So what do you think? Do you think fusion energy will be here within 30 years? Get an exclusive Surfshark deal! Enter promo code UNDECIDED for an extra 3 months free at surfshark.deals/undecided If you liked this, check out Why Salt Water may be the Future of Batteries ruclips.net/video/vm2hNNA4lvM/видео.html
As funny as the old 30 years away thing is, I honestly think we're maybe 10 years away from properly sustained Fusion and then the goal after that would be to keep making it smaller I would guess.
Robotics combined with AI is the future (in the future) of this kind of work, and many others, so anything covering robotics will be very educational on many levels.
If Fusion reactors are gaining momentum - Including small scale reactor prototypes. Are large scale solar farms still a viable long term business strategy? For example, would investment in large scale solar installations pay off before Fusion becomes mainstream?
I visited JET when I was studying physics, well, more than 30 years ago, let's just say. It was enormously impressive, but it does show how slow progress is with fusion.
Yes, quite. The ‘record breaking run in JET’ hyped up by everyone was roughly 1% efficient with Q(engineering) = 0.01; a reactor will need to have Qeng = 30 or so, a factor of 300 higher. Possible or not? Take your pick.
@@PatrickSamphire Future is whatever technology that can be deployed the fastest to replace the burning of hydrocarbons and that can be done at similar scale. Right now that is only nuclear fission and if they would have put all those funding dollars in it that they have for fusion we would already be there.
Brilliant video Matt. Really looking forward to the rest of them as they come out. As a proud Brit its good to see that there is recognition of the research that we do in this country in the area of fusion energy. JET certainly has a number of firsts to its name and the new facilities have a lot to look up to. I would think that if you asked 1000 people in the UK what the JET facility and Culham do 95% of them would never have heard of them. We do so much good, even brilliant science on very keen budgets and then we don't shout about it. I'm hoping that anything that comes from this in a commercial sense is not just sold off to the highest bidder as usually happens. Just look at ARM as an example.
Your channel is one of my favorites. It reminds me of a periodical I read as a kid, Popular Science, but in video form. Thanks for the great information you provide. 😎🖖🏽
honestly this topic makes me have faith for humanity and it makes me so giddy i would love to do the thing you did and just go around all of these places to even just look .
Personally, it makes me think of humans even less. The math's wrong because it doesn't account for positron generation from high speed plasma collisions inside a vacuum where a star's Corona and Chromosphere's, and scientists just chalk it all up to nuclear fusion being magic. And yes, positron generation in nature is a thing that happens, it's why satellites keep picking up gamma radiation bursts from storms here, on _Earth..._
0:47 So, this is the one thing that's NOT undecided. The answer is epic! Downright Epic!! That's what it's like to stand inside a tokamak reactor. ;-) I love your videos on state-of-the-art alternative energy. Good work, Matt.
Use DT, then switch to DD. Scale up the size to about 4 to 6x and design the fusion channel into a vortex tube. Use a conventional fission reactor for preheat and startup as well as generate tritium for startup. Use a 3 phase microwave field to excite the plasma, which will then spin inside the tube like an electric motor. As the plasma travels towards the neck of the vortex tube, the speed of rotation will increase, and the magnetic field will heat it further. Finally, when fusing begins, the waste heat from it will preheat the incoming plasma and the reaction will be self sustained as long as the gas blowers are operational and helium is purged.
We might, but it probably won't be tokamak based. The JET experimental tokamak consumes 800MW of power to maintain the plasma! That's the output of a large nuclear reactor. According to them, if it works, it will generate between 1 and 2 GW of power. That is a terrible EROI. It's under 3 even assuming 2gw. If you assume 1, the low end of their estimate, it's 20%. You put in 800mw and you get 1gw out. Who knows just how much power the rest of the plant will consume.
