My understanding is that the physics and mathematics surrounding fusion energy is pretty much sorted, now it's a problem of material science, i.e. Getting materials that can be superconductive at higher temperatures, and plasma facing materials that can withstand higher temperatures.
Great news from California today( Dec.13th, 2022): Scientists have managed to create energy by Fusion. They produced more energy from the Fusion experiment than they had introduced in to the system initially. It’s said it could still take maybe a decade before they can eventually create Fusion energy at will. It’s a first: The 1950’s saw the experiment get underway. Things take time. endeavour take off
Couldn't agree more. If we as a society became as enamored with fusion energy as we were with space travel back in the 60s, we could have it in a decade or two. The irony being that fusion holds far greater significance to our immediate future than space travel, even if it is less glamorous. Those of you arguing for other "renewable energy sources" instead of fusion are a bit short-sighted. Not to say that they are bad, just that they aren't a long-term solution. It's like saying that bandages are cheaper than stitches, so just keep changing bandages while the underlying wound continues to bleed and fester. The simple fact is that our energy demands are growing exponentially. Eventually we will need more than fossil fuels and renewables combined could ever provide. Fusion isn't a good option, it is currently the only viable option.
So for fusion to occur on earth to produce useful energy, we need to add energy in the first place to power the huge electro magnets? ...let alone the additional energy required to separate hydrogen atoms from water molecules. Any metrics on the net energy gain/loss ?
+G Yogaraja for ITER the return is expected to be on the order of 10:1 (including all of the power required to run the magnets, heating systems, services, auxiliary systems etc. For a DEMO scale reactor of a commercially relevant size it's tricky to say as the first prototype commercial reactor is still the early design phases, but the expectation is that it will be somewhere around 30-40 : 1, with a thermal power production of around 500MW. Though bear in mind that's a prototype, so the second, third generation is always significantly more efficiently.
One question? Q = E out ÷ E in What are the elements considered in Q overall & Q E in ? Would you measure the energy that was used to make the materials of the project / reactor? When will that achieve break even. Not only power input is "Q E in". Footprint of all elements must be considered. So if the highest break-even is 0.7 what were the factors used to measure this. Thank you.
The Boron Hydrogen (proton) aneutronic reaction will follow the DT fusion reaction in time. DT is the most energetic fusion reaction and the easiest to achieve. We must master it first and learn. Having said that, the aneutronic approach may allow for a more efficient conversion of the fusion energy to electricity by replacing the conventional heat turbine generator with a magnetohydrodynamic approach. The comment regarding neutron absorption by reactor components is not a concern and is addressed by a liquid Lithium bath which is used to absorb the neutrons as well as the thermal exchange. Fusion must be developed. There is no replacement when finite fossil fuels are depleted. The energy flux densities of current "renewables" such as solar, wind, tidal, and the like simply are orders of magnitude too low to power the world's energy demand by 2060. Also the "sweet spot" for fusion parameter density may be mid-way between the laser driven inertial confinement approach (example is NIF at LLNL) and magnetic tokomak (ITER) using a technique referred to as Magnetized Target Fusion which is being explored at Los Alamos National Labs, Sandia national Labs and some private groups.
There has? Please describe what that massive progress is then. a few extra percentage points of efficiency ? Get serious, they are so far from an over unity reactor that we have been at the 20 year mark for half a century and the mark ain't moved.
Short answer: no. If anything results in 2018 show how bleak the future is for Fusion. At present, the most notable tokamak is ITER, a joint venture between many countries to research the engineering difficulties associated with tokamak technology. Tokamaks use superconducting electromagnets made of Nb3Sn and NbTi, the two most common superconctors used in magnet technology... The thing about superconducting magnets is that they produce a magnetic field (duh, right?), but something you may not know is that there is a maximum field that a superconductor can be exposed to before it loses its ability to conduct supercurrent. This is called the critical field... There are other critical parameters too like critical temperature and critical current density. Basically what this means is that there is a ceiling on how large a field can be generated using superconducting magnets, but superconductors are necessary to make fusion energy efficient... All this is to say that there is already a massive magnetic pressure generated to contain the plasma in a tokomak, and that pressure is determined in part by the field that a superconductor can generate and be exposed to... Superconducting magnets in a tokomak are already operating as close as possible to their critical parameters...
I really like this presentation, and I'm all for going fusion. BUT, I have to point out that the video makes an appeal for an environmentally friendly energy source, while it offhandedly disregards technologies that we have here and now that achieves the ecological agenda. In particular, I'm talking about nuclear fission, which is by far the best ecological option we have for sustainable energy. Nuclear waste, which the video states as a problem, is surprisingly not as big of a deal as people think - which is only exacerbated by politics and some over-zealous-well-meaning-but-wrong-headed environmentalists. In other words, while we are waiting for fusion, let's not forget fission.
You realize that fission is not sustainable right? You must fission very heavy (and VERY rare) elements for fission to work. Not even in their natural form, usually they must be purified first. Thats not sustainable at all... using something that is MORE scarce than oil is technically not renewable.
Ddub1083 Nuclear engineers estimate that we have enough Uranium to last us 30,000 years (conservative estimate). Thorium reserves are about double that. Even with the uranium stockpiles that we already have mined, we have enough energy to handle all of our power consumption needs for the next 1000 years (very conservative estimate). What alternative is there? Wind/solar are unstable and require the cooperation of mother nature to work. As it sits, their capricious nature prohibits their contribution to the grid of anything more than 20%. Hydro and geothermal are good options (i.e. they are reliable), but are limited in their output. Gas and coal are cheap and abundant, but there are ecological concerns there. Of all the options on the table, *only* nuclear proves to be economically feasible, plentiful, reliable, and ecologically friendly. So until we figure fussion out, let's go fission!
bananian Alters it, yes. But not always in a negative way. I'm still a fan of hydro. Hydro not only produces some of the cheapest electricity on the planet, it does it in a carbonless manner. It also protect communities during years of drought and flooding by moderating water flow. But, of course we must be careful not to just build dams everywhere precisely because of what you talked about. The biggest drawback to hydro is from this inherent defect, thus limiting output.
