanity is trying to jump over a step. We still haven’t used the full potential of the nuclear fission. First we should energy as cheap as possible with nuclear fission, then with this energy we can build much more than now

[@FarmerGwyn]

This is the first fusion video that has convinced me that fusion will never be an option, even if they succeed in making the whole thing work, it not likely to be cost effective, talking about it as free energy is a fallacy, the buildings, the equipment, the personnel, the development required will always make it economically unviable.

[@DaniaSummer-h2d]

Well if it will be free, why will someone invest in something that won't return them the profit? Isn't this the world we live on? The one that is desperate about the profit ? Because of the profit will distroy the planet thru over consumption of the resources ....

[@vernonbrechin4207]

I grew up in the 1950s when commercial enterprises were claiming that nuclear fission power would become too cheap to meter. Many of today's fusion fans were never taught about that past sales pitching.

[@Privacityuser]

Energy power weapons can use micro atomic explosions to ignite fusion, insted of waste of domestic energy-related consuption!

[@johnjakson444]

you mean like on a deathstar kind of power plant?

[@paulbennett292]

😂😂😂 haven't laughed so hard in ages. Fusion for $50 a megawatt. Just need to push two unicorns together under enormous pressure. 😂😂😂

[@vernonbrechin4207]

They conveniently leave out some key problems and drawbacks while explaining the basics of nuclear fusion energy to a largely clueless audience. The promoters have learned to employ the fear of global warming and the extremely complex and arcane nature of their field to snow the press, the general public and private investors who tend to rely upon fusion energy fans to provide them with 'critical assessments' of their favorite experimental machines and future plans for them. Many billions worth of U.S. dollars are now being funneled into numerous competing projects with little realistic prospects of ever being developed into a future commercially practical electrical generating plants. One factor, that is typically left out of the promotional presentations, is that in the case of D/T fusion fueled reactions the tritium is radioactive and currently has a commercial value of approximately $30,000 per gram. All the promotional pitches assume that the fusion energy project plans will eventually work out so that the various reactors will breed their own tritium in excess of their own fueling needs. They are all based upon other assumptions that the following is wrong. Virtually all nuclear energy promoters, are in line with the vast majority of Earth's other 8.0+ billion humans, who continue to assume that we still have at least 20 years left to turn this 'Titanic' around using their favorite nuclear technology. They have become masterful in excluding the following warnings from their consciousness. 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 5.7 years ago.

[@theextragalactic1]

[@DaltoeMusic]

If taxpayers are helping to fund this, will taxpayers receive free electricity in return? If not, why should we pay for all the R&D or infrastructure if only the private corporations and their shareholders are set to profit from the technology?

[@Rachael-b2h]

The Earth we all live on was for all to live happy healthy lives all have to remember this , ambitious advancements have pros and cons bennifits and hazards, intelligent minds and financial gains blinded to what is of good for good for all What is important sadly has been forgotten and ignored There seems to be no thought or care no appreciation or respect that the earth where we all live was for life not to be shaped and changed for profits power and control , the energy making harvesting usage has been beneficial but has also knowingly caused so much destruction and deaths , enough is enough advancements are not necessary bit life is the earth can not supply infinite resources even if you can alchemically create new renewables there will be no earth left even when you genetically have changed everything , do you go to another planet and do the same ? ....wisdom us knowing when to stop , that time should've been thousands of years ago , but we are here now and you need to listen to those that see what is not of good .. Please stop

[@alexanderbrinkley4332]

Fusion scares me. Not due to pollution. Rather due to the potential for dumping yet more heat into the atmosphere at a scale never seen before. Wind, hydro, tidal, and solar use energy already at the earth’s surface for creating electricity, so they have no effect whatsoever on the greenhouse effect or average air temperature. Nuclear, fossil, and geothermal add or move heat to the surface to create electricity. The use of these sources have been limited by fuel availability somewhat. Fusion won’t be limited by fuel availability, as that is one of the selling points, once success is achieved. Adding electricity generating capacity by nuclear, fossil, geothermal, and possibly fusion adds water vapor directly to the atmosphere (cooling towers are always part of an efficient loop) and the created or moved heat gradually increases the average atmospheric temperature, regardless of CO2 emission or lack thereof. More heat injected into the atmosphere begets higher average air temperature, which begets more water vapor in the atmosphere, which begets greater greenhouse effect, a larger positive feedback effect as water vapor is a stronger greenhouse gas than carbon dioxide. So how does humanity offset more water vapor going into the atmosphere as more electricity is generated utilizing a heat-adding source such a fusion rather than heat-neutral sources of wind, tidal, solar, and hydro?

