TED seems rather to be a advertising platform for startup companies. As much as I admire the enthusiasm of such young entrepreneurs, now browsing through a number of talks about energy from the last 10 years, always talking about dreams that almost never come to reality has also a sobering effect. The bitter truth is that 90% of the projections made in those videos proved to be totally unrealistic. I know that trying and failing is part of the process, but talking about energy it seems that we're rather losing focus for the actual problems at hand. Realistic experts don't expect fusion to be happening before 2050. However, for the time being there is no technology in sight, that could effectively and economically ease our dependency on coal and gas.
There is. Solar in smalll non-used areas could power all of the US alone, and then some. Wind is getting better too. The solution is to keep improving upon these technologies (because they are relatively new) so that we can eventually reach maximum efficiency. There are no shortcuts
@@mrcleeves7106 I'm all for renewables but there are still huge issues with intermittancy, for which there is still no real storage solution that works technically as well as economically. I'm still hoping for a technological breakthrough, but following this now for many years, I grow more sceptical. Maybe nuclear is short term a better solution.
@@MG-ye1hu Nuclear is a shortcut that will lead to big problems for future generations. After all these years they still cant store the waste permanently, so it will just build up. Like another commenter said I couldn’t only see nuclear as being somewhat viable and safe on like the moon, where the waste isnt as dangerous. And solar and wind are finally getting the attention and popularity they’ve been needing, resulting in more subsidies that are being given to eccelerate their growth. As solar and wind improve and grow, better batteries will follow (and the plans for solar communities instead of farms also allow for smaller, easier batteries anyway). Tesla and other companies are already working on more renewable batteries. Like I said before, solar and wind are young and are only just now getting funded properly. Besides, even if it does take time to greenify the batteries and we release more CO2 into the air it wont rlly matter. We have already reached the threshold. Even if we all got clean energy right now with a snap of a finger, it wouldnt change the destructive amounts of CO2 already in teh air. With Tesla’s XPRIZE and other incentives, people are already working on solutions to grab that CO2 from the air… I know nuclear is attractive because its simple, but I’m telling you in the long run it will be disastrous and not worth the energy we could have gotten from solar and wind
@@mrcleeves7106 I'm just trying to be pragmatic. Instead of dreaming about solutions that might be working in 30 years, like fusion or renewables with affordable grand scale backup storage, we should also consider what can be done short term. And, despite all issues which I don't deny, nuclear is maybe not the perfect but the most reasonable solution.
Every time I hear "we need fusion to provide clean baseload power", I just look longingly out my living room window at the geothermal power plant up the hill from me and ask "Why does no one love you?" With improvements in geothermal technology (specifical deep vote and the ability to create artificial resevoirs) we could provide between 40 and 80% of the US energy demand (depending on how much the technology improves) in time scales measures in years instead of decades. It hasn't happened because geothermal is crazy expensive to build, but it costs next to nothing to operate once online.
This is so encouraging. I've known since the '70s fusion is our future but there have been so many hurdles to make it work. Now the future looks bright. This guy is right about fusion changing the global political scene for the better. No more wars over oil reserves. No more worries about spills, radioactivity, CO2 emissions or running out of fuel. We just need to write our congressmen stressing the importance and the need to expedite the development of fusion power.
So there are at least three major hurdles, 1. cracking the hydrogen and the fusion fuel out of water at an affordable rate at useable volumes, 2. designing and building the means to contain the heat involved in fusion (15 million to 200 million degrees), 3. This is a base load source and so is fission, fission cannot be turned up and down rapidly enough to meet usage demand fluctuations, is fusion any different?
And why should investors pour hundreds of millions of $$$ into building a big power plant when Solar and Wind (with battery backups) have gotten so cheap? The upfront cost for a large plant is huge. I'm not saying don't study fusion, because knowledge is good but I still don't think the economics work. And the old economic model of the central utility with its monopoly position is failing. With people pulling solar on their homes many utilities are threatened.
You stated that Russia and the US were in competition to create fusion power years ago. I'm sure they would have pumped many millions of $ into their projects, but where are they now, did they give up? Strange, if the gains are as you claim. I'm sure you are correct about the benefits of such a power source, but while the oil companies control governments around the World, it is unlikely you, or anyone else will get the funding on a scale needed to make a viable production unit. I wish you the success you deserve in pursuing your goals, but 65 years on this planet has taught me, that if you want to create power, just give one crooked man, a lot of money.
I'll take fission that can be built today and even ignoring the advantages of LFTR can be made to be immune to meltdowns by simply using pebble bed reactor cores and putting the heat exchangers higher than the reactor core. If the "waste" has enough energy to be dangerous it is fuel and if not harmless.
Lol, thanks for the constructive feedback. First version of the talk was much faster paced and detailed, and then I got shot down by the Ted organization for being too "scientific." So, I had to speak more slowly and shoot for low level on the detail for those who didn't know what fusion was at the very start. If you want to chat more about fusion stuff in detail, hit me up. More than happy to give you my pitch rather than just a general fusion talk like this one.
Derek Sutherland Please don't take my comment personally--I write the same comment on almost all the TED vids/seminar vids I can find. I am trying to nudge humanity towards faster learning and adopting new things, in my own small way. A few days ago I googled which state in the US has the slowest talkers. It was Mississippi. So I opened all the TEDxJackson videos from the first page and wrote the comment in all but one of them. The rate of human auditory comprehension is much higher than the rate of average human speech. For this reason, we can speed up audiobooks and comprehend even better.
Could you link some of the studies that suggest that speaking faster is better for comprehension? If so, that's counter what I was taught in college or what I've found to be true teaching my own classes. A comfortable talking speed in which you're able to gauge your audiences' understanding by their body language and facial expressions, and adjust your pace accordingly is the approach I was taught and have found to be most effective thus far. You may understand things more quickly than others if you find everything you watch online slow. But, the reason why I chose the pace I did is from audience feedback, and this talk was for the audience attending, not CZcams.
From this time the new fact is: the Chinese have built their own tokamak, and they have reached 80 000 000 mln degrees Celsius which were kept within seconds long and it is the top record product up to now. But no break through in fusion using to energy production was observed. Stary
I can recall plasma physicists touting nuclear fusion as 10 years away back when I was a college student in physics in the late 1950's. A failure to contain the plasma led to failure after failure after failure, and here we are in 2019, 70 years later. I'lll likely die of old age before it becomes a reality. But by all means, keep trying! ;)
They never said it was easy, they only said it was worth it. Keep searching, you'll see that it has been progressed all the time and the progress is not over.
A permanent magnet motor is a zero fuel and zero pollution generator of electricity. Edison generators do not use input of energy. The generator is using the permanent magnets to spin the coils through the magnetic field.
Magnets have to be made and then replaced. There’s always an input of energy. Law of conversation of energy; matter (energy) cannot be created nor destroyed
maybe if we stop giving the oil companies 958 billion dollars in subsidized we could give you guys half of that I bet you would be able to get that going alot quicker.