I have a few questions, is Hydrogen the most optimal way to achieve fusion and is another atom that could have better results. How long does the whole process of fusion take. (Sorry if the terminology is incorrect I'm only 13)
+Frodoswift70 The notion of 'How long does Fusion take' is a bit misleading because there are numerous different reaction pathways possible for nuclear fusion which all take place over different time periods in stars. But for instance, the main nuclear fusion process in our Sun, proton-proton reaction (Hydrogen Burning (pp1 chain)) takes place VERY slowly actually. Over time periods of 10 billion years. (This explains why stars live so long). However, other fusion processes, such as the 'rapid neutron capture process' takes place over time periods of around 0.2microseconds. So, as you can see, quite a variation! It's good that you're interested at 13 though. Nuclear fusion technology will become a major player in the clean energy industry in the future.
2:07 - 2:10 "If the energy is too high, [the probability of fusion taking place] is also very low." Can you explain this please? I've tried searching but cannot find anything else saying this.
Nice idea, and perhaps one day we will have fusion. However, we could have #thorium power a lot sooner if we wanted. Fusion's current problem is not cost, but "breaking even" (energy in vs energy out). Thorium and #LFTR have no such issues.
China has or is soon starting up a Liquid Fuel reactor. Not sure if it is Thorium. China plans to open up 150 nuclear reactors in the next 15 years. Cleanest economy by far.
What about particle accelerators, they manage to smash protons to each other, maybe if you turn down the electromagnetic accelerated motion in the collider, you can cause protons to fuse instead of smashing open.
I always learn when it's made simple. 🙏 Thank you. Also i have a question. What happens when you introduce a magnetic field to Hydrogen? Or vice versa, introduce H to a Magnetic field? Any paper you can direct me to?
yes, one day we will get it, I mean we already built experimental fusion reactors, and ITER is starting to be built, and will be finished in about 11 years
Can't you just use pressure? And magnetic fields to contain it, and why is it so big, that's just more space right? If there's more pressure and such a small container, wouldn't there be a better chance for there to be fusion? Correct me if I'm wrong, I want to know
Firstly, what are you referring to the use of pressure? If you mean to hold the atoms together its not possible because like mentioned a pressure vault requires physical containers which would melt at such high temperatures. Secondly, magnetic fields are possible as shown, its just that there are multiple variations and lastly about the space, i am really unsure also honestly because with a smaller space, the higher number of atoms per unit volume increases which in turn leads to a higher probability of nuclear fission occurring but at the same time, more space would allow the atoms to have a higher velocity due to the prolonged time between possible collisions which would in turn also increase the rate of nuclear fission. So in short, it goes both way and is completely random i guess.
We could also use special reactors that speed up the decay of currently existing nuclear waste. Such a system would generate power whilst negating the effect of nuclear byproduct! I also have read about a feasible design for one in Popular Science, a usually trustworthy magazine I'm subscribed to.
Thorium fission reactors are great,definetly better than Uranium fission reactors because they are more effiecent and less radioactive but they are still no where near as good as fusion,with fusion you get more energy,there is no chance for a meltdown to happen,its pretty cost effective(not saying that Thorium reactors are not,ofcourse they are) and it doesn't create nuclear waste(unlike Thorium that create less nuclear waste than Uranium but still creates it),fusion is the future,espcially anneutronic fusion(fusion where less than 1% of the energy that is released escapes through the neurons which basiclly mean more energy and less radioactive).
There are different reports on how clean Thorium reactors vs. Uranium reactors. Also there currently isn't an open water method of using Thorium as a fuel. en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Thorium_fuel_cycle
Very true, HUGE energy density, pretty well known physics, demonstrated technology. Could probably use a few materials tweaks. In the liquid reactor form no chance at all for a melt down. Half lives of the waste is not too bad only a couple hundred years which is very doable and safe. The fertile Thorium fuel is cheap. Probably the most energy dense process other than conventional fission reactors which cost a lot more.
First of all Deuterium Fusion is NOT clean! Sure it only produces Helium and Tritium and a neutron. It's that neutron that causes the problem. Free neutrons make other elements radioactive. Since the only way to get energy out of a high energy neutron is thermodynamically it is necessary that it interact with a moderator. Once that neutron slows down, it is much more likely to interact with materials (like the ones you made your reactor out of) causing them to become unstable (i.e. radioactive). Two primary solutions exist for this problem. He3 fusions [unfortunately He3 is extremely rare on earth (not unlimited like Hydrogen)] or p+ B11 (which is way way harder than D2 fusion). Without a serious theoretical breakthrough, I think it's unlikely Fusion will ever be a viable energy source. I wish that were not true, but I'm afraid it is.
We could model these collisions using random walks. Random walks tend to collide much more in 1 and 2 dimensions than in 3 dimensions and higher. The difference is substantial; this is why biological processes tend to happen on membranes. Why aren't magnets also used on the inside to push the hydrogen out to lying basically on the 2-dimensional surface of the torus?
This is all very exciting but one question I have is the energy produced by the machines greater than the energy required to fuel it? Unlike other forms of energy where the fuel is already there, (I.E. gasoline, air, radioactive uranium, etc...) in here we have to make the product. So will the machine create enough energy to both compensate for its lost energy and still have enough energy to be spread to homes? I might be missing something but it just seems like you're trying to create more energy than what you have to begin with.
That is the hard part about this. We actually have created fusion, that is why we know it exists. We do not know a way of creating it with less energy than it puts out. Currently we have to separate water into hydrogen and oxygen, which takes energy. Then we have to excite the hydrogen with millions of watts to create fusion. So therefore, the fusion must create tens of millions of watts. This IS possible, the amount of energy if they could convert all of the hydrogen to helium is enormous. However, converting all of it statistically impossible. Right now they are trying to get a higher amount of hydrogen to convert while reducing the needed energy for the conversion.
I worked at ORNL in the early 1980s on such devices. It seems that the current state of the technology is about the same. Back then, I kept hearing that commercial fusion plants would be online by 2000, then 2010, etc. We have been pumping lots of money into fusion energy research since there is also a military component to it.
Alright, you've sold me on the idea that this something we should take a risk on. As an edutainer, where would you want us to direct our money/ support for kickstarter or indiegogo, or stuff like that?
Would bayesian optimization or reinforcement learning be an effective way to figure out the best combination of toroidal, poloidal, solenoid, and neutral beam strength?
As for the comment on when this will be available, he says never. Unless more interest is shown towards this technology. I have to ask did he include the ITER Project before making this statement, and if yes, I have to ask why ITER won't be a game changer?