Outstanding video Matt! The videography and the Outstanding simulation graphics really took it to whole new level, and the coverage of the robotics, spot on...Thank You! Your "kid in a candy store" Awe, reminded me when I got to go through the Bevetron building at Berkley 5+ decades ago and meet and talk with some of the top people...something you never forget. Tokamak's have made leaps and bounds forward since the 80's and may become viable at some point in the next decade or so especially if we can get abundant He3 off the moon, but I'm still trying to visualize something much simpler and less dangerous that can be localized and less centralized. Worrisome to me with the infant AI connections to such powerful tools with so many bad actors on the planet, but doable. So enjoyed this, Thank You!
I found this show very enjoyable and I look forward to seeing more. Also I was a bit surprised that they're using Deuterium and I'm not fully concerned about the amount of neutron that is expelled from the reaction since that new trying to damage the reactor wall. Helium three is actually a better choice to go with because it doesn't expel out so much neutron. Plus our own moon is loaded with helium three hence the reason why they're trying to establish a moon base there to one day mine the helium three.
Thank you Matt! I always enjoy your videos, but the best thing is when I can see the passion in the eyes and smile of someone lucky enough to witness structure like these. Keep up the good work!
I think you can make a good argument that being able to make net positive fusion energy is now less than 30 years away. What I would like to see you cover is the analysis of future LCOE for fusion v. the renewables we are now putting on the grid. It is hard for me to see the fusion LCOE getting lower than the ever dropping renewable LCOE (any time soon) because even when it starts working, the cost of these facilities (even if you assume the fuel is essentially free) will be higher than building out existing renewables for the same power. If fusion starts to work in the next 10 years, then it might be reasonable to see a commercial grid plant in 20 years. However, in the next 20 years we also expect to see the cost of drilling a deep hole for geothermal to drop to the point where a cheap power station can be built anywhere on Earth that supplies energy 24 hours a day, every day in the year (no fuel cost, no neutrons making radioactive waste). Please do a video on the LCOE projections for all these potentials for future grid power.
He just mentioned one difference, and well, there he should have really mentioned one of the other huge differences, that is that in fission you don't need to add energy to start it up, just the appropiate amount and kind of materials, while for fusion you need that, and A LOT of energy to start it up. I say it because that alone makes fusion orders of magnitude harder to make it viable for electricity production.
I actually think this will be a thing in our lifetime, progress has been slow but it's speeding up. Very exciting tech, I can hardly wait for your following videos on it.
@@UndecidedMF me too! I really believe it will be something we see in our lifetime, if not in a decade or hopefully 2 at the most, maybe it's just 10 or 20 years away?
People were saying that in the 60s. Tokamak is so bad that one of these research centers could have hired someone right out of school and then they worked their entire lives to age 65 and retired without ever making energy! An entire working career without ever achieving the thing they exist to achieve. This would not happen in the private sector. It's a big expensive too complex toy that consumes way too much energy to be viable. The JET tokamak consumes 800megawatts to generate and maintain the plasma. They same themselves on their webpage that if it works, it will generate between 1000 and 2000mw of power (1-2GW)
This is so cool. Also, I noticed that lady in the JET at 9:24 even has a James Webb Telescope necklace. Seeing a bunch of geeks do cool stuff is great.
Sooo many "experts" in the comments. Thank goodness we have people on this planet with the vision, intellect, and drive to pursue what appears to many to be impossible.
Gotta love Italian people leading the way into fusion. It’s unfortunate our country doesn’t support our physicists, but I am VERY glad the UK is giving them a chance to make the world a better place. 🇮🇹 BRAVI!
I am Italian too, and worked in JET for 15 or so years! Fantastic experience and I witnessed and contributed to the progress of fusion. JET was designed, assembled and operated by teams of European scientists and engineers, bringing in the best from all over Europe. And, very importantly, JET financing comes from the European Commission, making all that has been shown possible
I hav visited the NIF that recently set a record fo producing more energy that was applied to cause that fussion reaction. So advancements are slowly being made. The NIFs record dose'nt include the energy required to produce the laser beam that caused it.
It makes more sense to use helium-3. Our moon is loaded with it. The energy produced by the helium-3 would be 250 times greater than the energy needed to extract it from the moon and get it to Earth. It becomes even more worthwhile when used on the moon for a future research station.