Great! If the problems 'Really' solved, I'd like it to deliver power to my residence now.... Oh, something about still building a working scale model? (And ya all realize the size & mass of the Sun, Right? ?)
Derek Sutherland, besides contacting our government representative, is there anything a non-physicist can do to help? Like if someone is a programmer, maybe they can create tooling or modeling analysis to help the physicists?
The problem is that the fusion scientists have been promising they are "real close now" for over 50 years. We should remember that the fission guys promised us energy that would be too cheap to meter... These are very capital intensive projects, which means that there is a huge temptation to over-promise in order to secure funds. So it's hard to know whether teams like this can deliver. Note that he slipped in the phrase "if you want to solve the energy problem now - now being the next few decades", which isn't confidence inspiring. Fusion has been one of the best funded fields in all of science, draining resources from alternative approaches. So I'm not impressed that his main message is a plea is for more cash...
Hot fusion will never be cost-competitive against wind and solar. It's not about the cost of the fuel, it's about the cost of R&D, the plant, insurance, security, maintenance, and eventual decommissioning. Fusion is a pipe-dream.
This young man has expressed the false view, that the spending next 10-20 bilions of USD for the fusion reactors type ITER are equal to solving the energy deficite problem. So I will tell, what this youngster did not tell: The last info from the ITER reactor construction site was, that just the simple increasing the dimensions of the reactor is not the ready solution as the plasma unstabilities have appeared and stopped the progress. That means, that the theoretical description of plasma flow used in the project, was too much simplified, and must me modified for bigger accuracy. After the Schauberger we know, that the fluid flow generates the stream virality and it was not included for ITER reactor. But Germans have built near the Greifswald the reactor Stellarator Wandelstein-X.... , where the plasma chamber is made as the Moebius ribbon (circular ring) , but 5x twisted, and chamber cross section is not circular, but better takes in account the true cross section of plasma stream during the circulation. Already they have reached plasma temperature ca 80 000 000 degrees during some fraction of second. If their results were better than that obtained in ITER, it may indicate some progress-but we need 150-250 000 000 degree and the technology is far from being ready . Still long way is ahead and fission thorium reactor may by closer to drive to industrial maturity. Stary
Why can't permanent magnet motor as a generator be used to generate electricity without fuel and without pollution??? Thomas Edison generators and dynamos with added inverters and transformers to deliver electric power at a high voltage power AC that is common today...
Refer James Hansen, we have already energy imbalance on Mother Earth. Fusion process create energy but heat environment also. Its exothermic process heating Mother Earth.
@@mrcleeves7106 No. We ate being heated 20 times than our energy consumption due to GHG . We must use that increased Entropy to solve our energy issue. Regards
Nuclear technology is under Treaties instituted by scientists to initiate survival. We agreed to the beginning of the elimination of nuclear technology. There 'is no possible benefit from nuclear radiation. We can try to limit the peak of nuclear cascade by elimination of nuclear technology.
No but with the effort that is being put into battery storage ( and that’s what the smartest people on the planet are investing their time and effort into By the way when and IF you can get Elon on board then I might change my tune
Great presentation! Well done! I watched this a few times. There are a lot of terms and relationships to learn. Some more visuals earlier in the presentation would have been nice, too, showing vocab terms. Can't wait to discuss this further with my cousin, a physics professor. You got me hooked. Don't take it badly, Derek, if they're giving you a hard time about your speaking tempo. ;-) My favorite professor (and thesis advisor) had this deep, sonorous voice and slow, deliberate way of speaking, and it made us all want to fall asleep in his lectures. Not his fault. Fantastic professor, I learned a lot about artificial intelligence and loved it. Also, I drank A LOT of coffee before his presentations.
I see no advantage to fusion over fission, the difference is we have fission right now and understand it very well. We know how to make reactors that will eliminate the waste we have thankfully stored so well. No mining for the foreseeable future and nearly free fuel. Extremely safe, clean, and abundant, what's not to love?
@@mrcleeves7106 Well, the French have been recycling waste for decades but that's an expensive process. Molten salt fact reactors will use the waste with little to no reprocessing. Moltex Power is building its first reactor in New Brunswick Canada and Elysium Industries is a bit behind them in the US with a reactor that requires not reprocessing. Both have excellent presentations here on CZcams, or you can go to their websites.
I suggest the idea: 1) following your description we have to learn from Nature 2) There in stars this whole fusion exists and explosions (totally spontaneous) are counterbalanced by the gravity of the star as well as that is why the reaction starts in the first place there: gravity brings the atoms together 3) here we don't have this gravity but we can easily create a bomb therefore 4) we don't need to stabilize the reaction in one place but we need to create many little bombs and to explode them in water. Once the reaction starts the bomb is going to melt (we have T= millions degrees) This mass should be released to the proportional amount of water and while cooling the reaction would stop but the water will be hot. Like imagine machine gun with bombs like this: cartridge contains several bombs to be, we shoot, reaction starts, it hits the water, reaction ends inside and the water is hot! We just need to evaluate the dimensions of the water reservoir big enough to cool small bombs but it is easy to calculate even with school physics knowledge. But in a simple way we need to cool 1 kg of gas with almost millions liters of water to get the 100 degrees C needed for the water to evaporate. This is not a lot. The problem this thing faces is if the reaction may start another reaction of the hydrogen H2O of water....but I think this is not a big deal, since they do explode these bombs in the ocean and we are still alive. This is a way to get around localizing the reaction in one place.
Dude, we all know about fusion. You wasted the first 14min of your talk telling us what we already know before getting to the "million dollar question" -- which is the whole reason why we clicked on this video. So, you have a "compact toroidal" design and a startup company. Good luck with that. (You could have made this talk 2min long.)
When I gave the practice versions of my talk before this one, many people did not know what fusion was. I was told by the Ted committee that I was too detailed and "scientific," so I had to be more simplistic with what I was saying. Hence, a generic pitch about the benefits of fusion energy, with only a bit of detail about what I actually work on. If you want to hear my actual pitch as I originally intended, hit me up. Better yet, I'll just make a separate recording and put it up on youtube since I really didn't get to say what I wanted to in its entirety. But, the points I made are the main drivers behind why we pursue fusion from a 30,000 ft view.
First, thanks for your reply. I'm not surprised by your story; I've heard some "odd" things in the past about how TED is organized and run... It's no wonder all their energy talks seem to have the same "wasted" 5~7 mins at the beginning. Please DO make a separate video, even if it's just a narrated PowerPoint deck. Just look at how popular Kirk Sorensen's stuff on LFTR is... There's a ton of us geeks who love this sort of thing. Your "real" video will be very popular. ;-)
Yeah. I know what fusion is. What I want to know from you is what's interesting about your design, how it fits into the various fusion technology efforts, and where you are so far on the graph towards positive Q. Please make that nerdy talk. It's been a while since I learned anything significant from a TED talk, sadly.
