World's Largest Nuclear Fusion Reactor!
Vložit
- čas přidán 16. 05. 2024
- Get Nebula using my link for 40% off an annual subscription: go.nebula.tv/upandatom
Watch my exclusive video on whether math is invented or discovered: nebula.tv/videos/up-and-atom-...
Watch Grady’s video about the civil engineering at ITER • Engineering The Larges...
Subscribe to Grady’s channel / @practicalengineeringc...
Hi! I'm Jade. If you'd like to consider supporting Up and Atom, head over to my Patreon page :)
/ upandatom
Visit the Up and Atom store
store.nebula.app/collections/...
Subscribe to Up and Atom for physics, math and computer science videos
/ upandatom
For a one time donation, head over to my PayPal :) www.paypal.me/upandatomshows
A big thank you to my AMAZING PATRONS!
Jonathan Koppelman, Michael Seydel, Cy 'kkm' K'Nelson, Thorsten Auth, Chris Flynn, Tim Barnard, Izzy Ca, Tate Lyles, Richard O McEwen Jr, Scott Ready, John H. Austin, Jr., Brian Wilkins, Thomas V Lohmeier, David Johnston, Thomas Krause, Lynn Shackelford, Ave Eva Thornton, Andrew Pann, Anne Tan, Francisco, Marc-Antoine, Chris Davis, Thomas Urech, chuck zegar, David Tuman, Richard Rensman, Ben Mitchell, Steve Archer, Luna, Tyler Simms, Michael Geer, James Mahoney, Jim Felich, Fabio Manzini, Jeremy, Sam Richardson, Robin High, KiYun Roe, DONALD McLeod, Ron Hochsprung, Aria Bend, James Matheson, Kevin Anderson, Alexander230, Tim Ludwig, Alexander Del Toro Barba, Justin Smith, A. Duncan, Mark Littlehale, Tony T Flores, Dagmawi Elehu, Jeffrey Smith, Alex Hackman, bpatb, Joel Becane, Paul Barclay, 12tone, Sergey Ten, John Lakeman, Jana Christine Saout, Jeff Schwarz, Yana Chernobilsky, Louis Mashado, Michael Dean, Chris Amaris, Matt G, Dag-Erling Smørgrav, John Shioli, Todd Loreman, Susan Jones, JRM, Motty Porat, Michael Tardibuono, Yaw Mintah, Carlos Escolar, Vijay Prasad, Anthony Docimo, robert lalonde, Julian Nagel, Cassandra Durnord, Antony Birch, Paul Bunbury, David Shlapak, Kent Arimura, Phillip Rhodes, Michael Nugent, James N Smith, Roland Gibson, Joe McTee, Dean Fantastic, Oleg Dats, John Spalding, Simon J. Dodd, Tang Chun, Michelle, William Toffey, Michel Speiser, James Horsley, Brian Williams, Craig Tumblison, Cameron Tacklind, 之元 丁, Kevin Chi, Lance Ahmu, Tim Cheseborough, Markus Lindström, Steve Watson, Midnight Skeptic, Potch, Indrajeet Sagar, Markus Herrmann (trekkie22), Gil Chesterton, Alipasha Sadri, Pablo de Caffe, Taylor Hornby, Mark Fisher, Emily, Colin Byrne, Nick H, Jesper de Jong, Sofia Fredriksson, Phat Hoang, Spuddy, Sascha Bohemia, tesseract, Stephen Britt, KG, Hansjuerg Widmer, John Sigwald, O C, Carlos Gonzalez, Thomas Kägi, James Palermo, Chris Teubert, Fran, Wolfgang Ripken, Jeremy Bowkett, Vincent Karpinski, Nicolas Frias, Louis M, Moose Thompson, Rick DeWitt, Pedro Paulo Vezza Campos, S, Garrett Chomka, Rebecca Lashua, Pat Gunn, George Fletcher, RobF, Vincent Seguin, Shawn, Israel Shirk, Jesse Clark, Steven Wheeler, Philip Freeman, Jareth Arnold, Simon Barker, Lou, amcnea and Simon Dargaville.
Creator - Jade Tan-Holmes
Video Producer/Editor - Chaylon Fraser
Animations - Standard Productions
Cinematographer - Simon Mackenzie
Music - epidemicsound.com
Chapters
0:00 - 1:06 Intro
1:06 - 4:20 Why we care about nuclear fusion
4:20 - 7:53 Welcome to ITER!
7:53 - 9:40 Meet our tour guide Richard
9:40 - 10:49 How nuclear fusion works
10:49 - 12:06 The ITER tokamak
12:06 - 14:03 Plasma creation
14:03 - 15:45 Reaching ignition (self-heating plasma)
15:45 - 18:00 Confining the plasma
18:00 - 18:46 Electricity generation
18:46 - 21:49 Civil engineering with Grady
21:49 - 25:41 WHEN will we have commercial nuclear fusion?
25:41 - 28:11 Thanks Nebula!
28:11 - 29:05 Thoughts on the drive home - Věda a technologie
I hope you enjoyed the tour of ITER! Get Nebula using my link for 40% off an annual subscription: go.nebula.tv/upandatom
Watch my exclusive video on whether math is invented or discovered: nebula.tv/videos/up-and-atom-is-mathematics-invented-or-discovered
Ooooh! A LEGO fusion reactor at 0:21...