Also the plasma, itself. They talk about the low fuel cost, but these things will constantly eat themselves by stray plasma so the parts have to be continually replaced. That means disposal of the radioactive stuff from the neutrons, but also continuing operating costs from part replacements and the associated down time.
Where are you going to get all the tritium you need? How about putting a viable heat exchanger on it? How have you fixed the parasitic losses? Have you sorted out the material fatigue issues?
The fact that my own natural curiosity has led me to your channel through multiple independent inquiries leads me to believe I should actually subscribe to your channel. Clearly we share similar interests, and I'm happy to witness your venture into emerging sciences / technologies.
So glad to see focus on the proper research being done on fusion. Sad to see Real Engineering and some other channels agree to full-video ads for Helion.
I got offered a job at Vulcan many moons ago. On the maintenance team. Awesome facility with massive doors from memory 11,000 tonnes. I turned it down because back then the traffic around Oxford was horrendous and would of extended my working day by 2.5 hours.
Would like to see more on robotics. Enjoy your vids. I'm 69 and have been following Fusion since the 70's in Popular Science and Popular Mechanics magazines which I had subscriptions to then.
Nice one Matt: I really like the fact that it reveals the extent of the world wide effort, working on important subsystems that well eventually be needed to support the largest machines, not the same old CNN visit to Lawrence Livermore, etc. Glad to see my Italian countrymen in on the action too!
Progress indeed! When I was a kid, fusion power was 30 years away, and always would be. Then in my middle years, it was 20 years away, and always would be. Now I'm an old man and it is 10 years away, and always will be. Progress!
As much as I hope the challenges of fusion energy are solved, I am growing less hopeful that it will be the holy grail of energy that it has been hyped to be. Even if experimental reactors eventually produce significant energy output, we are still decades away from bringing the first reactors on-line, providing electricity to the grid. By that time, renewables and storage will have become mature and cheap enough that there will be little need for fusion. In the end, I think that fusion will be a niche technology, not the game changing solution we have been sold on.
Thanks for a most informative video. The extremely high quality of your production rivals anything produced by the world’s greatest documentary makers. Impressive!
if its possible to enrich uranium for u235, would it be possible to enrich Iron for Fe54 (for example) - thus when it did absorb a couple of neutrons it would transmute into another stable isotope. The point being that this sort of thing would reduce the quantity of radioactive materials for the de-commisiong process. Or would that idea be crazy expensive and impractical?
A lot of advanced technology has these sorts of holistic, knock-on advances. Space travel is very similar; so many things developed for the ISS, for example, have proven useful in other applications and even become normal parts of the lives of a lot of people. Maybe we won't get to useful fusion power in 30 years still, but the tech we develop along the way will still be useful.
Completely agree with the adjacent technology innovation and advances. TAE has formed a Life Sciences division to treat cancer with neutron beams and Power Solutions to delver advanced EV drive trains and power storage solutions (No Need for Giant Flywheels) - I do however believe we will see a Q> 1 before the end of the decade.
Hey Matt, your graphic at 3:03 shows two Hydrogen-1 (Protium) atoms fusing into one Helium-4 atom. Somehow you gained approximately two neutrons' worth of mass that you didn't account for. You might want to start that reaction over with a pair of Hydrogen-2 (Deuterium) atoms.
MAST is something new an brilliant that I learned through this. It is great solution to the exhaust problem. Interesting to see if that concept finds its way into more fusion designs.
To say fusion is a complete waste of time is ignorant, but it does still have a long way to go. Like even with increased interest, we probably won't see practical implementation of fusion for power generation anytime in the near future.
Matt, Please do a “history of fusion” to date, highlighting the technical aspects and advances. And separately, please do a video explaining AI. How it works…Risks….in simple terms for us non computer people.
Just curious, was this vid originally (or once) titled or labled "The Reality of Fusion Power"? (I took a screenshot when it was first published; the length of the two videos and their publication window seem the same, but I thought I'd ask.) Really enjoy your videos, btw. (For context, I'm a fellow upstater by birth who lived in a fully active & passive solar home in Manchester, NH in the mid-1980s. In addition, my dad has a PhD in physics. While I'm still trying to figure out my own path to and through grad school (at 50), he did his post doc at Argonne before teaching at Villanova before I was born. After Villanova? Staff and advisory physicist at IBM. #sws (small world syndrome... lol).) Looking forward to more & keep up the great work!