Will do. Funny enough the talk it sounds like people want on here was my original talk, before I had to water it down quite a bit. I've been super busy lately but in the meantime before I put up a nerdy talk I'd like to direct you to our start-up website (not the prettiest yet since it's made by yours truly), www.ctfusion.net. Then, on the press page, we have a set of our main journal articles about our approach to fusion. My nerdy talk will likely be the geometric mean between the level of detail in our scientific journal articles and the level of detail of my Ted talk so that it's still accessible for a reasonably sized audience that aren't experts in plasma physics. Thanks for the feedback everyone. I really appreciate it.
Fusion and fission energy sources make good sense. There should be more available ways to invest in these technologies to speed up the technologies for their performance to be at the maximum in the nearest future date. This will allow the investors to get a good return on their investment's.
Fission can do that - now - if we pursue the right type of fission. Thorium ( LFTR ) We need it now! Waiting till 2025 for fusion to be ready? Really?! Fusion has been claiming to be close to ready for many years! Here's my prediction.. 2025 will come and go and Mr. Sutherland's prediction will be pushed out to 2035.
Right, generation 3+ and 4 nuclear reactors are completely safe. Reduce regulatory hurdles by government and thus make nuclear so much cheaper. Then let the market work it out. I hope for 100'000 nuclear power plants globally by 2100. Or more if we are talking mini or micro power plants, where micro is 50 or 100MW, so still more than what 100 big windmills will produce. But micro means it basically fits into something the size of one train cart. If fusion gets ready, say by stronger better superconductors, well then let's do it, if it is cheaper.
ThePetachu Yesss. Finally some people. I'm all for fusion if they finally make it work, but LFTR is already proven, and even though they practically left those experiment papers rot in the basement for 50 years it's still cheaper to start over the engineering part than doing fusion. Why don't we use the profits from Thorium to develop fusion. And by the way a well developed network of LFTR like power plants would also enable smaller modular reactors on big ships for example where the difficult parts of the chemical processing can be left to the plant making the mobile reactors more closed, simple and smaller. And I think later they would work very well together with fusion too because some fusion designs already took the idea of a Liquid salt coolant and since fusion produces high amount of neutron radiation, it would probably be good for breeding other nuclear fuels that can be used in much simpler and lighter reactors for example in space.
I literally waisted 2 min reading about how this dude waisted time,even though we all new he waisted time making a one min explanation and turning it into a 45 min long talk! Or at least it felt that way! For more on this subject feel free to follow me on instagram .
Anyone else notice that this guy stuffed up? 1 + 1 ALWAYS equals 2... It's just with both fission and fusion...the answer is 1.5 + a bunch of energy...
nice vision but we still don't have any fusion reactors that i know about. Americans are among the most resistant of all for change has been many of our experiences.
Americans are not resistant to change, they are resistant to additional government and taxes because they have already maxed out and gone past acceptable and fair rates while also applying fees and fines to EVERYTHING they can think of to fund the ever growing bureaucracy and funded forgotten programs people in office create and then live on forever. Also, resistant to new ideas with potential drastic consequences being put into effect for the entire country when there has already been in place working methods that haven't cause financial collapse or lowered the quality of something that was already provided by many private sources who develop and compete with each other that have always taken direct interest in what they do and not just a state-funded friend of a politician who does it just good enough to collect and gain profits from public funds while asking for more funding constantly but never showing improvement in way they do things. Resistant to additional social programs that don't directly get funded by taxes but allocated whatever congress feels like in every yearly budget from the total collection tax. These programs often have 50% the total public funding of them spent to support 5% of the population while making 100% pay into it and never even used at all by ten of millions. They can also open the door to putting control for the mindset of adults in the future by giving total control over the educational system to a few people who meet privately and force compliance of the schools by withholding funding unless the regulations are followed explicitly. Dr, evil would love this to indoctrinate everyone still in school to think in specific ways and only know about certain things that were allowed to be part of the curriculum in order to gain 100% approval of the next generation of voters on their personal ideals or desires. ( World Domination is Dr. Evils case. Massive profits and power in the case of corporate and international interest groups and the super rich at the top of the 1% who can buy the support of large parts of government and the media to manipulate public opinion and have those propositions that do WAY more then just the 1 little thing they tell you to VOTE yes on it for. ) Government taxes should pay for things that are impossible for private industry or individuals to accomplish such as the massive costs of researching new energy sources that may massively affect the future of the species if solved like fusion. This way failure results in public knowledge and doesn't destroy an industry. Also, interstate highway, military, and infrastructure that would be beneficial for the whole country and all of those who live within it. It shouldn't use law to regulate the healthcare industry so that those who lobby politicians get to write the rules and become a monopoly and require something like every public classroom in the country be required to have 2 EpiPens available regardless of their being students who need them that expire after a year and cost $600 each now because of the scum that owns the patent on it even though they cost something like $2 to produce and any parent who care for their kid who has a condition where they would need one would obviously supply them as needed if they were available a reasonable cost. This is just one example of the costs to society of centralized control of everyone's lives and then putting them in the hands of whoever got the most campaign funding from the special interest groups who will use them to write policy for personal gain regardless of the cost and development of society.
My proposed solution is for our Lap Dog Congress to beat the insurance industry back to humble commodity status...start jailing some CEOs and high level executives. Let the insurance cos offer BJs and toasters to get your business. Then, go after all the attorneys.
A nuclear weapon based on radioactive water. Wow!! Something's we don't need. Magnetic field moves cranks the coils through the magnetic field using the armature magnets. An Edison generator was.used and a normal way of generating power.
the real issue is water to energy use. what happens when we begin to use up all our water to make energy??? Now we have a serious water crisis. Not good.
So, they create heat....but how do you turn the heat into a torque on a prop or wheel? That is what I have and at 60%. Otto cycle is 5-10% city and 15-20% highway. 28% peak. By having my engine it can run on solar thermal or this "fusion" reactor that creates heat. So, if you want to make this work, you need my engine. NO engine now can work on fuels and external thermal and so do from small to high power....mine can. Maybe I should give a talk at TED....hmmm.
why didn't this super smart plasma physics mention (thorium salt reactor)? that's something safe, and it's already been done 1965, and super cheap enough. so why not Even explain all options for nuclear power? Because of his agenda.... He's not A thorium physics. and he's the CEO. that would scare me away from investment in plasma reactor, with a running temp of 200,000,000 degrees, that would melt your face straight away.. we've almost worked out all the kinks, so we just need more of your$$ because the CEO needs to be paid. No matter if it's earned or not. eventually we'll get it right. Last chance to get in on this great investment opportunity, so call now.. THORIUM salt reactor can't make nuclear weapons ether, another set back for the elite oligarchy deep state military industrial complex scumbag pedophilic self-absorbed plastic polluting assess. Wonka say's if you want the truth just ask A dolphin or A whale?? what they think about this one. humans are about to be extinct if we don't WAKE up....