Very well animated explanation. I like it in a way. Yet, i always miss a critical point of view for this source of energy... yet i cant criticize the technology coz i dont know enough about it. so here are some questions please: -Do you need Lithium or another extra Element among the Hydrogen? I couldnt figure out if you need it for the synthesis of Deuterium and Tritium and so on... -> If yes can u use another Element besides Lithium? -What happens with the "neutron-waste" ? :P Enough so far. :)
One thing that bothers me in this "Magnetic bottle" thing is: All the particles are going the same way! You don't get a lon of collisions like this... Another problem - particles do spiral in the magnetic field as long as they are charged. But eventually they will get meet with opposite charged particles (as they are spiraling the opposite ways), combine, and become neutral. Maybe if you get as much electrons out of the soup, as you can, you get a more stable plasma? ((Though here I suspect that rapid discharging a solenoid is doing something of this kind to separte opposite charges...))
Idk. Maybe we should try a different approach. Magnetic bottles put on a good light show sounds like. The solution is right under our noses. Lets be optimistic about reactor design. Even if it means scrapping the magnetic bottle.
Accually, boron proton fusion is a lot better. It generates only alpha particles which the energy of, can be directly converted into electricity. No neutron activation, and the energy released is not heat, but pure nanomechanical energy. This type of fusion is a lot simpler to achive too, but almost noone knows of it's existance. Execuse me for my terrible english, since it is not my native language.
***** They will most likely happen at some point, but it won't be in the next 100 years. Hell, after more than 60 years we only produce 20% of our power via fissile material, and that is extremely "green" and is competitive with standard fuel, given the EPA compliance costs and increasing price increase with economic scarcity.
It always makes me laugh when people say that a technology is worth near infinite amounts of money, but no one funds it which is the problem. Which is another way of saying no one that has money thinks this is possible in the slightest.
not true no one thinks they will make a profit from it in the near furture if we put all of or money into it we would find out if it worked or not but beacause most of the people with the money already have money placed in things like fossil fuels why would the give money to somthing that would fossil fuel out of buisness. even though t would save earth
Its not the case. Problem is that most people that have money have them invested. If they have the money invested in power, the money will be worth nothing if fusion power is made available. So the people how got plenty of money will loos more then they earn on fusion. This is where goverment have to step in...
all three of you are right at the same time.. except that the goverment owns most of the focil fuels in your countries, so they would basically put themselves out of business by allowing this technology to be researched.. Private investors who have the interest and money, dont dare to fund the "maybe" possible .. if science would say, "it is possible, we just need to get it right", then there would be funding coming from all directions.. although free energy sounds like no profit, so why would the private investor care, other than to the company that makes this energy in the end :)
MatriXz Well, sure, there is a few private inverses that do have that amount of money, but we are talking about a hand full or so. There is two general rules of thumb when you are investing. 1: Never invest out side your area of expertise. 2: Never invest in technology that is disrupted to your investment folder. Well. if you have a lot of cash because of power industry, then you can´t invest in LFTR because of rule nr 2. If you have a lot of case because of a other reason, then you can´t invest because of rule nr 1. Well, bill gates broke rule nr 2 and invested in nuclear power... what technology did he invest in? Traveling wave reactors! Why? Because they had the best sales pitch. The technology is horrible bad, and he basically wasted a lot of money. Basically this is always what hapend. Also, worse politictians generaly dont have any area of expertise at all, so they are always investing in the tech that have the best sales pitch.... well at least were i live.
matsv201 no objections from me.. there is to much risk to give the non-government / politician investors a reason to invest in it, as it is unclear already in the sales pitch whether it can be done or not.. It really requires something like public funding to fund something as important and non profitable as fusion energy.. Kickstarter and other similar effort are made because of these kinds of investment needs. but ofc someone needs to organize this crowd funding and make sure the research doesnt get scrapped, so people's money isnt wasted.. Where i come from (denmark), they would still put a tax law in place for the money you save on fusion energy. we have so many different taxed things here that we have 25% of our work effort left after paying bills each month. if you save on energy, then you pay the difference as a tax to the government :) hurray i get to not save anything by using less energy :D
fusion have no doubt is THE answer but in truth there are other safe clean options that once implemented would give limitless breathing room for the practical development of this better form of generation. solar and wind are nice and should be used but thats not what I'm talking about.
I want fusion too, but what can us regular folk do to get a ministar on earth seemingly generating more power than five hydroelectric dams combined? maybe with fusion, we could also get enough helium for generations to come, that's the byproduct, not radioactive waste, which I know is recycled.
How much energy will require to fusion uranium atoms. We have uranium and atoms with legendary atomic numbers on earth, so basically earth was hotter than sun if these atoms were created on earth but no these atoms were created in nebula or during formation of universe. I hope you understand.
Cheap and plentiful oil also once seemed to be the solution to all our problems. The unintended consequences of cheap fusion power are bound to be pretty spectacular. Conservation and renewables would seem to be the safer alternative. And isn't there a joke about our having been a decade away from cheap fusion power for many decades now?
I don't understand the last part of the video. "Can we build the machines that does this" I thought we just saw a machine that did it? "If we are wrong and we can't do it" again i thought we just saw a machine that does what you explained. Am i missing something? Does he mean a machine that can compete with other energy sources hasn't been done yet?
We can not permanently maintained the process. Also, we can not produce more energy than we put into it. Well, strictly speaking, we have done the second point recently but we can still not produce more electricity than we have to put into it. Actually, we are still in the field of basic research. The scientists believe that we need to build these machines much larger than we have done in the past for experimental purposes. ITAR, which is being built right now as an international project in France, is such a research reactor. I hope they get it right. We need this shit.
You may need to rotate the box you want to do fusion energy in order to get the desired effect, small gravitation at the Centre of rotation and large gravitation farthest away from the center. Google translate
Yeah, just go ahead tell them to those scientists and you will become then richest man on Earth, who changed humanity forever. Just go tell them how to do it right!
Why not fuse neutrons instead of protons? or a neutron with a proton that do not repel each other? Besides we already have a fusion furnace, why do we need to build one on earth instead of just bring the existing one to earth?