[@pepe6666]

the heat problem is from the sun, not from things we do to heat stuff up. the problem is exhaust gasses from fossil fuels which keep in infrared radiation. water vapour turns into water clouds. water clouds are fine. carbon in the atmosphere and the oceans isnt.

[@alexanderbrinkley4332]

Since my original comment, I found a comparison of all energy production to solar irradiance: total energy production per year is equivalent to about 1 hour sunlight. Humanity consumes about 630 quadrillion BTUs (QUADS) per year, and 1 QUAD is about 6 seconds of sunlight, so present annual energy production is equivalent to about 1 hour of sunlight. What happens when production per capita increases another 50% and the population doubles again as occurred from 1965 to 2020? That would result in another 3x increase in annual energy production, to the equivalent of 3 hours added sunlight on earth per year. The population growth rate is slowing but per capita consumption can still increase considerably in Africa and Asia, even while per capita consumption grows meagerly elsewhere. Eventually energy production can have a noticeable effect on the earth’s climate. We might get to that point before we expected.

[@johnjakson444]

@@alexanderbrinkley4332 The ratio used to be touted by the fans of solar since the sun gives the earth 10000x more energy than we currently use. Its very unlikley the population will go much further north, in the next 100 years it will surely crash since fertility is dropping everywhere. Musk is right on this one, he's bound to get something right once in a while. If the population drops 2 or 3 fold, alot of the problem with fossil fuels solves itself but the crash will take down economies pretty badly.

[@vernonbrechin4207]

Like many people you have likely been influenced by the climate science denier community that claims that increasing atmospheric CO2 concentration has little effect upon warming the planet. I urge you to educate yourself by reading the following three articles which I urge you to search for. CO2 and CH4 levels have a major influence upon the thermal equilibrium temperature of this planet. The thermal energy emitted by our industrial civilization has had much less effect. You are correct in being concerned with the recent rapid population growth of humans and the exploding industrial civilization during the past 300 years. Since I was born, in 1945, the world human population has nearly quadrupled to 8.0+ billion people. It took around 300,000 years for the Earth's human population to reach about 1.0 billion people. Even most of our most educated people are clueless regarding that recent explosive growth. The sales pitches for nuclear fusion energy production began with claims that the fuel was as common as the hydrogen in seawater. Then they pointed out that there is lots of the required deuterium in ordinary water. Often the sales pitches say very little regarding the other primary fuel component, tritium. It is radioactive and very rare. Currently the market value for a gram of it is approximately $30,000 USD. The production of it by a future operating fusion reactor is highly problematic considering that the proposed lithium blanket will complicate the process of extracting thermal energy from the plant to make electricity. The whole scheme is built upon a pyramid of assumptions for future successes. Most operators of nuclear fusion experimental machines assume that others will eventually come up with a solution to supplying tritium fuel for their particular design. I'm glad to see that you are willing to research some of the issues that other commenters have addressed. What's Really Warming the World? (Bloomberg) Greenhouse gas (Wikipedia) Radiative forcing (Wikipedia)

[@weeFred]

@@alexanderbrinkley4332maybe less people will freeze to death?

[@eugen-m]

Easy. Fusion is always 30 y away 😀😀😀

[@lapurta22]

30 years ago, it was only 10.

[@InimitaPaul]

In 10 years! Silly!

[@komolkovathana8568]

If even existing Fission "Modular Nuclear Reactor" still overbudget/ overdue in project construction/contract... For get it for Fusion Energy.. Never in a lifetime.(!?!)

[@komolkovathana8568]

The next (still Fission) is LFThR... Lithium Fluoride (molten salt) Thorium Reactor...not Tokamak on the List.(?!?)

[@elabijt1715]

Dream on. Let's be serious, still bringing radioactrivity back to earth.

[@mrp8811]

would be one of the coolest jobs but want to see more indepth problems so we can all throw possible solutions regardless of how bonkers they are.

[@vernonbrechin4207]

Many technically oriented people are steeped in the concept that every technical problem, that we encounter, can be solved with a solution that doesn't have later consequences upon the life support systems that we depend upon.