I enjoy hearing about what we're doing about nuclear fusion. It's been a topic I've read about since I was a lad 50 years ago. Even then, I had no idea that we'd been thinking about it since the early 1950s. Last December's "baby step" fusion success gave me such hope. We'll get there in the end. It will STILL require solar and wind and fission power to continue to advance and grow until we can completely arrive at nuclear fusion power for everyone. I hope you'll see all this come to fruition before too long.
@jade ... Did you ask if the 50 MW input is the actual power consumed by all the equipments used in the reaction, or is it only the energy that is injected in ... Because every equipment actually has some degree of loss .
The problem is not technical but ethical.
Science sans conscience n'est que ruine de l'âme ~ Rabelais.
2:48 Seems like you don't watch Kyle Hill. Nuclear waste is locked up in thick containers, while fossil waste is in the atmosphere, in your lungs, giving you cancer. And also lasts for thousands of years. BY FAR nuclear energy caused the fewest deaths per TWh out of ANY source of energy, even when you account for accidents. So don't make it out to be a bigger problem than it really is.
5:25 I would direct you to Thunderf00t for that.
Thanks for not asking me to try and explain nuclear fusion, Jade!
?
Hahaha next time it'll be quantum mechanics
Thank you for introducing me to this excellent channel!
I thought haha that's funny Grady and Jade both release a video on ITER on the same day, what a coincidence. Excellent pair of videos, I watched Grady's first though
C'mon Grady! It's a simple explanation.
Phase 1: Smoosh atoms together
Phase2: ...
Phase 3: Profit!
When I began my physics degree I was discussing the potential of nuclear fusion research with one of the professors acting as a departmental advisor. He told me that "to be realistic", there was not likely to be any payoff for "at least 25 years", but the work that was going to have to be done, was going to have to be done by _someone_
That was in 1984
Let's just say that I feel for your guide
My physics professor told me she doesn’t think it’ll be 100% until like 2075? Do you agree? She’s a particle physicist
@@esteban4284 watch the video, it won't be a substantial part of our power grid until later than 2080. Realistically, 2130 or later, I reckon.
@@mfmageiwatch We get ITER in 2035, DEMO construction will have started by then making it complete in 2050. By then partner's will have already planned their own reactors so that will bring us to 2070 by the time they start construction, giving us a 2080-2085 timeline for grid power. So pretty good estimate!
That will be 200 years from discovering quantum mechanics, and 150 years from discovering fusion is possible, to toasting my bread with fusion energy.
Not bad!
your professor is an optimist 😀@@esteban4284
good guess,.... of course assuming thet everything goes to plan..@@mfmageiwatch
Really, really appreciate the realism from Richard about all of this. Usually scientific communication videos like this are just wall to wall unfounded hope.
He was pretty hilarious. Made me think of some of the guys I work with.
Unfortunately he was still massively overselling. No word of the realistic gain factor of the whole ITER facility beeing just 0.57. (440MW input and just 250MW output)
@@ferdinandgleinser2681 He wasn't selling.
@@KitagumaIgen Right, he was overselling, meaning that he extremely exaggerated the capabilities of ITER by carefully cherry picking scientific numbers, that he knew, the layman would totally misunderstood. Iter will NOT be able to produce a surplus of energy, and any demo reactor, based on the same concept will not be either. Its a very well known fact under the physicists working on ITER, but intentionally intercommunicated to the public by just mentioning the theoretical gain factor (x10) of the plasma itself, instead of the whole facilites gain factor of estimated 0.57. We are far further away than 30 years from a working fusion reactor, that produces more energy than it consumes. And that is just one of many issues with the concept.
@ferdinandgleinser2681 The 0.57 being an estimate on something that ITER is not designed to be. If they're overselling, you're "underselling" by criticizing a research project to study nuclear fusion because it won't be a useful real world application. Something tha was never meant to be. The goal of ITER is knowledge. What we could be able to do with that knowledge remain to be seen.
Whenever I see tours of places like ITER or CERN or the Chernobyl Containment building, I just think about the tradesmen who do stuff like wire the lighting or tile the floors or put up the drywall. Like, how surreal to do such mundane work in buildings with such non-mundane purposes.
That's exactly how I felt when I toured Fermilab. Especially as, at the time, it was being converted into a facility for Proton Therapy-between the high tech of science fiction and the sterility of a medical facility, it was jarring to find that the _real magic_ is mostly exposed ductwork, industrial equipment and control technology from the 1970s.
I think it's cool to have the perspective of someone like Grady, the civil engineer. It's easy to focus on the insane physics behind what's going on, but making something that's in real life takes a lot more.
The stupid have to be looked after by someone.
Having worked with a lot of cabling installers in the past, I'd suspect you're overthinking that question. Most of the time a subcontractor only gets called in for a piece of the overall work scope, and so "I'm doing drops in what's going to be a mega-security switching headquarters" loses head space to "I have x drops to run today and this block to punch tomorrow" or whatever.