The problem with Fusion Energy or any kind of sophisticate source of energy is that concentrate the production on fewer agents than the fossil fuel. Concentration create dependency, fragility and stiffness in human organizations. We need to create networks of multiples sources of energy and yes maybe in the future fusion energy will be one source, but renewal energy sources will be the main, because promote freedom, robustness and agility in human organization. We have fear of the climate change because our society are becoming more and more fragile since the industrial revolution started, the productivity and efficiency has raised up but in the biggest cities the people has underdeveloped some of his fundamental human needs: creation ,identity ,freedom, subsistence ,protection ,affection ,understanding ,participation and leisure. Thanks to the network of internet now we have more sources of knowledge, ways of communication, tools for creation and so on. But remember how was the trend of our society three decades ago when the mass media and consumerism had not had a counterpart, How much power governments and corporations would have today?
Laser fusion successfully generated more electricity than was used to cause the reaction, so I think fusion reactors are the future. Fusion is basically taking two hydrogen atoms and saying, "Now kiss!"
Nice video! Unfortunately there's still a lot of work to do before fusion can become a feasible source of energy, SO GET BACK TO THE LAB AND DON'T PROCRASTINATE!!!
0:45 "Unlimited supply" How unlimited are we talking here? Like, how much would human energy consumption have to increase to produce a 1m sea level change in let's say, 100 years due to water being the primary fuel of our energy? I have the very simple belief that, if fuel availability is not considered a problem because of sheer abundance, then human consumption will simply scale up until it becomes one.
+M1zzu q It's not actually water that is used for fusion, but deuterium, an isotope of hydrogen that makes up only 0.015% of sea water mass. At the current level of energy consumption, the amount of deuterium on earth would suffice for over a billion years.Also, just because that's usually a frequently asked question aswell: helium emission is insignificant aswell. Worldwide production of helium (25k tonnes a year) far outweights the tiny amount of helium produced in the fusion process by at least 3 orders of magnitude.
Via heat exchanger as in normal stream turbine power plants. Or Direct Conversion, where the charged energetic helium ions are passed through an electrically-biased grid, which generates power.
Sounds like we are chasing a modern version of some perpetual motion machines again. Free energy from nothing? What happened to the first rule of thermal dynamics?
No one has ever built one and no matter how unfeasible ITER seems, hammer reactors are less so but it is an intriguing idea. I bet you probably thought there is no such thing but actually... www.ted.com/talks/michel_laberge_how_synchronized_hammer_strikes_could_generate_nuclear_fusion
And nobody realizes that we also use oil for plastic and rubber, not just fueling cars, and I bet there's a lot of plastic and rubber in those machines. So basically, we should focus on replacing plastic and rubber. Also, guess what your computer chips are made of, plastic, the case; metal and plastic, your monitor; plastic and byproducts by machines made of metal and electronics. And so on. So yes, we should find a better way of fueling cars, but we will also need to find another way to actually build those cars.
Yeah, but they're concerned about the use of oil/natural resources as an energy source, which releases harmful byproducts in to the atmosphere, which results in climate change. Although it's true, we have to find a way to make plastics/rubber biodegradable, to limit pollution, plastics and rubber don't have any effect on climate change itself
My point was meant to get at the fact that when we run out of oil it will be a bigger problem that most people think. but yes, i understand what you are saying.
how about using solar energy aaand making a better non-toxic battery technology that could store energy efficiently.. i dunno, like uh graphene? i dunno, im just a watcher here, not a scientist so hey, no hate. :p
I see more energy being used the created. And what about the loose neutrons, isn't THAT a type of pollution? It is in fission reactors. This is a ploy for funding by someone who is already paid too much.
Plasma physics is one of my favorite areas of research.
Also, your animations are always fantastic!
"Tony Stark was able to do this in the cave!!!!!"
+Korawich Kavee with a box of scraps
I'm sorry sir, but I'm not Tony Stank, Ooops! I mean Tony Stark..
Pony Park
Hahahah the only reason i click this vid is because of iron man ghahahaha
AOJ keygen "with a box of scraps!!!!!!"
"the energy you create." Bout killed myself
IN A CAVE! ... WITH A BOX OF SCRAPS!
Engineer: Well, I'm sorry sir. I'm not Tony stark.
You know what they say. Fusion is the power of the future, and always will be.
My understanding is that the physics and mathematics surrounding fusion energy is pretty much sorted, now it's a problem of material science, i.e. Getting materials that can be superconductive at higher temperatures, and plasma facing materials that can withstand higher temperatures.
One of the clearest and best explanations I have seen. But I still wonder where the di-lithium crystals are used.
those & the particle transporters, huh?
Make it so!
Great news from California today( Dec.13th, 2022): Scientists have managed to create energy by Fusion. They produced more energy from the Fusion experiment than they had introduced in to the system initially.
It’s said it could still take maybe a decade before they can eventually create Fusion energy at will.
It’s a first: The 1950’s saw the experiment get underway. Things take time.
endeavour take off
Couldn't agree more. If we as a society became as enamored with fusion energy as we were with space travel back in the 60s, we could have it in a decade or two. The irony being that fusion holds far greater significance to our immediate future than space travel, even if it is less glamorous.
Those of you arguing for other "renewable energy sources" instead of fusion are a bit short-sighted. Not to say that they are bad, just that they aren't a long-term solution. It's like saying that bandages are cheaper than stitches, so just keep changing bandages while the underlying wound continues to bleed and fester.
The simple fact is that our energy demands are growing exponentially. Eventually we will need more than fossil fuels and renewables combined could ever provide.
Fusion isn't a good option, it is currently the only viable option.
Very well stated
China building 150 new fission reactors in the next 15 years. They will have the cleanest energy economy by far in the world very very soon.
Get Goku and Vegeta and make them teach the Hydrogen particles the Fusion Dance.
LOL or Goku uses Kamehameha against Vegeta's Final Flash. That should be enough energy for 20 years lol.
We are all dumber for reading this. I love some team four star, but please, please, please, don't ever repeat that ever again.
LOL!!!
Make the our wires go super Sayan, because wires are made of sayans.
So for fusion to occur on earth to produce useful energy, we need to add energy in the first place to power the huge electro magnets? ...let alone the additional energy required to separate hydrogen atoms from water molecules. Any metrics on the net energy gain/loss ?
+G Yogaraja for ITER the return is expected to be on the order of 10:1 (including all of the power required to run the magnets, heating systems, services, auxiliary systems etc. For a DEMO scale reactor of a commercially relevant size it's tricky to say as the first prototype commercial reactor is still the early design phases, but the expectation is that it will be somewhere around 30-40 : 1, with a thermal power production of around 500MW. Though bear in mind that's a prototype, so the second, third generation is always significantly more efficiently.