The way to go must be Thorium, Fluoride Stable Salt mini reactors which are very small, cost effective, can be dug into the ground, can be transported conventionally etc. the reactors the guy above is talking about is just a new way to maintain the current centralised over priced electrical grid. Tiny reactors that fit in the back yard or in the car are the way to go, get away from the corporate run grid.
If you are having difficulty in sourcing for funds, you should contact China directly whom I'm sure will be more than willing to fund thou completely. This is project for mankind. Look for the sponsors who have the same ideas.
if it works at small scale and becomes unstable as you make it bigger, don't make it bigger. just make many small and stable reactors to increase total energy output.
The issue with that is that fusion power does not scale linearly with size. In fact, the total power out scales as the volume roughly. So, it makes perfect sense to increase the size of the reactor while maintaining bulk plasma parameters to increase the total power out for a given physical footprint. It's not a problem that as you get bigger it goes unstable, it's just that building bigger reactors requires more money and people are less likely to spend more money on an experiment that might fail. So, we try to do as much as we can on smaller reactors, but there will always be uncertainty going up in size from there.
Blah blah blah..... You've been making this pitch for 40 years. It's now 6 years later and all in the news is how this is just around the corner. Feel free to call me when you actually have a working and sustainable prototype. Until then Thorium LFTR's are the best option.
Hi, Mike. Please give the model number of your panels as well as the model number of the grid tie inverter you're using. If you could provide links for them, then that would be awesome. Also, what's the voltage of each panel? How did you wire/group them together? Thanks, Mike.
I bought 30 Solar Panels 8 years ago and now my farts don't smell either. I really need to get them on the roof they are getting a bit dusty in the garage.
The crux of it: Convince govt. to give us more of your money, because "we're having to make very tough choices between all these alternative ideas that can lead to cost-effective fusion, and [...]the main-line ideas which are the best chance of pursuing it, but are very expensive." Um... no. I vote for cost-effective fusion. Here's what this guy doesn't understand, because he studies engineering and not economics/politics. Money = life. Every extra dollar spent on that so you can make it inefficient, is one less dollar that feeds the hungry, houses the freezing, finds a cure for malaria/cancer/aids, funds other scientific research that is more important. Money is life, in this world, in a very real sense. If someone were to propose feeding living human bodies into the reactor for fuel, I'm sure he would balk, aghast, in horror. I give him that benefit of the doubt. But that is effectively what wasting money does. Money is not just money. I feel the need to elaborate: He is saying, in other words, 'keep getting up ad 3 a.m., Mr. Plumber, Mrs. Flower shop owner, to go to work in the dark and cold, shivering, miserable, making those house-calls, wiping shit off of the elderly, Mr. Care-taker, making that $30-40k per year, paying your taxes so the govt. can give us fat entitled generation BILLIONS of your dollars that you earned for OUR FOR-PROFIT PRIVATE BUSINESS, as grants, not to be paid back ever, even if our idea works and we make Billions in profits, so that we can become extremely rich, because, well... we feel entitled to that. Because after all, we're clearly intellectually superior to.... to you people, you plumber types, who don't know about this extremely narrow field of physics that we study (even though we clearly don't comprehend a damn thing about pretty much anything else.)' The entitled fat kid generation. 'But mooommmMM!' 'No! You can't have any more money. Africans are starving. And your father is out snaking tampons out of a Yale University toilette right now so that we don't starve too. It's night and negative 20 degrees, and the wind is blowing. His truck doesn't have heating. It hasn't been starting well, and if it doesn't start up on the way back, he'll have to sit there shivering until AAA shows up. Did we pay that? No, you can't have any more money. We told you last time.'
Very good introduction to fusion for the non-technical: thanks for posting.
TED seems rather to be a advertising platform for startup companies. As much as I admire the enthusiasm of such young entrepreneurs, now browsing through a number of talks about energy from the last 10 years, always talking about dreams that almost never come to reality has also a sobering effect. The bitter truth is that 90% of the projections made in those videos proved to be totally unrealistic.
I know that trying and failing is part of the process, but talking about energy it seems that we're rather losing focus for the actual problems at hand. Realistic experts don't expect fusion to be happening before 2050. However, for the time being there is no technology in sight, that could effectively and economically ease our dependency on coal and gas.
“Realistic” experts don’t expect commercial fusion to be commonplace closer to 2100 lol :(
There is. Solar in smalll non-used areas could power all of the US alone, and then some. Wind is getting better too. The solution is to keep improving upon these technologies (because they are relatively new) so that we can eventually reach maximum efficiency. There are no shortcuts
@@mrcleeves7106 I'm all for renewables but there are still huge issues with intermittancy, for which there is still no real storage solution that works technically as well as economically. I'm still hoping for a technological breakthrough, but following this now for many years, I grow more sceptical. Maybe nuclear is short term a better solution.
@@MG-ye1hu Nuclear is a shortcut that will lead to big problems for future generations. After all these years they still cant store the waste permanently, so it will just build up. Like another commenter said I couldn’t only see nuclear as being somewhat viable and safe on like the moon, where the waste isnt as dangerous. And solar and wind are finally getting the attention and popularity they’ve been needing, resulting in more subsidies that are being given to eccelerate their growth. As solar and wind improve and grow, better batteries will follow (and the plans for solar communities instead of farms also allow for smaller, easier batteries anyway). Tesla and other companies are already working on more renewable batteries. Like I said before, solar and wind are young and are only just now getting funded properly. Besides, even if it does take time to greenify the batteries and we release more CO2 into the air it wont rlly matter. We have already reached the threshold. Even if we all got clean energy right now with a snap of a finger, it wouldnt change the destructive amounts of CO2 already in teh air. With Tesla’s XPRIZE and other incentives, people are already working on solutions to grab that CO2 from the air… I know nuclear is attractive because its simple, but I’m telling you in the long run it will be disastrous and not worth the energy we could have gotten from solar and wind
@@mrcleeves7106 I'm just trying to be pragmatic. Instead of dreaming about solutions that might be working in 30 years, like fusion or renewables with affordable grand scale backup storage, we should also consider what can be done short term. And, despite all issues which I don't deny, nuclear is maybe not the perfect but the most reasonable solution.
The title is misleading. Where are these fusion reactors working right now?
fourbypete nowhere ‼️ fusion is a pipe dream. Maybe in 200 years.
Chernobly reactor no. 4
Just one, the yellow sky ball reactor.
@@vaishnavks9117 Chernobly is fission not fusion reactor.
Only have to wait for 30 more years !
grow crystals align lattice lines capture piezo effect from zpe energy waves
Every time I hear "we need fusion to provide clean baseload power", I just look longingly out my living room window at the geothermal power plant up the hill from me and ask "Why does no one love you?"