That said, I did have an opportunity to do a summer internship at Los Alamos National Lab, where the junior guy on the team only had a masters degree in EE and so he was the experimentation tech. Now, he got to do surreal things like building simple charging circuits from scratch for a 25kV capacitor. To him every day was a wondrous adventure of creation, while to a network installer it's probably not much worth thinking about due to the nature of the assignment.
10:05 ... she said it! She said a "buttload"! It's real scientific jargon now lol
it never ceases to amaze me just how many ways we've come up with to boil water, and just how complicated we can make it!
Dyson sphere + steam turbines. Lets go!!!!
It surprised me that making electricity boiled down to boiling water (not incl wind, hydro, solar)
Boil water... and then boil it some more!
@@ASLUHLUHCE hydro is still water and solar you can heat water with it 😂
I love seeing back of the envelope calculations literally written out on the back of an envelope. 👍
I agree that it was actually very refreshing to see someone involved in the project not get carried away with extolling it. Good on Richard.
Among other things, I think I find one of the most impressive things is that a bunch of countries that can barely get along managed to come to an agreement to have this jointly built and have their scientists and engineers works together on it.
This is a really cool look into how the project is going! Though I would heartily recommend some sort of image stabilization - at some points the footage is really hard to watch because of the shaking.
Love that you cooperated with Grady! Thank you both! 🎉
Great video! Very interesting insights. I really hope this technology brings peace, like Sabina said. Science is always for good, an achievements this size can only bring people together.
Small correction: at 17:25 you say 4 K = -296 °C, but it's actually - 269 °C. You got your digits mixed up! Below the absolute zero is definitely colder than Pluto :P
Hah, glad I haven't had to scroll much for the correction! :D
I was just about to write a comment about this! I was like -296 Celsius is impossible since absolute zero is -273.15 Celsius.
Bigger correction that DT reaction is impractical to further commercialisation of fusion power.
As
All tokamaks like ITER run at beta (ratio between plasma pressure and magnetic pressure) not higher than 2.5% .
Spherical tokamaks run at higher values but have another limitations.
We need to build such monstrous reactor because power density is proportional to beta^2.
Today we cannot to heat plasma higher than 10 keV ((15 keV for ITER).
While reactivity of plasma has a maximum at about 30-50 keV.
This also impacts on size of reactor and its cost.
High neutron flux will inevitably quickly damage costly first wall.
That will be strongly radioactive after this.
Then should be replaced.
Replacement.
You remotely!!!! should dismantle 18 toroidal field magnets weighing 310 tons each.
Before you should dismantle the entire cryostat.
The only way to make fusion power attractive for investors is to go to uneutronic fusion.
That need for ignition much higher temperatures.
Sorry.
But that is reality.
Fusion race now is like a competition of many collateral technologies - such as huge superconductive magnets. Etc
But where is a creative ideas to overcome limitations of tokamaks?
Make experimental with lower cost resistive magnets but with higher beta, with higher plasma temperature.
If successful, only then build the next reactor place in such a huge cryostat with liquid helium cooling and use costly superconductors.
Nice to hear that Richard is informed on the subject of energy production and has presented a realistic timeline.
A lot of the promise of these commercial ideas is that they're going to beat the ITER timeline (even NIF gets on that hype once in a while). Whether any of them will pan out remains to be seen of course. Certainly nobody would expect another Tokamak to beat ITER but that doesn't mean alternate methods can't be achieved faster. The ones that try to combine inertial and magnetic confinement (ie: NIF and ITER) could potentially do better than either mode separately can manage.
Or maybe not. But as long as rich people keep thinking there's an RoI to be had and are willing to put lots of money toward these projects, I'm not ruling out the possibility that one of them might succeed.
Still won't happen fast enough to "solve" climate change though. Even the most promising (aka: hyped) tech managing to meet its goals wouldn't be commercially viable for another decade or more, and then we have to figure out how to build several thousand of them (none come close to ITER's designed power output so that 600 number would be drastically lowballed). Oh, and we'd still have to deal with the fossil fuel industry doing everything in their power to prevent these things from succeeding at a political level on top of everything else.
It's important to remind people that the "2 megajoules" of energy input by the National Ignition Facility (to get 3 megajoules out) is the laser energy. It took 300 megajoules of electricity to generate that 2 megajoule laser shot. So, it's not a gain of 50%, it's a loss of 99%.
That is an inside secret of the fusion research community that they keep so well hidden that almost all external journalists and observers miss it...
It's also important to rember, as very clearly stated in the video, that we're taking about an experimental reactor made to understand how to build, hopefully, a real reactor capable of producing energy. ITER has been made to research and understand, not to become a power plant.
Loved the video, and that you got such an awesome opportunity that I'm so jealous of! One note I'll add is on the nuclear fission dismissal at the beginning. Obviously, fission is a viable form of energy generation that's used on a large scale all over the world. Per unit of energy generated, it's the safest way to make electricity, including renewables (double down: that thing that lots of people are afraid of? It's safer than wind energy). And there's a solution to nuclear waste that's been known since the early 60's: reprocessing. Basically, at the end of most fuel cycles today, more than half of the initial fuel (U-235) is thrown away, along with about 75% by mass U-238, which could be made into new fuel. Only 5% by weight of the contents of dry-cask waste disposal actually contains fission waste products. If you're going to do a video on fusion, it might be beneficial to do a follow-up on fission, highlighting where it could be made better. Just a thought :)
My dad was part of Project Sherwood and I worked on the Neutral Beam in Berkeley. Nice to see the work continue
When Richard was talking about retiring before plasma will be made, it made me think of that proverb “Blessed is he who plants trees under whose shade he will never sit”
I'm always bewildered by the topic of nuclear fusion but all I end up with is daily confusion. Cheers, Jade! 🥰🤓😍
Awesome collaboration. Thank you so much for the edification, and helping to set realistic expectations. I'm very excited for this, even if I never get to witness it in my lifetime.