I want to support this project
One question?
Q = E out ÷ E in
What are the elements considered in Q overall & Q E in ?
Would you measure the energy that was used to make the materials of the project / reactor? When will that achieve break even.
Not only power input is "Q E in".
Footprint of all elements must be considered.
So if the highest break-even is 0.7 what were the factors used to measure this.
Thank you.
The Boron Hydrogen (proton) aneutronic reaction will follow the DT fusion reaction in time. DT is the most energetic fusion reaction and the easiest to achieve. We must master it first and learn. Having said that, the aneutronic approach may allow for a more efficient conversion of the fusion energy to electricity by replacing the conventional heat turbine generator with a magnetohydrodynamic approach. The comment regarding neutron absorption by reactor components is not a concern and is addressed by a liquid Lithium bath which is used to absorb the neutrons as well as the thermal exchange. Fusion must be developed. There is no replacement when finite fossil fuels are depleted. The energy flux densities of current "renewables" such as solar, wind, tidal, and the like simply are orders of magnitude too low to power the world's energy demand by 2060. Also the "sweet spot" for fusion parameter density may be mid-way between the laser driven inertial confinement approach (example is NIF at LLNL) and magnetic tokomak (ITER) using a technique referred to as Magnetized Target Fusion which is being explored at Los Alamos National Labs, Sandia national Labs and some private groups.
i want to be a part of this, it's amazing!
It would help us make a warp drive space ship we can’t do it right now bc we don’t have enough energy
There has been massive progress in fusion technology over the years.
+mastertheillusion I know. Aren´t we amazing?
There has? Please describe what that massive progress is then. a few extra percentage points of efficiency ? Get serious, they are so far from an over unity reactor that we have been at the 20 year mark for half a century and the mark ain't moved.
Short answer: no. If anything results in 2018 show how bleak the future is for Fusion.
At present, the most notable tokamak is ITER, a joint venture between many countries to research the engineering difficulties associated with tokamak technology. Tokamaks use superconducting electromagnets made of Nb3Sn and NbTi, the two most common superconctors used in magnet technology...
The thing about superconducting magnets is that they produce a magnetic field (duh, right?), but something you may not know is that there is a maximum field that a superconductor can be exposed to before it loses its ability to conduct supercurrent. This is called the critical field... There are other critical parameters too like critical temperature and critical current density. Basically what this means is that there is a ceiling on how large a field can be generated using superconducting magnets, but superconductors are necessary to make fusion energy efficient...
All this is to say that there is already a massive magnetic pressure generated to contain the plasma in a tokomak, and that pressure is determined in part by the field that a superconductor can generate and be exposed to... Superconducting magnets in a tokomak are already operating as close as possible to their critical parameters...
I feel the same way about advanced fission reactors as they do about fusion reactors...and I wish us both all the luck in the world
We dont have to “feel about” fission. Its real and works.
I really like this presentation, and I'm all for going fusion. BUT, I have to point out that the video makes an appeal for an environmentally friendly energy source, while it offhandedly disregards technologies that we have here and now that achieves the ecological agenda. In particular, I'm talking about nuclear fission, which is by far the best ecological option we have for sustainable energy.
Nuclear waste, which the video states as a problem, is surprisingly not as big of a deal as people think - which is only exacerbated by politics and some over-zealous-well-meaning-but-wrong-headed environmentalists.
In other words, while we are waiting for fusion, let's not forget fission.
You realize that fission is not sustainable right? You must fission very heavy (and VERY rare) elements for fission to work. Not even in their natural form, usually they must be purified first. Thats not sustainable at all... using something that is MORE scarce than oil is technically not renewable.
Ddub1083 Nuclear engineers estimate that we have enough Uranium to last us 30,000 years (conservative estimate). Thorium reserves are about double that. Even with the uranium stockpiles that we already have mined, we have enough energy to handle all of our power consumption needs for the next 1000 years (very conservative estimate).
What alternative is there? Wind/solar are unstable and require the cooperation of mother nature to work. As it sits, their capricious nature prohibits their contribution to the grid of anything more than 20%. Hydro and geothermal are good options (i.e. they are reliable), but are limited in their output. Gas and coal are cheap and abundant, but there are ecological concerns there.
Of all the options on the table, *only* nuclear proves to be economically feasible, plentiful, reliable, and ecologically friendly.
So until we figure fussion out, let's go fission!
***** Happy to oblige!
ike evans Absolutely agreed. Hydro dams are actually bad for the environment since it completely alters the ecosystem of a stream.
bananian Alters it, yes. But not always in a negative way. I'm still a fan of hydro. Hydro not only produces some of the cheapest electricity on the planet, it does it in a carbonless manner. It also protect communities during years of drought and flooding by moderating water flow.
But, of course we must be careful not to just build dams everywhere precisely because of what you talked about. The biggest drawback to hydro is from this inherent defect, thus limiting output.
why just follow the concept of how the lightning strikes form in clouds?
I have a few questions, is Hydrogen the most optimal way to achieve fusion and is another atom that could have better results. How long does the whole process of fusion take. (Sorry if the terminology is incorrect I'm only 13)
+Frodoswift70 The notion of 'How long does Fusion take' is a bit misleading because there are numerous different reaction pathways possible for nuclear fusion which all take place over different time periods in stars.
But for instance, the main nuclear fusion process in our Sun, proton-proton reaction (Hydrogen Burning (pp1 chain)) takes place VERY slowly actually. Over time periods of 10 billion years. (This explains why stars live so long).
However, other fusion processes, such as the 'rapid neutron capture process' takes place over time periods of around 0.2microseconds.
So, as you can see, quite a variation!
It's good that you're interested at 13 though. Nuclear fusion technology will become a major player in the clean energy industry in the future.
Ok I'm gonna make a fusion reactor now thank you for the tip on how to make them
2:07 - 2:10 "If the energy is too high, [the probability of fusion taking place] is also very low."
Can you explain this please? I've tried searching but cannot find anything else saying this.
This is the DT cross section en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Nuclear_fusion#/media/File:Fusion_rxnrate.svg
Nice idea, and perhaps one day we will have fusion. However, we could have #thorium power a lot sooner if we wanted. Fusion's current problem is not cost, but "breaking even" (energy in vs energy out). Thorium and #LFTR have no such issues.
China has or is soon starting up a Liquid Fuel reactor. Not sure if it is Thorium.