With improvements in geothermal technology (specifical deep vote and the ability to create artificial resevoirs) we could provide between 40 and 80% of the US energy demand (depending on how much the technology improves) in time scales measures in years instead of decades. It hasn't happened because geothermal is crazy expensive to build, but it costs next to nothing to operate once online.
smileyeagle1021
would it not be cheaper to build steam generator plants over volcano's, and just don't frack anywhere near them.
You actually have a geothermal power plant near you?
do you know the supposed rating of this plant?
@@shazzz_land I did at the time. I moved about a year ago, but before I moved, it was less than a mile from me.
@@shazzz_land the nameplate rating was something like 85MW. I don't remember the exact amount off the top of my head.
This is so encouraging. I've known since the '70s fusion is our future but there have been so many hurdles to make it work. Now the future looks bright. This guy is right about fusion changing the global political scene for the better. No more wars over oil reserves. No more worries about spills, radioactivity, CO2 emissions or running out of fuel. We just need to write our congressmen stressing the importance and the need to expedite the development of fusion power.
So there are at least three major hurdles, 1. cracking the hydrogen and the fusion fuel out of water at an affordable rate at useable volumes, 2. designing and building the means to contain the heat involved in fusion (15 million to 200 million degrees), 3. This is a base load source and so is fission, fission cannot be turned up and down rapidly enough to meet usage demand fluctuations, is fusion any different?
And why should investors pour hundreds of millions of $$$ into building a big power plant when Solar and Wind (with battery backups) have gotten so cheap? The upfront cost for a large plant is huge. I'm not saying don't study fusion, because knowledge is good but I still don't think the economics work. And the old economic model of the central utility with its monopoly position is failing. With people pulling solar on their homes many utilities are threatened.
You stated that Russia and the US were in competition to create fusion power years ago. I'm sure they would have pumped many millions of $ into their projects, but where are they now, did they give up? Strange, if the gains are as you claim. I'm sure you are correct about the benefits of such a power source, but while the oil companies control governments around the World, it is unlikely you, or anyone else will get the funding on a scale needed to make a viable production unit. I wish you the success you deserve in pursuing your goals, but 65 years on this planet has taught me, that if you want to create power, just give one crooked man, a lot of money.
I'll take fission that can be built today and even ignoring the advantages of LFTR can be made to be immune to meltdowns by simply using pebble bed reactor cores and putting the heat exchangers higher than the reactor core. If the "waste" has enough energy to be dangerous it is fuel and if not harmless.
Play at 1.5x playback speed. ;)
I agree, saves so much more time!
Thanks, this presenter sucks
Lol, thanks for the constructive feedback. First version of the talk was much faster paced and detailed, and then I got shot down by the Ted organization for being too "scientific." So, I had to speak more slowly and shoot for low level on the detail for those who didn't know what fusion was at the very start. If you want to chat more about fusion stuff in detail, hit me up. More than happy to give you my pitch rather than just a general fusion talk like this one.
Derek Sutherland Please don't take my comment personally--I write the same comment on almost all the TED vids/seminar vids I can find.
I am trying to nudge humanity towards faster learning and adopting new things, in my own small way.
A few days ago I googled which state in the US has the slowest talkers. It was Mississippi. So I opened all the TEDxJackson videos from the first page and wrote the comment in all but one of them.
The rate of human auditory comprehension is much higher than the rate of average human speech. For this reason, we can speed up audiobooks and comprehend even better.
Could you link some of the studies that suggest that speaking faster is better for comprehension? If so, that's counter what I was taught in college or what I've found to be true teaching my own classes.
A comfortable talking speed in which you're able to gauge your audiences' understanding by their body language and facial expressions, and adjust your pace accordingly is the approach I was taught and have found to be most effective thus far.
You may understand things more quickly than others if you find everything you watch online slow. But, the reason why I chose the pace I did is from audience feedback, and this talk was for the audience attending, not CZcams.
From this time the new fact is: the Chinese have built their own tokamak, and they have reached 80 000 000 mln degrees Celsius which were kept within seconds long and it is the top record product up to now. But no break through in fusion using to energy production was observed.
Stary
I can recall plasma physicists touting nuclear fusion as 10 years away back when I was a college student in physics in the late 1950's. A failure to contain the plasma led to failure after failure after failure, and here we are in 2019, 70 years later. I'lll likely die of old age before it becomes a reality. But by all means, keep trying! ;)
Been promising FUSION for quite a few years. Where is IT?
They never said it was easy, they only said it was worth it. Keep searching, you'll see that it has been progressed all the time and the progress is not over.
so where is this mystical fusion reactor? this title says energy crisis is over, show me fusion reactor please
A permanent magnet motor is a zero fuel and zero pollution generator of electricity. Edison generators do not use input of energy. The generator is using the permanent magnets to spin the coils through the magnetic field.
Magnets have to be made and then replaced. There’s always an input of energy. Law of conversation of energy; matter (energy) cannot be created nor destroyed
from Missouri show me!
Heard this back in the 50's when are you people going to stop talking and give us a working model.
We need the political will first
Too cheap to meter they said.
@@christianmolick8647 that's how it should be but the markets always like to charge what they think people can afford.
sooooo pretty much in 50 years we will have light sabers is what this scholar is trying to say
we start off in small towns
maybe if we stop giving the oil companies 958 billion dollars in subsidized we could give you guys half of that I bet you would be able to get that going alot quicker.
Great! If the problems 'Really' solved, I'd like it to deliver power to my residence now.... Oh, something about still building a working scale model? (And ya all realize the size & mass of the Sun, Right? ?)
@j What's your Question "J"?
Not a picture of sun. That's an image
Derek Sutherland, besides contacting our government representative, is there anything a non-physicist can do to help? Like if someone is a programmer, maybe they can create tooling or modeling analysis to help the physicists?
David lapointe, fusion field hydrogen to boron to carbon 12 that makes 3 helium +4 that can be directly converted into electricity.
Fusion power plants have been only _'10 years away'_ since before I was even born.
The problem is that the fusion scientists have been promising they are "real close now" for over 50 years. We should remember that the fission guys promised us energy that would be too cheap to meter... These are very capital intensive projects, which means that there is a huge temptation to over-promise in order to secure funds. So it's hard to know whether teams like this can deliver. Note that he slipped in the phrase "if you want to solve the energy problem now - now being the next few decades", which isn't confidence inspiring. Fusion has been one of the best funded fields in all of science, draining resources from alternative approaches. So I'm not impressed that his main message is a plea is for more cash...
Is cold fusion an oxymoron? Doesn't fusion imply heat?
KEEP ON DREAMING....
COMEDY SHOWS MAKE MONEY 💰 TOO.
to make EdPZ you have to mixed differents kind of cristals for make maille electron boucle ....
Hot fusion will never be cost-competitive against wind and solar. It's not about the cost of the fuel, it's about the cost of R&D, the plant, insurance, security, maintenance, and eventual decommissioning. Fusion is a pipe-dream.