[@mrp8811]

Many technically oriented people though were not afforded an education and have been missed if we are being fair. but I do get the point.

[@vernonbrechin4207]

@@mrp8811 - I assume that you intended to say that many technically oriented people do not have formal educations in specific disciplines such as nuclear fusion energy physics and engineering. As a result many are easily misled by the claims of these project promoters.

[@mrp8811]

@@vernonbrechin4207 all I said at the beginning was would be one of the coolest jobs.

[@Nukleotyde]

God i'd love realtime AI audio removal of all the weird sounds people make on mic

[@maxthemagition]

The plain truth is that we will never see a fusion power plant that actually works for at least another two or three generations. In other words, we are all paying for something that we will never see and it is very possible that future generations will be the same. It is money down the drain like so many projects today.

[@vernonbrechin4207]

All promoters of nuclear energy are in line with the vast majority of the Earth’s 8.0+ billion humans who have masterfully excluded the following warnings from their consciousness. They continue to assume that we have at least 20 years left to turn this ‘Titanic’ around, through the use of their favorite technology. 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 5.8 years ago.

[@trevski9265]

No mention that power output was f all. No mention of obscene cost per kw. It's a great con job.

[@weeFred]

Maybe if they concentrated on actually building it instead of hiring marketing, sales and HR bureaucrats, then maybe it’ll become viable someday.

[@vernonbrechin4207]

Tens of billions of dollars are being invested in the project and that has been going on for a couple of decades. Some people don't realize that all the money in the world can't fix some technological problems. Most of today's fans are clueless that the research efforts began during the 1950s. They keep throwing money at it because they have been convinced this technology will be our savior.

[@CASHSEC]

So there are Hazards. What are they! Tell the truth!

[@vernonbrechin4207]

This was primarily a pep-talk. As such the numerous downsides were not mentioned, or they were downplayed. The over half-century problem of dealing with nuclear waste was only hinted at. Nuclear fusion energy production is not only going to be CO2 emission free but will also involve radioactive materials, including the radioactive tritium, typically, needed as a fuel source. Not all of it will be consumed in the reaction. Most novices, who hear such presentations, will be clueless regarding what they were not told.

[@johnjakson444]

@@vernonbrechin4207 In the T-U device, the fusion fuel is Lithium Deuteride which creates the tritium when needed, I have no idea why these fusion people pretend not to know this even the woman who works with NIF. If LD is used in tiny packets instead of DT, the whole issue of tritium sourcing or breeding evaporates and I imagine all the tritium that comes out of the LD would be consumed in the holruhm in the fusion burn. See Daniel Jassby for more on Tritium, you probably already know this

[@devonvankraft]

fusion already works.. we have the sun

[@biggityboggityboo8775]

This is an absolutely pointless video.

[@sjbr101]

Hi Ian

[@cambridgemart2075]

It's worrying when the Chief Exec of the AEA is a salesman and not a scientist!

[@vernonbrechin4207]

The AEA has always served to sales pitch for various forms of controlled nuclear energy. Typically almost all who have expertise in the field are fans of it. Most of those, who rise to the top of such organizations tend do do so because they have a proven track record of drawing funding into the field.

[@Urufu-san]

Well, it WORKS, just not net gain. 2050+, conservatively…

[@vernonbrechin4207]

The vast majority of the Earth's 8.0+ billion people continue to assume that we have at least 20 years left to turn this "Titanic" around, using their favorite technology. They have become masterful in excluding the following warnings from their consciousness. 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 5.6 years ago.

[@vernonbrechin4207]

Recently I learned that most of the magnetic confinement fusion (MCF) machines are expected to operate in a pulsed mode when producing full fusion power levels. So the plan is for them to be on for brief periods of time and then off to recover for much longer periods of time. The operational specs tend to be bases only on the on period of time. Few bother to mention the averaged power and the total power input to the facilities. Apparently, they believe that is someone elses problem.

[@Sbiper]

Let me take a wild guess, 20 years time?

[@vernonbrechin4207]

Virtually all nuclear energy promoters, are in line with the vast majority of Earth's other 8.0+ billion humans, who continue to assume that we still have at least 20 years left to turn this 'Titanic' around using their favorite nuclear technology. They have become masterful in excluding the following warnings from their consciousness. 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 5.7 years ago.