China plans to open up 150 nuclear reactors in the next 15 years. Cleanest economy by far.
sorry but is it ok if we use a part of your video for a school project video. we will properly reference to this video
What about particle accelerators, they manage to smash protons to each other, maybe if you turn down the electromagnetic accelerated motion in the collider, you can cause protons to fuse instead of smashing open.
Sunny shah they require more energy to run then they produce. They also don’t fuse they actually ‘destroy’ the particle
I always learn when it's made simple. 🙏 Thank you. Also i have a question. What happens when you introduce a magnetic field to Hydrogen? Or vice versa, introduce H to a Magnetic field? Any paper you can direct me to?
I understand things really quickly if you explain it for a long time😂
this is a beautiful; video I greatly appreciate its existence
yes, one day we will get it, I mean we already built experimental fusion reactors, and ITER is starting to be built, and will be finished in about 11 years
Can't you just use pressure? And magnetic fields to contain it, and why is it so big, that's just more space right? If there's more pressure and such a small container, wouldn't there be a better chance for there to be fusion? Correct me if I'm wrong, I want to know
Firstly, what are you referring to the use of pressure? If you mean to hold the atoms together its not possible because like mentioned a pressure vault requires physical containers which would melt at such high temperatures. Secondly, magnetic fields are possible as shown, its just that there are multiple variations and lastly about the space, i am really unsure also honestly because with a smaller space, the higher number of atoms per unit volume increases which in turn leads to a higher probability of nuclear fission occurring but at the same time, more space would allow the atoms to have a higher velocity due to the prolonged time between possible collisions which would in turn also increase the rate of nuclear fission. So in short, it goes both way and is completely random i guess.
Thorium Fission Reactors, could also play a role in energy provision.
Cleaner than Uranium reactors.
We could also use special reactors that speed up the decay of currently existing nuclear waste. Such a system would generate power whilst negating the effect of nuclear byproduct! I also have read about a feasible design for one in Popular Science, a usually trustworthy magazine I'm subscribed to.
Thorium fission reactors are great,definetly better than Uranium fission reactors because they are more effiecent and less radioactive but they are still no where near as good as fusion,with fusion you get more energy,there is no chance for a meltdown to happen,its pretty cost effective(not saying that Thorium reactors are not,ofcourse they are) and it doesn't create nuclear waste(unlike Thorium that create less nuclear waste than Uranium but still creates it),fusion is the future,espcially anneutronic fusion(fusion where less than 1% of the energy that is released escapes through the neurons which basiclly mean more energy and less radioactive).
There are different reports on how clean Thorium reactors vs. Uranium reactors. Also there currently isn't an open water method of using Thorium as a fuel. en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Thorium_fuel_cycle
Very true, HUGE energy density, pretty well known physics, demonstrated technology. Could probably use a few materials tweaks. In the liquid reactor form no chance at all for a melt down. Half lives of the waste is not too bad only a couple hundred years which is very doable and safe. The fertile Thorium fuel is cheap. Probably the most energy dense process other than conventional fission reactors which cost a lot more.
Beautiful.
First of all Deuterium Fusion is NOT clean! Sure it only produces Helium and Tritium and a neutron. It's that neutron that causes the problem. Free neutrons make other elements radioactive. Since the only way to get energy out of a high energy neutron is thermodynamically it is necessary that it interact with a moderator. Once that neutron slows down, it is much more likely to interact with materials (like the ones you made your reactor out of) causing them to become unstable (i.e. radioactive). Two primary solutions exist for this problem. He3 fusions [unfortunately He3 is extremely rare on earth (not unlimited like Hydrogen)] or p+ B11 (which is way way harder than D2 fusion). Without a serious theoretical breakthrough, I think it's unlikely Fusion will ever be a viable energy source. I wish that were not true, but I'm afraid it is.
What software did u used for ur animation
We could model these collisions using random walks. Random walks tend to collide much more in 1 and 2 dimensions than in 3 dimensions and higher. The difference is substantial; this is why biological processes tend to happen on membranes. Why aren't magnets also used on the inside to push the hydrogen out to lying basically on the 2-dimensional surface of the torus?
This is all very exciting but one question I have is the energy produced by the machines greater than the energy required to fuel it? Unlike other forms of energy where the fuel is already there, (I.E. gasoline, air, radioactive uranium, etc...) in here we have to make the product. So will the machine create enough energy to both compensate for its lost energy and still have enough energy to be spread to homes? I might be missing something but it just seems like you're trying to create more energy than what you have to begin with.
That is the hard part about this. We actually have created fusion, that is why we know it exists. We do not know a way of creating it with less energy than it puts out. Currently we have to separate water into hydrogen and oxygen, which takes energy. Then we have to excite the hydrogen with millions of watts to create fusion. So therefore, the fusion must create tens of millions of watts. This IS possible, the amount of energy if they could convert all of the hydrogen to helium is enormous. However, converting all of it statistically impossible. Right now they are trying to get a higher amount of hydrogen to convert while reducing the needed energy for the conversion.
Exactly what I was thinking.And we need to find a material that can withstand 10,000,000 degrees
I worked at ORNL in the early 1980s on such devices. It seems that the current state of the technology is about the same. Back then, I kept hearing that commercial fusion plants would be online by 2000, then 2010, etc. We have been pumping lots of money into fusion energy research since there is also a military component to it.
Alright, you've sold me on the idea that this something we should take a risk on. As an edutainer, where would you want us to direct our money/ support for kickstarter or indiegogo, or stuff like that?
Would bayesian optimization or reinforcement learning be an effective way to figure out the best combination of toroidal, poloidal, solenoid, and neutral beam strength?
Beautiful
As for the comment on when this will be available, he says never. Unless more interest is shown towards this technology. I have to ask did he include the ITER Project before making this statement, and if yes, I have to ask why ITER won't be a game changer?
So its been 6 years. Any progress?
Can we use natural lightnings to use it like a super power laser??
Old saying:
The future of energy is fusion, always has been, always will be.
Very well animated explanation. I like it in a way.
Yet, i always miss a critical point of view for this source of energy... yet i cant criticize the technology coz i dont know enough about it. so here are some questions please:
-Do you need Lithium or another extra Element among the Hydrogen? I couldnt figure out if you need it for the synthesis of Deuterium and Tritium and so on...
-> If yes can u use another Element besides Lithium?