Now, when fusion power may finally be LESS than 30 years away, do we want/need it? With solar, wind, hydro, geothermal, does it make sense to spend big on a tech we may not need?
The more tools we have in our tool belt, the better. Each tech has its own pros and cons, and different places around the world have different needs and conditions.
Fusion is still 30 years away and probably always will be the only thing that has really progress is the size and inventing new terms for smaller and smaller parts of the progress I close to break even to keep funding flowing.
I remember visiting this a long time ago. I was predictably interested in the teleoperated robot things, but it is an experience that has stayed with me fr a long time. The massive flywheel is also an eye opener....
@Jo Po , gonna happen. A young teen built a fusion device at home several years ago. Imagine what corporations coupled with centers of learning could accomplish if they put their efforts toward it.
suprised at this kind of stupid comment on a science channel. walking into the JET doesn't "create" any energy. JET has made 59 megajoules which is way more than whatever you're talking about, you can make the same facile comments about early solar panels
It seems to me that the manual manipulation of those robot arms would be more intuitive with a VR headset. There's probably some other complication I don't know about, though.
First time on this channel. Good stuff. Hope you'll post more of this stuff soon...i know this is a tech channel but it would be interesting to know more about fusion projects from a regulatory and legal aspect.
It took 2 years to build the first self-sustaining fission reactor (the chicargo pile), it has taken over 70 years and we're still not there with fusion, that is how far we are away...
That's sorta the problem with fission, it's so easy to start and it just never stops. That's how you get a meltdown. Fusion on the other hand, perfectly easy to shut down with no lingering radiation... so much so that we can't get it to keep going lol
Everything isn't of equal difficulty. Flying a plane is harder than riding a bike. Fusion is harder than Fission. Trying to compare the two as if they were equal, when you're not a scientist, makes a very different point than the one you intended.
Seems like everything is almost paralyzed for the past several decades. There is progress, but just a tiny fraction of what we used to accomplish. For example, the interstate highway near where I live crosses a a river on the state line. The bridge is nearly a century old, and they've been trying to replace it for half that time. Meanwhile, the bypass highway bridge was built around 1980 on time, under budget, paid in full.
Too right fusion is harder than fission, by default solving fusion is more than solving fission (e.g. neutron damage resistance, higher melting temps, robotic maintenance, etc). Accidents in fusion are going to be near instant and uncontrollable but the safety framework isn't developed yet. So all considered fusion reactors (if you've got tritium to start it, and other materials to build it) will inherently not be as reliable as fission reactors and they probably aren't as safe either but we'll need to wait for a proper regulatory framework to find out.
@@dscraggs I can only hope the Nuclear Regulatory Commission makes good use of the experiments in progress to anticipate risks and quickly develop that regulatory framework.
It's worth pointing out that fusing iron and heavier elements consumes energy instead of releasing more. Likely due to all the energy needed for the extra binding force carriers (guess). This is why heavier elements tend to only be created in supernovae and very powerful particle accelerators. And it's why fission is better with very heavy elements, and fusion is better with very light elements. Though of course if you could convert the lighter elements completely to radiant energy, then that would work just fine. However for that you need matter-antimatter annihilation to the best of our knowledge. But it also slowly happens all the time due to the weak nuclear force. Nuclear decay. That said Hydrogen is stable. Although Hydrogen's isotopes are not. Also. It's neat how they disperse the plasma. I wonder if it could be possible to funnel it in a vortex.
@@karlwithak. Not even close to a bomb. For a bomb of any kind you need a cascading reaction that maintains itself for long enough for an out of control conflagration. The plasmas in experimental fusion reactors simply do not work like that. Something as simple as the plasma touching the walls (as opposed to being magnetically suspended) may damage the walls, but it also cools the plasma to a severe degree, enough to disrupt the entire run.