You can build a huge fusion reactor and it costs only as much as 20 miles of new railway in UK? Wow.
I think Richard had a very realistic perspective of this experimental technology. Thank you for this excellent video.
Great video Jade. Very insightful and intriguing. Plus your excitement and enthusiasm is always so charming and contagious.
1:10 Let's acknowledge Jade's driving skills for adapting to the right side of the road
Really enjoyed this video. Came from practical engineering. Love your explanations and interjection of additional details along with great visuals. Excited to go through the other videos. :)
Your intro on Practical Engineering was great: a good mix of concise and detailed.
It should be noted that the nuclear waste and meltdown issues with fission are a consequence of old and aging reactor designs. We have (mostly theoretical) Gen IV reactor designs that would be physically incapable of melting down while simultaneously burning waste as fuel, and recycling what is left on site. We are not gonna run out of fuel any time soon, and it is much simpler and cheaper technologically speaking, the problem is mostly of PR and lobbying (as usual).
Just to clarify, the fusion breakthrough last year only technically produced positive energy. The power of the lasers output was only 2 MW, but to actually run the lasers took 100MW.
That is the big problem with communication by fusion researchers. They tell us "the reactor had more output than input" but they do not emphasize enough that this is only concerning the actual reactor and measured at convenient forms of energy, not the achievable result for a power station.
To have a usable power station, the efficiency of the reactor still has to be improved by at least two orders of magnitude, if not more.
Well said better than my comment but basically the same i just have the technical jargon 😂
Didn't sry
Same with ITER. The designed power output will still result in a net Q
This is top-tier science communication! Thanks for the awesome video Jade.
Well done, as always. I did enjoy the part where Richard put the concept of powering the world with just 20% of fusion produced electricity into perspective. Truly a goal none of us are likely going to be around to see achieved, if it happens at all.
Excellent, Jade. I visited JET a few years ago, and although it was brilliant science it was clearly far too small for net energy generation. The main problem seemed to be that of extracting the heat without everything melting. I intend to visit ITER next summer.
Love the editing! Such great cuts and right on the beat, love it!
This is going to be the cathedral of our generations and I am so excited for our children and grandchildren to see and run it.
Great video! However, -296 degrees C stood out to me, as being not so correct. :) 17:25
I think so too, 4K should be -269°C (ignoring decimals).
I'd kind of nitpick that fusion bombs also produce energy gains of greater than one - so if "fusion history" includes weapons then the US National Ignition Facility's test last year wouldn't have been the only time in fusion history that output was greater than input. Only time in fusion reactor history maybe, not not in all of fusion history.
Yeah its a bit of a sloppy wording. She (and most other people these days now that fusion power is all over the hype train) mean the first _controlled_ reaction with net gain.
@@altrag Even then, it's still sloppy wording. At NIF, they had 2.05 MJ of laser energy, and got 3.15 MJ of energy output. That is only a gain relative to the laser input, ignoring the energy required to create the laser beams in the first place. The lasers required around 300-400 MJ of energy to produce the 2.05 MJ laser input. Gain = Ouput/Input = 3.05/400 = 0.007625. That's still FAR from being actual energy gain of over 1, by a factor of over 131.
@@lukas_berger Hence the "with net gain" caveat. But yes that's still a little confusing and there was a lot of science reporters at the time who went out of their way to clarify that distinction (how many were successful at their attempts is an exercise left for the reader).
But that's a fairly typical "science doesn't always use words in their colloquial sense" issue that plagues all of the sciences regularly, whereas mixing up nuclear energy vs nuclear weaponry is a fairly large distinction relative to simple definition misunderstandings.
I started Naval Nuclear Power School in 1970. Our physics instructor was very sure we were going to have practical fusion tech by the year 2000. So now we are 23 years past that prediction and we still are running experiments to TRY to create a sustainable, controllable fusion reaction.
The other point that needs to be addressed is that fusion reactors, when they become available, cannot replace all other energy systems. As was pointed out in the Practical Engineering video, it takes a LOT of megawatts to run the support equipment, form the containment field and then create and heat the plasma. Only when those conditions have been met can we start to inject the lithium and Tritium needed to create actual output power so that the fusion reactor facility can make enough power to run itself.
A few emergency diesel generators will not be able to do that. You will need fossil fuel and/or nuclear fission plants that CAN be started up with backup diesel generators to get things going.
So if the the climate change crisis is really as bad as is claimed by many, we had better start building nuclear fission power plants NOW and use them to replace the fossil fuel plants in use all around the world. I say that because fusion power is NOT going to be coming on line in time to meet the predictions of the climate change crowd.