Fusion is the next evolutionary step primitive.
Excellent talk! And a very optimistic, promising idea! Such a cold audience not laughing at so many clever jokes.
Give me more public money. This is all this guy is about.
This young man has expressed the false view, that the spending next 10-20 bilions of USD for the fusion reactors type ITER are equal to solving the energy deficite problem. So I will tell, what this youngster did not tell: The last info from the ITER reactor construction site was, that just the simple increasing the dimensions of the reactor is not the ready solution as the plasma unstabilities have appeared and stopped the progress. That means, that the theoretical description of plasma flow used in the project, was too much simplified, and must me modified for bigger accuracy. After the Schauberger we know, that the fluid flow generates the stream virality and it was not included for ITER reactor. But Germans have built near the Greifswald the reactor Stellarator Wandelstein-X.... , where the plasma chamber is made as the Moebius ribbon (circular ring) , but 5x twisted, and chamber cross section is not circular, but better takes in account the true cross section of plasma stream during the circulation. Already they have reached plasma temperature ca 80 000 000 degrees during some fraction of second. If their results were better than that obtained in ITER, it may indicate some progress-but we need 150-250 000 000 degree and the technology is far from being ready . Still long way is ahead and fission thorium reactor may by closer to drive to industrial maturity.
Stary
Why can't permanent magnet motor as a generator be used to generate electricity without fuel and without pollution??? Thomas Edison generators and dynamos with added inverters and transformers to deliver electric power at a high voltage power AC that is common today...
build a electrostatic collector machine with a clothes dryer and 50 cats.
Wasn't that the basis of the first Tesla Coil?
David Mayhall
might as well jump..
It would certainly *_sound_* impressive!
hmmmm bad title this problem has not been solve yet
Woohoo! Woohoo! Woohoo!
Refer James Hansen, we have already energy imbalance on Mother Earth. Fusion process create energy but heat environment also. Its exothermic process heating Mother Earth.
Would the heat output be so much to truly impact global warming tho?
@@mrcleeves7106 No. We ate being heated 20 times than our energy consumption due to GHG . We must use that increased Entropy to solve our energy issue. Regards
Would you condone the deposits of neutrons and halogenated carbon to the sum ?
see how the conversion takes off.
Holy Cow! Still beating the drum for ITER! Do you not see LENR on the horizon?
Is this guy Very Clever?
Nuclear technology is under Treaties instituted by scientists to initiate survival. We agreed to the beginning of the elimination of nuclear technology. There 'is no possible benefit from nuclear radiation. We can try to limit the peak of nuclear cascade by elimination of nuclear technology.
No but with the effort that is being put into battery storage ( and that’s what the smartest people on the planet are investing their time and effort into By the way when and IF you can get Elon on board then I might change my tune
Carl Russell
never going to happen.
Great presentation! Well done! I watched this a few times.
There are a lot of terms and relationships to learn. Some more visuals earlier in the presentation would have been nice, too, showing vocab terms.
Can't wait to discuss this further with my cousin, a physics professor. You got me hooked.
Don't take it badly, Derek, if they're giving you a hard time about your speaking tempo. ;-)
My favorite professor (and thesis advisor) had this deep, sonorous voice and slow, deliberate way of speaking, and it made us all want to fall asleep in his lectures. Not his fault. Fantastic professor, I learned a lot about artificial intelligence and loved it. Also, I drank A LOT of coffee before his presentations.
I see no advantage to fusion over fission, the difference is we have fission right now and understand it very well. We know how to make reactors that will eliminate the waste we have thankfully stored so well. No mining for the foreseeable future and nearly free fuel. Extremely safe, clean, and abundant, what's not to love?
Would love for you to link the sources that told you we have reactors to empínate nuclear waste. Ill be waiting sir
@@mrcleeves7106 Well, the French have been recycling waste for decades but that's an expensive process. Molten salt fact reactors will use the waste with little to no reprocessing. Moltex Power is building its first reactor in New Brunswick Canada and Elysium Industries is a bit behind them in the US with a reactor that requires not reprocessing. Both have excellent presentations here on CZcams, or you can go to their websites.
___yes yes the energy crisis is over because is it began and not began here and began in the future___yes yes___archaix lord
endothermic nuclear reactions are a good way to store tons of energy.
Is it ?
kindergarten lecture
I suggest the idea: 1) following your description we have to learn from Nature 2) There in stars this whole fusion exists and explosions (totally spontaneous) are counterbalanced by the gravity of the star as well as that is why the reaction starts in the first place there: gravity brings the atoms together 3) here we don't have this gravity but we can easily create a bomb therefore 4) we don't need to stabilize the reaction in one place but we need to create many little bombs and to explode them in water. Once the reaction starts the bomb is going to melt (we have T= millions degrees) This mass should be released to the proportional amount of water and while cooling the reaction would stop but the water will be hot.
Like imagine machine gun with bombs like this: cartridge contains several bombs to be, we shoot, reaction starts, it hits the water, reaction ends inside and the water is hot! We just need to evaluate the dimensions of the water reservoir big enough to cool small bombs but it is easy to calculate even with school physics knowledge. But in a simple way we need to cool 1 kg of gas with almost millions liters of water to get the 100 degrees C needed for the water to evaporate. This is not a lot. The problem this thing faces is if the reaction may start another reaction of the hydrogen H2O of water....but I think this is not a big deal, since they do explode these bombs in the ocean and we are still alive. This is a way to get around localizing the reaction in one place.
Dude, we all know about fusion. You wasted the first 14min of your talk telling us what we already know before getting to the "million dollar question" -- which is the whole reason why we clicked on this video. So, you have a "compact toroidal" design and a startup company. Good luck with that. (You could have made this talk 2min long.)
When I gave the practice versions of my talk before this one, many people did not know what fusion was. I was told by the Ted committee that I was too detailed and "scientific," so I had to be more simplistic with what I was saying. Hence, a generic pitch about the benefits of fusion energy, with only a bit of detail about what I actually work on. If you want to hear my actual pitch as I originally intended, hit me up. Better yet, I'll just make a separate recording and put it up on youtube since I really didn't get to say what I wanted to in its entirety. But, the points I made are the main drivers behind why we pursue fusion from a 30,000 ft view.
First, thanks for your reply. I'm not surprised by your story; I've heard some "odd" things in the past about how TED is organized and run... It's no wonder all their energy talks seem to have the same "wasted" 5~7 mins at the beginning.
Please DO make a separate video, even if it's just a narrated PowerPoint deck. Just look at how popular Kirk Sorensen's stuff on LFTR is... There's a ton of us geeks who love this sort of thing. Your "real" video will be very popular. ;-)
Yeah. I know what fusion is. What I want to know from you is what's interesting about your design, how it fits into the various fusion technology efforts, and where you are so far on the graph towards positive Q. Please make that nerdy talk. It's been a while since I learned anything significant from a TED talk, sadly.