First thing first... The geometry is wrong. You need to build the housing to optimally hold an expanding magnetic field not the residual curvature of the flux lines of a bar magnet. It is easier to control a plasma with magnetic fields than it is to contain it with mass and keep the mass cool. one might try using a maser (microwave laser) to follow a magnetic barrier, essentially isolating the plasma from the side walls. optimally the chamber should be in the form of a doughnut... or in other words a toroid with two multi tier/core magnets in the center of the toroid set to push off each other. pushing the magnetic flux out into the doughnut with a twist as well as a rotation. induce an electrical arc.... high voltage arcing will trace the edges of the magnets.. and when the second and third and fourth tiers are activated the arcs will expand into the doughnut and twist into tendrils that will confine and press against the plasma in waves and pulses while circulating the plasma around the inner circumference...avoiding the outer walls.
Your video implies that the fusion of two hydrogen atoms yields more energy than the fission of one radioactive atom. This didn't sound right, so I checked. Deuterium + Tritium fusion results in 17MeV, while U235 fission results in 200MeV. The reality is much more complicated, as there are multiple pathways, but in any case your video is wrong. Fusion releases a much higher percentage of the mass energy, because the atoms are much lighter. So 1kg of deuterium can release more energy than 1kg of Uranium, because there are many more atoms of hydrogen in a kilogram, not because the individual reactions are more energetic.
I just saw a "part for a Fusion reactor" Pass through our warehouse a few days ago. That was its description on the shipping documents. (I have no idea what part it was though.)
Given the annual production of tritium annually worldwide is less that 50 grams and US production over 40 years before we stopped making it on purpose was 225kg of which 16 kg is currently remaining, we are going to really have to crank up the nuclear fission reactors to fuel up for "green energy".
Nah, just use Seawater. There is 352 quintillion gallons of seawater on Earth. Helion, Zap Energy, ITER, NIF, Commonwealth and the rest of the Hot Fusion folks should be putting seawater into their reactors instead of expensive and hard to fabricate "gaseous matter" like deuterium and tritium. Should be using the dielectric of water instead. Green Hydrogen production from seawater for over 1 billion years.
It will be interesting one day looking back on JET and seeing it as primitive. Go back and look at Chicago Pile 1 or EBR1, and compare it to a modern nuclear rector, for example.
11:00 the joke that fusion energy is always 30 years away doesn't ignore the progress, but rather highlights just how little we understood about fusion the first time we used it in a bomb.
This was an awesome update on the progress of fusion energy. I’m surprised you can go in the chamber without a radiation suit on! I would have thought that area would be extremely irradiated. I’m also curious about the fuel supply chain. Deuterium is relatively common, helium is extremely limited, and the energy gains of tritium must be worth it if they’re pushing that route 🤷♂️
Great to see that you actually took the time to visit the facility and make the video. Sorry to say this, but making RUclips content by googling a topic and then sharing it with viewers is not much of a feat, as unfortunately many content creators do on RUclips these days.
I try to reach out to companies and do behind the scenes conversations as much as I can. Doing site visits like this takes a lot of time and money, but I do want to do more of it.
@UndecidedMF i was stunned at the simplicity of near-star fusion, id love to see a comprehensive brakedown of their device and your opinion on it! Have a great day!
I hope that Windows 98 computer @17:04 isn't connected to anything related to that nuclear reactor, because if it is, that would be a huge security concern....
The like button is too small to show my appreciation of both what is happening with fusion and how you presented it. Wondering how it will workout financially compared to renewables. It will beat fission when all cost are factored in.
I have noticed a trend of youtubers holding a camera and filming while being filmed by another camera. The footage is very awkward. The interviewee is looking at you but you are looking at them through a camera. I love your videos, just something i have noticed recently.
![I.N "HALLUCINATION" | [Stray Kids : SKZ-PLAYER]](http://i.ytimg.com/vi/n5B5q1Hwt_U/mqdefault.jpg)
So what do you think? Do you think fusion energy will be here within 30 years? Get an exclusive Surfshark deal! Enter promo code UNDECIDED for an extra 3 months free at surfshark.deals/undecided
If you liked this, check out Why Salt Water may be the Future of Batteries ruclips.net/video/vm2hNNA4lvM/видео.html
As funny as the old 30 years away thing is, I honestly think we're maybe 10 years away from properly sustained Fusion and then the goal after that would be to keep making it smaller I would guess.