DOA. Fission is too expensive & Fusion (if it worked) would be 50 times more expensive than fission. The cost of ITER (500 MWth) will be between $45B and $65B, and still won't have the means to produce electricity or breed tritium.
One thing to comment on: If an alien civilization meets us, there's gonna be 3 possible scenarios in which it can occur, us going to their home stellar system, them visiting ours, and both of us meeting each other during our respective colonization efforts. Any civilization that can visit other star systems is advanced enough to harness something as basic as nuclear fusion, otherwise they would not get to be an interstellar species in the first place. On the other hand, if they're a not-so-advanced species, and we reach them first, then obviously, they might not have cracked the nuclear fusion engineering marvel. This is the beauty of physics, whatever mathematical framework we build for quantifying the observable physics, the physics is not subjective, rather it's an universal observable truth. So, if fusion is harnessed by any sentient civilization, it's going to be done exactly this way, because physics is not different for different observers -- one of the vague postulates of the theory of relativity.
Your video is amazing to watch !!! You Absolutely did an amazing job making this video as always !!!
I had no clue it would be so big. Seeing the beginnings of the plasma ring drove that home. 😳Also, remember in Sagan's "Contact", The Machine? This is that kind of scale. 😅
5:23 this is simply not true, although journalists tried to "sell it" this way. The "net positive" result was only achieved through "creative accounting" - if you consider only the energy of the laser blast vs. energy of resulting fusion energy. But if you consider also the energy needed to ramp up the lasers it turns out they got back about 1% of the energy.
Amazing to get a glimpse of the incredible engineering feats being achieved.
Here on Grady's recommendation, subscribing because of the great quality of the channel.
Ditto!
Super hyped for this, this is quite the next level engineering project!
Correction for your information about the gain of 1.5 at Lawerence Livermore's National Ignition Facility in 2022. The achievement is called "Ignition" and it means they released more energy from the fuel pellet fusing than they delivered to the pellet. Because lasers are not 100% efficient in converting electricity to heat or pressure, in this case, the experiment required many times the energy released. ITER hopes to solve this problem by scaling up and we'll have to see if that works. The reactor was expected to take 10 years to build, and ITER had planned to test its first plasma in 2020 and achieve full fusion by 2023, however the schedule is now to test first plasma in 2025 and full fusion in 2035. Thus making very real the joke that Fusion is always just ten years away.
This is such awesome information! You are a very nice and energetic narrator and teacher on here also. Great video! I’ll see what else I can learn on your channel.
Hope you liked your trip in France :)
For the question about maths, I'd say that althought we invented maths the way it is, if math were invented differently it would have other objects and other reasonings but would still be able to describe how to make a fusion reactor...
(math major here) I agree. The current form of our mathematics is just "what follows logically from this set of axioms". Due to how our mathematics were invented, these axioms apply well to physics. Having different mathematics doesn't change anything to reality, and while the mathematical abstractions used to create the reactor would be different, the physical principles would still be the same. Their mathematical abstraction of gravity may be different but the actual phenomenon is the same. Of course some specifics may change because of the different point of view but, assuming they have nuclear fusion and we haven't missed anything huge, they should have something similar to ITER
As I had commented myself: aliens are constraint by the same universe we are, doesn't matter how they do their calculations (like human math or not).
Even the net positive of the laser fusion breakthrough is not taking into account the power the lasers use to shooting the laser ... Its net positive only when you take the energy that hits the target ..
Mind blowing video! Will replay with my kids around they will go nuts for this! I love the direction this channel is taking! Awesome work Jade!!
Awesome video very informative & interesting
Awesome channel! I really appreciate the depth of the video!
This was a great doco. It's the first time I've ever heard it explained that it's the neutrons that will generate the heat for the turbines. Makes a lot more sense now!
Something I've always wanted to ask a fusion engineer is: once we have this technology fully realised, would the fusion if properly controlled allow us to create specific elements?
To clarify, would it allow us to fuse specific elements in a way that allows us to produce heavier elements, things like gold/lithium etc and if so, wouldn't this be true alchemy?
The short answer is no. Fusing hydrogen to helium gives off the greatest amount of energy. Fusing heavier elements together requires a lot more energy input and yields less energy output, so it's far more difficult to do. And once you get into elements that are heavier than iron, fusion actually *costs* energy overall - that is, the entire process doesn't produce any energy at all, it actually absorbs it and stores the energy as extra mass in whatever elements you produced. Even in stars, most heavy elements like gold aren't produced via fusing lighter elements together but rather from merging (exploding) neutron stars where you don't start with any atoms at all, just an incredibly dense soup of neutrons.
Great video. Needed much more stable and clear video for first look entering the reactor room 9:17
May be one of your very best videos!!! Thx for this!
One of the most interesting videos I’ve seen in a while - thank you so much!
With fusion, why can't we use the energy more directly? Seems like it still ends up being used to heat up water, make steam, power a turbine with a generator and then get electricity.
Please visit some of the private fusion companies too please, they are more... optimistic, but the physics they explore are pretty cool. Helion Energy, General fusion, Commonwealth fusion systems, Zap energy, Tokamak energy and so forth
Your guide is wrong about the private companies. They are doing pretty well and quite far along for being so young. It's because they use other types than traditional tokamaks. But it won't take 5-10 years, it's maybe 15-20 years. But not 60 years
Most people who work at ITER haven't actually looked into what the private companies are doing, because they don't have time to look close enough, and it's so complex.