Will do. Funny enough the talk it sounds like people want on here was my original talk, before I had to water it down quite a bit. I've been super busy lately but in the meantime before I put up a nerdy talk I'd like to direct you to our start-up website (not the prettiest yet since it's made by yours truly), www.ctfusion.net. Then, on the press page, we have a set of our main journal articles about our approach to fusion. My nerdy talk will likely be the geometric mean between the level of detail in our scientific journal articles and the level of detail of my Ted talk so that it's still accessible for a reasonably sized audience that aren't experts in plasma physics.
Thanks for the feedback everyone. I really appreciate it.
I guess the people who got what they wanted aren't grumbling here in the comments :-) So the TED people _might_ be right... I'll check out your site.
we are not going to move past geo political issues. we will just bicker over the next most scarce resource.
Completely insane in an infinite universe to be complaining about finite resources.
Sounds like your ripping off David Adair.
Fusion and fission energy sources make good sense. There should be more available ways to invest in these technologies to speed up the technologies for their performance to be at the maximum in the nearest future date. This will allow the investors to get a good return on their investment's.
Agreed, I'd love to be able to help even though I'm not a physicist.
Your understanding of investment is similar to your grasp of the baffling apostrophe.
Before to made another sun near by my house will be better to learn how to use better that one that you have over your head everyday
Fission can do that - now - if we pursue the right type of fission. Thorium ( LFTR ) We need it now! Waiting till 2025 for fusion to be ready? Really?! Fusion has been claiming to be close to ready for many years! Here's my prediction.. 2025 will come and go and Mr. Sutherland's prediction will be pushed out to 2035.
ThePetachu
Like you said fission is here now. There's enough Thorium for thousands of years.
Right, generation 3+ and 4 nuclear reactors are completely safe. Reduce regulatory hurdles by government and thus make nuclear so much cheaper. Then let the market work it out.
I hope for 100'000 nuclear power plants globally by 2100. Or more if we are talking mini or micro power plants, where micro is 50 or 100MW, so still more than what 100 big windmills will produce. But micro means it basically fits into something the size of one train cart.
If fusion gets ready, say by stronger better superconductors, well then let's do it, if it is cheaper.
Thorium plants can also use the existing nuclear waste and pull more energy out of it.
ThePetachu Yesss. Finally some people. I'm all for fusion if they finally make it work, but LFTR is already proven, and even though they practically left those experiment papers rot in the basement for 50 years it's still cheaper to start over the engineering part than doing fusion. Why don't we use the profits from Thorium to develop fusion. And by the way a well developed network of LFTR like power plants would also enable smaller modular reactors on big ships for example where the difficult parts of the chemical processing can be left to the plant making the mobile reactors more closed, simple and smaller. And I think later they would work very well together with fusion too because some fusion designs already took the idea of a Liquid salt coolant and since fusion produces high amount of neutron radiation, it would probably be good for breeding other nuclear fuels that can be used in much simpler and lighter reactors for example in space.
I literally waisted 2 min reading about how this dude waisted time,even though we all new he waisted time making a one min explanation and turning it into a 45 min long talk! Or at least it felt that way! For more on this subject feel free to follow me on instagram .
Anyone else notice that this guy stuffed up?
1 + 1 ALWAYS equals 2...
It's just with both fission and fusion...the answer is 1.5 + a bunch of energy...
nice vision but we still don't have any fusion reactors that i know about. Americans are among the most resistant of all for change has been many of our experiences.
But we do.. www.lockheedmartin.com/us/products/compact-fusion.html
Americans are not resistant to change, they are resistant to additional government and taxes because they have already maxed out and gone past acceptable and fair rates while also applying fees and fines to EVERYTHING they can think of to fund the ever growing bureaucracy and funded forgotten programs people in office create and then live on forever.
Also, resistant to new ideas with potential drastic consequences being put into effect for the entire country when there has already been in place working methods that haven't cause financial collapse or lowered the quality of something that was already provided by many private sources who develop and compete with each other that have always taken direct interest in what they do and not just a state-funded friend of a politician who does it just good enough to collect and gain profits from public funds while asking for more funding constantly but never showing improvement in way they do things.
Resistant to additional social programs that don't directly get funded by taxes but allocated whatever congress feels like in every yearly budget from the total collection tax. These programs often have 50% the total public funding of them spent to support 5% of the population while making 100% pay into it and never even used at all by ten of millions. They can also open the door to putting control for the mindset of adults in the future by giving total control over the educational system to a few people who meet privately and force compliance of the schools by withholding funding unless the regulations are followed explicitly. Dr, evil would love this to indoctrinate everyone still in school to think in specific ways and only know about certain things that were allowed to be part of the curriculum in order to gain 100% approval of the next generation of voters on their personal ideals or desires. ( World Domination is Dr. Evils case. Massive profits and power in the case of corporate and international interest groups and the super rich at the top of the 1% who can buy the support of large parts of government and the media to manipulate public opinion and have those propositions that do WAY more then just the 1 little thing they tell you to VOTE yes on it for. )
Government taxes should pay for things that are impossible for private industry or individuals to accomplish such as the massive costs of researching new energy sources that may massively affect the future of the species if solved like fusion. This way failure results in public knowledge and doesn't destroy an industry. Also, interstate highway, military, and infrastructure that would be beneficial for the whole country and all of those who live within it.
It shouldn't use law to regulate the healthcare industry so that those who lobby politicians get to write the rules and become a monopoly and require something like every public classroom in the country be required to have 2 EpiPens available regardless of their being students who need them that expire after a year and cost $600 each now because of the scum that owns the patent on it even though they cost something like $2 to produce and any parent who care for their kid who has a condition where they would need one would obviously supply them as needed if they were available a reasonable cost. This is just one example of the costs to society of centralized control of everyone's lives and then putting them in the hands of whoever got the most campaign funding from the special interest groups who will use them to write policy for personal gain regardless of the cost and development of society.
The video shows people working on a potential fusion project. It's not a working fusion project.
My proposed solution is for our Lap Dog Congress to beat the insurance industry back to humble commodity status...start jailing some CEOs and high level executives. Let the insurance cos offer BJs and toasters to get your business. Then, go after all the attorneys.
NoSuspect: How much of this response do you edit for each response to another unrelated subject?
You must collect what cannot be collected. The future unfolding.
Big bang lol
Over :just so wrong, it's only started just getting worse and worse and worse.
A nuclear weapon based on radioactive water. Wow!! Something's we don't need. Magnetic field moves cranks the coils through the magnetic field using the armature magnets. An Edison generator was.used and a normal way of generating power.
The powers that be want to stay on top of the elite pyramid.
We need to put our money towards this immediately. this where my construct will be based. we have to get our energy needs undercontrol!
the real issue is water to energy use. what happens when we begin to use up all our water to make energy??? Now we have a serious water crisis. Not good.