-What happens with the "neutron-waste" ? :P
Enough so far. :)
Can pressure and medium combat the resistance of fusion?
what about geothermal sources of energy?
ITER will prove 10X return on energy input. DEMO will prove scale up model 100X return plus electricity generation.
great video on the hot fusion process, but what about cold fusion?
One thing that bothers me in this "Magnetic bottle" thing is: All the particles are going the same way! You don't get a lon of collisions like this...
Another problem - particles do spiral in the magnetic field as long as they are charged. But eventually they will get meet with opposite charged particles (as they are spiraling the opposite ways), combine, and become neutral. Maybe if you get as much electrons out of the soup, as you can, you get a more stable plasma? ((Though here I suspect that rapid discharging a solenoid is doing something of this kind to separte opposite charges...))
Idk. Maybe we should try a different approach. Magnetic bottles put on a good light show sounds like. The solution is right under our noses. Lets be optimistic about reactor design. Even if it means scrapping the magnetic bottle.
It's amazing how much money is spent around the planet on technologies, which motive is based on a flawed perception of the world and it's problems.
Liquid Fluorine Thorium Reactor has the same benefits and is more easily reached.
Thorium reactors have LOTS of benefits but fusion has way more
Chock it into a tighter confinement and accelerate the reaction. More like a funnel maybe with an exhaust instead of chasing the tail.
That is a wonderful way, no doubts; still ICF (inertial confinement fusion) is an alternative way
Accually, boron proton fusion is a lot better. It generates only alpha particles which the energy of, can be directly converted into electricity. No neutron activation, and the energy released is not heat, but pure nanomechanical energy. This type of fusion is a lot simpler to achive too, but almost noone knows of it's existance. Execuse me for my terrible english, since it is not my native language.
This is a great video also this is basically a particle accelerator
Wipe out disease and hunger?? Wow, we better get on that fusion ladies and gentleman.
How is it never when ITER is currently under construction and the are few more powerplants coming following years?
I don't understand what you're asking
David Lam The narrator said that fusion-based power plants are not gonna happen, but there is one being build in France at that moment.
***** it's an experimental one
***** Also, it's non-american. Pride?
***** They will most likely happen at some point, but it won't be in the next 100 years. Hell, after more than 60 years we only produce 20% of our power via fissile material, and that is extremely "green" and is competitive with standard fuel, given the EPA compliance costs and increasing price increase with economic scarcity.
"Tony Stark was able to build this in a cave! With a box of scraps! "
It’s all about engineering. The physics have been sorted out. Maybe in 10 to 20 years we will have a small fusion power station
It always makes me laugh when people say that a technology is worth near infinite amounts of money, but no one funds it which is the problem. Which is another way of saying no one that has money thinks this is possible in the slightest.
not true no one thinks they will make a profit from it in the near furture if we put all of or money into it we would find out if it worked or not but beacause most of the people with the money already have money placed in things like fossil fuels why would the give money to somthing that would fossil fuel out of buisness. even though t would save earth
Its not the case. Problem is that most people that have money have them invested. If they have the money invested in power, the money will be worth nothing if fusion power is made available. So the people how got plenty of money will loos more then they earn on fusion. This is where goverment have to step in...
all three of you are right at the same time.. except that the goverment owns most of the focil fuels in your countries, so they would basically put themselves out of business by allowing this technology to be researched..
Private investors who have the interest and money, dont dare to fund the "maybe" possible .. if science would say, "it is possible, we just need to get it right", then there would be funding coming from all directions.. although free energy sounds like no profit, so why would the private investor care, other than to the company that makes this energy in the end :)
MatriXz Well, sure, there is a few private inverses that do have that amount of money, but we are talking about a hand full or so.
There is two general rules of thumb when you are investing.
1: Never invest out side your area of expertise.
2: Never invest in technology that is disrupted to your investment folder.
Well. if you have a lot of cash because of power industry, then you can´t invest in LFTR because of rule nr 2. If you have a lot of case because of a other reason, then you can´t invest because of rule nr 1.
Well, bill gates broke rule nr 2 and invested in nuclear power... what technology did he invest in? Traveling wave reactors! Why? Because they had the best sales pitch. The technology is horrible bad, and he basically wasted a lot of money.
Basically this is always what hapend. Also, worse politictians generaly dont have any area of expertise at all, so they are always investing in the tech that have the best sales pitch.... well at least were i live.
matsv201 no objections from me.. there is to much risk to give the non-government / politician investors a reason to invest in it, as it is unclear already in the sales pitch whether it can be done or not..
It really requires something like public funding to fund something as important and non profitable as fusion energy..
Kickstarter and other similar effort are made because of these kinds of investment needs. but ofc someone needs to organize this crowd funding and make sure the research doesnt get scrapped, so people's money isnt wasted..
Where i come from (denmark), they would still put a tax law in place for the money you save on fusion energy. we have so many different taxed things here that we have 25% of our work effort left after paying bills each month. if you save on energy, then you pay the difference as a tax to the government :) hurray i get to not save anything by using less energy :D
fusion have no doubt is THE answer but in truth there are other safe clean options that once implemented would give limitless breathing room for the practical development of this better form of generation. solar and wind are nice and should be used but thats not what I'm talking about.
This 9 year old video provide me more than what my 2024 teacher taught
I want fusion too, but what can us regular folk do to get a ministar on earth seemingly generating more power than five hydroelectric dams combined? maybe with fusion, we could also get enough helium for generations to come, that's the byproduct, not radioactive waste, which I know is recycled.
The computer with the clock melting
I love that
How much energy will require to fusion uranium atoms. We have uranium and atoms with legendary atomic numbers on earth, so basically earth was hotter than sun if these atoms were created on earth but no these atoms were created in nebula or during formation of universe. I hope you understand.
Bishal Rajput who and why the fuck would you fuse uranium hydrogen works just right. To fuse uranium you would need more force then the sun has.
What about ITER?
Cheap and plentiful oil also once seemed to be the solution to all our problems. The unintended consequences of cheap fusion power are bound to be pretty spectacular. Conservation and renewables would seem to be the safer alternative. And isn't there a joke about our having been a decade away from cheap fusion power for many decades now?
Could you do same with antimatter?
Yes, it's the exact same process. Or you could make a antimatter reactor, which is just as practical and exploding nuclear bombs for energy, so no.
Is Fusion renewable or do we need Fission after the process of the Fusion for it all to be recycled?