Plasma Channel did a great video on them.
In our college days, we did visit one of these tokmak prototypes that happened to be nearby, and the size of that was still huge as a research candidate. I can only imagine this is like 100 times bigger than that one with all those supporting equipment.
If anyone is wondering, the reactor is only turned on a few times over the years to collect the data as heating it up and running constantly is a big challenge even at this date. And we need more and more data to make decisions thats in favour of reducing this supporting structure and exploiting natural phenomena to make the process more efficient.
I'm just glad to see almost all countries trying to make this thing a reality no matter how big the challenge is. We humans are stubborn, and stubbornness in these things is good for humanity!!
Looking at the progress, this will take 5 more years before it's operational as they will have to tune it and then be able to collect real data which would take another 5 years to be analysed and make progress from findings as modifying these experiments comes at cost both in terms of time and budgets.
Really interesting video! My final year project at university is a CFD analysis of heat transfer within the breeding blanket. Really interesting to see all the work that's going on at ITER, looking forward to when it becomes operational!
Are you collaborating with any breeding blanket researchers for that project? My colleague/internship advisor recently finished his dissertation on obtaining heat transfer correlations via MHD simulations of breeding blankets, so just curious if there's any overlap.
Thank you for this! For Richard Pitts, a quote: "Blessed are old people who plant trees knowing that they shall never sit in the shade of their foliage." I remember getting excited enough about nuclear fusion and the tokamak to write an essay on it during my senior year of high school, a few years before Reagan and Gorbachev met on the topic. I didn't win the essay competition, and I was more interested in optical physics for my own postsecondary work, but the excitement is still there.
Greetings from a viewer of Grady's! Dunno how your channel escaped my notice all these years, but I'm here now with some catching up to do! Being a sci-fi nerd, the discussion of initially heating the plasma caused my mind to leap to all of the small "fusion" reactors we see in sci-fi, and how that future could come about. That's a lot of infrastructure to put on everything that uses fusion.
To borrow a term from the power producing industry, I wonder if that means we'll end up with a few large "black start" reactors that produce the plasma, which "fuel" smaller reactors with that plasma already in its self-heating state. If not every reactor needs to be ITER, that would really help with building at scale. Thus, leading to the logical result: fusion-powered steam trains! 🚂😁👍
Heh it would be a ridunculously complex connection between those reactors... To transfer any plasma outside the containment which is already mightily hard and betrays predictions at times.
@@u1zha Fair point, but I'm sure jet engines and fission could have had similar things said about them once upon a time. Metal forges already have the ability to move molten metal using nothing but magnetic fields. While the penalty is obviously much higher in the event of a malfunction, I would expect something like that could be the start of a means to move that plasma.
really fascinating! Thanks for this documentary 😎
fantastic video jade. I LOved, it. keep up the good work on your VidEos, i'm sure You enjOy making them. i was Unsure about how fission worked, PLEASE make more of the greatest viDeos AbouT sciEnce, makes ME happy seeing fellOw scieNcE goers make stuff they kNow very well to Interest others into Getting into the topic. and again, Hearing abouT fission is mindblowing, thanks again.
So helium is the 'waste' product. That means we can take the tour and bring back home a few souvenir balloons. They could print on them: "I visited Iter and all I got was this lousy balloon!"
Yes, I did catch that they need lots of liquified helium for cooling. So you can't call it a waste product.
Nuclear fusion has actually performed many tomes so far, and it has always produced (mega)tons of energy!
The trick is to harness the energy instead of blowing it all around ;)
I'm glad to see this fantastic feat and enjoy it with my favourite drink - a double espresso; thank G-d for these great things with donuts too. Cheers from here in Canada!
Grady and you are 2 of my favourite people to watch🙃
Nice video, however I have a very important point which I made also in Lex Fridman interview with fusion physicist Dennis Whyte: about fusion vs fission. Namely that the current problem with fission is the cost and complexity of fission power plants. The cost of fuel is minimal. But the problem is the same with fission. We're still running a heat engine. Even if fusion produces 100x more energy for its fuel or reactor size, and costs nothing, you are still dealing with same size of heat energy. Even though there may be less waste, the cost and complexity of fusion power plants will likely be greater (?). It is far from guaranteed the fusion will be cheaper (and thus consuming less resources including labor) than fission at least when it is introduced. In fact with prediction markets and market futures, you could actually bet real money on that, helping to allocate scarce resources.
The problem with long-lived waste can be minimized with reprocessing and Onkalo-type storage facilities. Most long-lived isotopes can be converted to short-lived ones. And there's very little real danger from nuclear accidents relative to other forms of power. Don't get me wrong I'd love to have fusion working, but Like Richard said, we need base load capacity for until 20XX (2080?), and nuclear fission is great for that. In reality it might be easier to market fusion than fission to public because of (less of) perceived danger.
Also a good reason to investigate fission as well is that Gen IV reactors are evolutions of proven designs, and can possibly create also hydrogen which at least our future airplanes will likely use due to (lack of) emissions.