This is a fool's errand. The Sun and Universe are electric. Thunderbolts Project
wonderful ****** love it *******
Well, do it. Or will it take 100 years?
So, they create heat....but how do you turn the heat into a torque on a prop or wheel? That is what I have and at 60%. Otto cycle is 5-10% city and 15-20% highway. 28% peak. By having my engine it can run on solar thermal or this "fusion" reactor that creates heat. So, if you want to make this work, you need my engine. NO engine now can work on fuels and external thermal and so do from small to high power....mine can. Maybe I should give a talk at TED....hmmm.
How is your engine twice as efficient?
I knew a guy like you once. He died poor and bitter.
magnets making amplified electricty
why didn't this super smart plasma physics mention (thorium salt reactor)? that's something safe, and it's already been done 1965,
and super cheap enough.
so why not Even explain all options for nuclear power? Because of his agenda.... He's not A thorium physics. and he's the CEO. that would scare me away from investment in plasma reactor, with a running temp of 200,000,000 degrees, that would melt your face straight away.. we've almost worked out all the kinks, so we just need more of your$$
because the CEO needs to be paid. No matter if it's earned or not. eventually we'll get it right. Last chance to get in on this great investment opportunity, so call now.. THORIUM salt reactor can't make nuclear weapons ether, another set back for the elite oligarchy deep state military industrial complex scumbag pedophilic self-absorbed plastic polluting assess.
Wonka say's if you want the truth just ask A dolphin or A whale?? what they think about this one. humans are about to be extinct if we don't WAKE up....
The way to go must be Thorium, Fluoride Stable Salt mini reactors which are very small, cost effective, can be dug into the ground, can be transported conventionally etc. the reactors the guy above is talking about is just a new way to maintain the current centralised over priced electrical grid. Tiny reactors that fit in the back yard or in the car are the way to go, get away from the corporate run grid.
If you are having difficulty in sourcing for funds, you should contact China directly whom I'm sure will be more than willing to fund thou completely. This is project for mankind. Look for the sponsors who have the same ideas.
if it works at small scale and becomes unstable as you make it bigger, don't make it bigger. just make many small and stable reactors to increase total energy output.
The issue with that is that fusion power does not scale linearly with size. In fact, the total power out scales as the volume roughly. So, it makes perfect sense to increase the size of the reactor while maintaining bulk plasma parameters to increase the total power out for a given physical footprint. It's not a problem that as you get bigger it goes unstable, it's just that building bigger reactors requires more money and people are less likely to spend more money on an experiment that might fail. So, we try to do as much as we can on smaller reactors, but there will always be uncertainty going up in size from there.
Saudi Arabia has enough oil reserves to last another 500 years even at today's consumption levels. That was from an oil tycoon.
Saudia Arabia, has 27.3 trillion barrels of oil, and it's replenishing. Your tycoon, has no idea it's there.
@@davidmccallum8172 I don't recall the tycoon saying it's replenishing. Perhaps you know who I am referring to without me saying it?
@@copykon Anyway, any issue interest you?
@@davidmccallum8172 Not particularity here in the comment section.
Keep on dreaming bud
Will do!
should be a fairly easy thing to process snd convert.
long lyyved...adjective
livved long....verb
If all of you listen he say its a VISION! He knows its more work to do before we are in the green!
They said the same to nuclear energy. And what about the waste If its ever works? Tztztz nothing learned.
As the populations' need for power rises how long would it take to consume a dangerous amount of hydrogen? How long before we dehydrate the planet?
Few millions years, give it or take it.
Not worth listening to
Blah blah blah..... You've been making this pitch for 40 years. It's now 6 years later and all in the news is how this is just around the corner. Feel free to call me when you actually have a working and sustainable prototype. Until then Thorium LFTR's are the best option.
I bought 10 Solar Panels 3 years ago and now my farts don't smell.
I bought 90 panels in January, and now I not only don't pay for electricity, I get paid to produce it.
quit ripping off south park (get it...ripping?)
Hi, Mike. Please give the model number of your panels as well as the model number of the grid tie inverter you're using. If you could provide links for them, then that would be awesome. Also, what's the voltage of each panel? How did you wire/group them together? Thanks, Mike.
I bought 30 Solar Panels 8 years ago and now my farts don't smell either. I really need to get them on the roof they are getting a bit dusty in the garage.
shawnbixby1
genius plan to save the world. L. o.l.
Always the industrial scale for profit that you have to buy thru a wire. Meh...
battrys made from waste
You lost me a big bang.
other nuclear reactor...!
Fusion is not a practical technology yet so why is the Crisis Over?
This guy needs to buy bigger pants
The Tokamak fusion reactor is over 50 years old, but being with held.
You are forcing energy against itself, it;s not perfect, and therefore, it's not the solution
Hopefully it actually works.
You think nuclear energy plants are expensive to maintain? Grab your socks...
Clickbait
NO... The right answer is...THORIUM MOLTEN SALT REACTOR
🌎🌍🌏🌞
The crux of it: Convince govt. to give us more of your money, because "we're having to make very tough choices between all these alternative ideas that can lead to cost-effective fusion, and [...]the main-line ideas which are the best chance of pursuing it, but are very expensive."
Um... no. I vote for cost-effective fusion. Here's what this guy doesn't understand, because he studies engineering and not economics/politics. Money = life. Every extra dollar spent on that so you can make it inefficient, is one less dollar that feeds the hungry, houses the freezing, finds a cure for malaria/cancer/aids, funds other scientific research that is more important. Money is life, in this world, in a very real sense. If someone were to propose feeding living human bodies into the reactor for fuel, I'm sure he would balk, aghast, in horror. I give him that benefit of the doubt. But that is effectively what wasting money does. Money is not just money.
I feel the need to elaborate: He is saying, in other words, 'keep getting up ad 3 a.m., Mr. Plumber, Mrs. Flower shop owner, to go to work in the dark and cold, shivering, miserable, making those house-calls, wiping shit off of the elderly, Mr. Care-taker, making that $30-40k per year, paying your taxes so the govt. can give us fat entitled generation BILLIONS of your dollars that you earned for OUR FOR-PROFIT PRIVATE BUSINESS, as grants, not to be paid back ever, even if our idea works and we make Billions in profits, so that we can become extremely rich, because, well... we feel entitled to that. Because after all, we're clearly intellectually superior to.... to you people, you plumber types, who don't know about this extremely narrow field of physics that we study (even though we clearly don't comprehend a damn thing about pretty much anything else.)'
The entitled fat kid generation. 'But mooommmMM!'
'No! You can't have any more money. Africans are starving. And your father is out snaking tampons out of a Yale University toilette right now so that we don't starve too. It's night and negative 20 degrees, and the wind is blowing. His truck doesn't have heating. It hasn't been starting well, and if it doesn't start up on the way back, he'll have to sit there shivering until AAA shows up. Did we pay that? No, you can't have any more money. We told you last time.'