If I’m not mistaken hydrogen is so plentiful it’s basically unlimited
Technically speaking no energy source is renewable.
Nice work , , :)
I don't understand the last part of the video. "Can we build the machines that does this" I thought we just saw a machine that did it? "If we are wrong and we can't do it" again i thought we just saw a machine that does what you explained. Am i missing something? Does he mean a machine that can compete with other energy sources hasn't been done yet?
Hey marcus, remember me /:
rob lucci
yeah, what's up?
We can not permanently maintained the process. Also, we can not produce more energy than we put into it. Well, strictly speaking, we have done the second point recently but we can still not produce more electricity than we have to put into it. Actually, we are still in the field of basic research. The scientists believe that we need to build these machines much larger than we have done in the past for experimental purposes. ITAR, which is being built right now as an international project in France, is such a research reactor.
I hope they get it right. We need this shit.
Well, we did it
You may need to rotate the box you want to do fusion energy in order to get the desired effect, small gravitation at the Centre of rotation and large gravitation farthest away from the center. Google translate
Yeah, just go ahead tell them to those scientists and you will become then richest man on Earth, who changed humanity forever. Just go tell them how to do it right!
If it's money what they need for further development, why wont they use crowdfunding?
Why not fuse neutrons instead of protons? or a neutron with a proton that do not repel each other?
Besides we already have a fusion furnace, why do we need to build one on earth instead of just bring the existing one to earth?
Chike because did you just ask why we can’t bring the SUN to earth?
@@henkdemetsenaere1374 Just the energy
Chike that is pretty much impossible.
tokamak is the next wheel of human inventions
The problem with Fusion Energy or any kind of sophisticate source of energy is that concentrate the production on fewer agents than the fossil fuel. Concentration create dependency, fragility and stiffness in human organizations.
We need to create networks of multiples sources of energy and yes maybe in the future fusion energy will be one source, but renewal energy sources will be the main, because promote freedom, robustness and agility in human organization.
We have fear of the climate change because our society are becoming more and more fragile since the industrial revolution started, the productivity and efficiency has raised up but in the biggest cities the people has underdeveloped some of his fundamental human needs: creation ,identity ,freedom, subsistence ,protection ,affection ,understanding ,participation and leisure.
Thanks to the network of internet now we have more sources of knowledge, ways of communication, tools for creation and so on. But remember how was the trend of our society three decades ago when the mass media and consumerism had not had a counterpart, How much power governments and corporations would have today?
Good news!
Fusion is humanities last hope for civilisation
For those who has knowledge,correct me if i am wrong or misunderstood the fusion energy theory.
On another note, Earth's running out of Helium for laboratory use. This can be a great source of this :D
This video and their experiment reminds me of Primer.
Laser fusion successfully generated more electricity than was used to cause the reaction, so I think fusion reactors are the future.
Fusion is basically taking two hydrogen atoms and saying, "Now kiss!"
Amazing!! Come on governments, fund this!!!
Nice video! Unfortunately there's still a lot of work to do before fusion can become a feasible source of energy, SO GET BACK TO THE LAB AND DON'T PROCRASTINATE!!!
if i make a Company this and the van der waals forces will be our main goal
0:45 "Unlimited supply"
How unlimited are we talking here? Like, how much would human energy consumption have to increase to produce a 1m sea level change in let's say, 100 years due to water being the primary fuel of our energy? I have the very simple belief that, if fuel availability is not considered a problem because of sheer abundance, then human consumption will simply scale up until it becomes one.
+M1zzu q It's not actually water that is used for fusion, but deuterium, an isotope of hydrogen that makes up only 0.015% of sea water mass. At the current level of energy consumption, the amount of deuterium on earth would suffice for over a billion years.Also, just because that's usually a frequently asked question aswell: helium emission is insignificant aswell. Worldwide production of helium (25k tonnes a year) far outweights the tiny amount of helium produced in the fusion process by at least 3 orders of magnitude.
It seems to me like a perpetomobile. You put some energy and hope to gain more energy then you already put. No way!
You dont hope, you have to reach the DT crossection
How do you extract the energy from the reaction?
Via heat exchanger as in normal stream turbine power plants. Or Direct Conversion, where the charged energetic helium ions are passed through an electrically-biased grid, which generates power.
Sounds like we are chasing a modern version of some perpetual motion machines again. Free energy from nothing? What happened to the first rule of thermal dynamics?
Fusion obeys those laws, it's just getting the energy out of mass.
Hey Charlie when did you leave the gang? Do a video on mittens.
what about hammer reactors?
Hammer tech: Iron Man 2 - The Exwife
No one has ever built one and no matter how unfeasible ITER seems, hammer reactors are less so but it is an intriguing idea. I bet you probably thought there is no such thing but actually... www.ted.com/talks/michel_laberge_how_synchronized_hammer_strikes_could_generate_nuclear_fusion
And nobody realizes that we also use oil for plastic and rubber, not just fueling cars, and I bet there's a lot of plastic and rubber in those machines. So basically, we should focus on replacing plastic and rubber. Also, guess what your computer chips are made of, plastic, the case; metal and plastic, your monitor; plastic and byproducts by machines made of metal and electronics. And so on. So yes, we should find a better way of fueling cars, but we will also need to find another way to actually build those cars.
Yeah, but they're concerned about the use of oil/natural resources as an energy source, which releases harmful byproducts in to the atmosphere, which results in climate change. Although it's true, we have to find a way to make plastics/rubber biodegradable, to limit pollution, plastics and rubber don't have any effect on climate change itself
Jaeha Song Exactly right.
My point was meant to get at the fact that when we run out of oil it will be a bigger problem that most people think. but yes, i understand what you are saying.
Are you saying that the billion dollar Fusion project in france is not big enough?
ITER won't be ready until, like, 2040. EEUU has a military budget that gets around 700 billion. So we won't see fusion any time soon.
If it's achieved by me then I am a trillionaire
how about using solar energy aaand making a better non-toxic battery technology that could store energy efficiently.. i dunno, like uh graphene? i dunno, im just a watcher here, not a scientist so hey, no hate. :p
Earlier I was watching videos about dinosaurs. How did i get here
I see more energy being used the created. And what about the loose neutrons, isn't THAT a type of pollution? It is in fission reactors. This is a ploy for funding by someone who is already paid too much.
We recently started a new CZcams channel about our research into nuclear fusion at ASU.
Would you guys be interested in a collaboration?