Also there's the fact that either with fission or fusion, there's a like gigawatts of waste heat which could actually be used. I did once back of the envelope calculations and basically I'm really curious why most of that is basically wasted. Although district heating only type of nuclear power plants are being made. Could also be used as process heat for factories.
In any case, its really nice to see people working hard for better future as you said! Also many discoveries regarding plasma physics and superconductors are made in the side. :)
I think what Helion is doing is very interesting as well. Its not a heat engine but electricity is created directly. Very clever. Let's see if that works. In general I'm happy to see many different approaches to fusion. Even if one fails, others might succeed.
I'd be interested in seeing some graphics comparing size, cost and complexity to the Large Hadron Collider - just from an engineering perspective.
My favorite thing about fission and fusion is that we have all this high level science that goes behind the basics of the energy generation and at the end of it, we run a steam turbine like from the 1700s. We still haven't figured out a way to get the energy out more efficiently to generate electricity, it's ridiculous.
I think in some processes a supercritical carbon dioxide working fluid is more efficient, but it's still turning a special shaped wheel.
there are some non-Tokamak fusion proposals which use a more direct energy capture approach but they are all in private company / start-up land.
Love your videos, Jade! Can you comment more on the end-to-end efficiency of ITER? I understand that inside the reactor you may get 10:1 efficiency, but what about all of the other connected necessities that consume energy while running? If you were to put a power meter on those 400 kilovolt input lines, would the power output of the reaction be larger than the input power on those lines?
That is an excellent question that is rarely considered by excited presenters. In the case of the mentioned National Ignition Facility (NIF) 'breakthrough' experiment it turned out that the lasers, alone, consumed more than 100 times more energy then was measured from the 0.000,000,000,08 second nuclear fusion reaction.
as far as I know they don't expect ITER to work with a positive energy budget, actually, its not even made to efficiently use the energy generated. its a test bed for DEMO, the reactor that will actually generate power.
Wikipedia says power meter would show 320 MW of electricity for heating... plus a couple of MW in cooling the superconductors and other expenses. So the thermal out of 500W would be slightly larger than input from the grid. A good space heater :) But not yet a power plant.
Since this is an experimental reactor, I think of it as a bicycle with training wheels attached. Training wheels being the measurement probes and reconfiguration provisions, combined into apparatus mindbogglingly humongous and expensive. The research done in there should pave the way for reactors without those extras - when we understand what's exactly necessary for successful running and what's overengineered.
@@danilooliveira6580 - Ever since ITER was conceived it has never been intended to generate electrical energy from its thermal output. It is strictly another nuclear fusion energy experimental facility. There is not even enough tritium available to allow it to operate for very long. It will not be 'breeding' a significant quantity of radioactive tritium to even fuel itself. Currently, the supply of tritium is expected to decrease. The promoters of nuclear fusion experiments rarely mention that it is rarely employed in their experimental reactors and its current market value is approximately $30,000/gram. The claim that the fuel is unlimited and easily available from sea water is pure misleading hype. Little attention is now being paid to the DEMO planning efforts since ITER is extremely over its original budget. Even after a DEMO reactor is created scaling that to replace a significant portion of the fossil fuel derived energy will take decades that we don't have. DEMO will have to show that nuclear fusion power production is cost effective in the commercial sector. The financial and timeline failures of ITER is not looking favorable for that goal.
Fans tend to be masterful at excluding the following warnings from their consciousness. I urge readers to search for the following article titles.
IPCC report: ‘now or never’ if world is to stave off climate disaster (TheGuardian)
UN chief: World has less than 2 years to avoid 'runaway climate change' (TheHill)
* This statement was made 4.8 years ago.
@@u1zha - A consideration of the energy budget should include all the total energy needed by the entire complex, not just the energy use of the direct reactor operation. From the very beginning none of the plans included a turbine/generator facility. A commercially practical fusion energy power plant pilot plant would have to demonstrate that all the construction, operation and demolition cost could be recouped during the lifetime of the plant, from the revenues generated by the sale of the generated electricity. With ITER they are not even considering such things at this point. They are far more concerned by the hundreds of millions of dollars of cost overruns that have already taken place.
Many people never take into consideration the many mega projects of the past that never proved to be commercially practical. Some people believe such efforts are not worth remembering.
I remember reading books about the imminent rollout of fusion energy since I was just a kid (okay, at least one was by Fred Hoyle...), and it's one ofnthose things that's forever 'fifteen years away'. ButbI feel this project is a massive step forward, reaching a scale where the properties will be used effectively to overcome the barriers faced thus far.
The bit about how generating temperatures close to the sun requires surrounding them by temperatures colder than Pluto blew my mind. Like, I get how it's explained, but that kind of logic is so opposite to what I'd think instinctively.
Excellent presentation here! Just two things short of being perfect:
*1.* The 3 heating methods mentioned seem to be designed to work on plasma. However, the fusion fuel obviously isn't yet a plasma when it is first introduced into the reactor. Which heating methods do they use to turn the fuel into plasma in the first place?
*2.* The extremely long construction time and extensive supporting facilities for ITER seem to suggest that the logistics for a fusion plant would dwarf that of a fission plant, possibly even taking a century just to build?! Looking at all the bureaucratic and political mess around fission plants today, this could be even worse for a fusion plant. There is a very real possibility that even if technical feasibility doesn't kill fusion, plain old logistics, politics and the like might still doom it in the end.
Don't forget about the net positive output in the reaction vs the net positive output in the power plant. The latter has not been achieved yet, and it would take at least an order of magnitude larger output to be reached.
Wow Jade. Your best video yet!
I went to visit JET at Culham in about 1980, it was great to learn that fusion was only 20 years away!
I admire the work that is being done, and I specially admire Richard's frankness. But honestly every time I see anything about fusion I become more and more convinced that battery storage technology becoming viable for baseload is a million times more likely and economically viable than fusion ever will be.
I found a little error at 17:27, it was said 4K are -296°C but it should be -269°C instead, so just a number twist.
Yh, its fu*ing colder then absolute zero 😆😆
4:42
Switzerland and the United Kingdom seem to be missing in the list of participating countries (since they are also part of Euratom).
At 18:08, where the discussion of neutrons begins, is where "the devil is in the details" needs to be brought up. Indeed, fusion produces neutrons -- a lot of them. And fusion neutrons are very energetic (aka "fast") neutrons. And since neutrons don't have any electrical charge they don't interact very often with other atoms. So the "blanket" Richard describes that will absorb the neutrons is still very much a work in progress. CZcams won't let me include a URL here, but if you google "IAEA neutrons blast fusion materials" it will lead you to an IAEA document that talks about one of the biggest challenges in harnessing nuclear fusion is that of dealing with the material damage caused by all the fast neutrons. And Jade is correct that fusion produces no long-lived radioactive byproducts like fission does, but the lithium which will be part of the blanket will get transmutated into tritium, which is radioactive with a half-life of 12.3 years. So things are not as black-and-white as they might first appear and this is another reason any commercial fusion power plant is still a very long ways off.
Yay! You're back. Cheers from the Pacific West Coast of Canada.
well done Jade. very exciting.
Great video!
Super interesting!
Oooo.... coming over here from Grady's channel, love the collaboration!
In the future special masers combined with radio lasers and sasers are used to stun the repulsive forces of the protons thus causing them to fuse far easier. Sound frequencies engage the quarks inside the protons ...
that last conversation is pretty poetic about the scientific/research community and the casual / lay people
The timescale is interesting. It’s not going to be a fast track.
I'm all for science for pushing the boundaries of what we know and can do, but as the scientist says at the end, it's going to be vastly undersized and colossally expensive, then times 600. $20B and growing and 10 years and growing - would be far better to carpet areas around the world with solar and battery farms. Up and running in months, safe, cheap, well-understood, easy to repair, recyclable.
Great effort, must be admired
This might be a stupid question, but - when the reaction reaches the "self-heating" phase, how do you shut it down? For example with a nuclear power plant you can remove the fuel rods. What's the equivalent here?
Hi what a great video!!! thank you for making it. I am not totally sure about the "no nuclear waste part though." I think the furiously neutron irradiated themal and attenuation shields, the heat transfer components (like in the future, to actually get the heat into steam, and thence into a steam turbine, etc) will be very problematic from a radiation standpoint. The neutrons will change the shielding materials into less stable nuclei, which will then decay radioactively over time. I hope I am wrong, but that's how I currently understand it. thanks again.
Greatest video on nuclear fusion ever on CZcams I ever found.
I think the potential for electricity with ITER goes beyond the heat to boil water and create steam, there’s a chance to use the electricity in plasma itself and be distributed skipping all the good old system from nuclear fusion reactor. This is so exciting and thanks for sharing it has been a while since I watched a detailed video about ITER. I just subscribed btw I came from Grady’s channel. 👍
Maybe, but they're well advised not to try to be too clever about the ways to extract energy before they have something that actually sustains break-even fusion. Driving turbines with steam is perhaps not the most efficient way, but at least it's one that we know won't cause more unexpected headaches.
This is the best video I have ever seen distilling the fundamentals of the fascinating physics and astounding infrastructure, requisite for enabling D-T Nuclear Fusion reactions!
It is one of my greatest dreams, to live long enough to see the miracle of Nuclear Fusion delivering power to human beings from all walks of life!
You should see if you can get a tour of the General Atomics tokomak in San Diego California. I got a personal guided tour by the Chief Scientist back in 20i6, but I was a DARPA Program Manager at the time (we could go anywhere). It's the only operating tokomak in the Western hemisphere, and every country engaged in fusion research uses it for science and engineering development purposes. The one remarkable thing I found was its gain factor, which was getting close to 1. However, the GA tokomak is only allowed to use deuterium as a nuclear fuel. Adding tritium in that tokomak would likely drive it well over unity gain.
Richard (who I hope was close to retirement, with a secure pension) was both honest and accurate in his assessment of fusion's future in the energy scheme. Fission, while developed to industrial scale, has hardly realized a fraction of its potential. That will be the future of energy. I doubt if fusion will be with us within my grandchildren's grandchildren's lifetimes - and that's providing I ever get married. (ha ha)
really fascinating!
Yow! The field trip we need to see!
New visitor from Practical Engineering channel. Liked and Subscribed! Glad to be onboard.
isn't there an ossue with neutron emmission and how it effects the components. neutrons will be emotted and not locked in the em field. i'm happy to have this explained properly to me :)