Propaganda. Capitalism is the problem, not the energy source
Robotics combined with AI is the future (in the future) of this kind of work, and many others, so anything covering robotics will be very educational on many levels.
Sooner.
If Fusion reactors are gaining momentum - Including small scale reactor prototypes. Are large scale solar farms still a viable long term business strategy? For example, would investment in large scale solar installations pay off before Fusion becomes mainstream?
I visited JET when I was studying physics, well, more than 30 years ago, let's just say. It was enormously impressive, but it does show how slow progress is with fusion.
Ah yes. 30 years ago. "Are we there yet?"
Yes, quite. The ‘record breaking run in JET’ hyped up by everyone was roughly 1% efficient with Q(engineering) = 0.01; a reactor will need to have Qeng = 30 or so, a factor of 300 higher. Possible or not? Take your pick.
Time better spent perfecting nuclear fission so we wouldn't have to worry about power generation in the first place.
@@southcoastinventors6583 I disagree. Fusion is the future. It's just not the very near future. Fission is really not the future at all.
@@PatrickSamphire Future is whatever technology that can be deployed the fastest to replace the burning of hydrocarbons and that can be done at similar scale. Right now that is only nuclear fission and if they would have put all those funding dollars in it that they have for fusion we would already be there.
Shocked that you were given a tour of a fusion reactor. That shows how highly respected your channel has became.
Not if you consider his take on solid hydrogen storage lol.
It wasn't special. They have media people.
Well done mate, so cool that you were able to get this kind of access and show it off for us to see!
It's awesome! I'm jealous...
RUclipsrs get better VIP access than legacy media these days
June 12th 2023 Washington DC, National Press Club Disclosure Two Point 👉 👈 o 😲
I suppose that's the difference between a proprietary organisation and the one that's driven by a goal of achieving scientific progress
Actually Culham offer free tours to anyone, you just have to sign up to one of their open days
Brilliant video Matt. Really looking forward to the rest of them as they come out. As a proud Brit its good to see that there is recognition of the research that we do in this country in the area of fusion energy. JET certainly has a number of firsts to its name and the new facilities have a lot to look up to. I would think that if you asked 1000 people in the UK what the JET facility and Culham do 95% of them would never have heard of them. We do so much good, even brilliant science on very keen budgets and then we don't shout about it. I'm hoping that anything that comes from this in a commercial sense is not just sold off to the highest bidder as usually happens. Just look at ARM as an example.
Thanks!
Your channel is one of my favorites. It reminds me of a periodical I read as a kid, Popular Science, but in video form. Thanks for the great information you provide. 😎🖖🏽
Wow, thank you!
honestly this topic makes me have faith for humanity and it makes me so giddy i would love to do the thing you did and just go around all of these places to even just look .
They do tours on open days.
Personally, it makes me think of humans even less. The math's wrong because it doesn't account for positron generation from high speed plasma collisions inside a vacuum where a star's Corona and Chromosphere's, and scientists just chalk it all up to nuclear fusion being magic. And yes, positron generation in nature is a thing that happens, it's why satellites keep picking up gamma radiation bursts from storms here, on _Earth..._
0:47 So, this is the one thing that's NOT undecided. The answer is epic! Downright Epic!! That's what it's like to stand inside a tokamak reactor. ;-)
I love your videos on state-of-the-art alternative energy. Good work, Matt.
Epic!!!!!
I would love to see more information on the robotics too behind this.
Use DT, then switch to DD. Scale up the size to about 4 to 6x and design the fusion channel into a vortex tube. Use a conventional fission reactor for preheat and startup as well as generate tritium for startup. Use a 3 phase microwave field to excite the plasma, which will then spin inside the tube like an electric motor. As the plasma travels towards the neck of the vortex tube, the speed of rotation will increase, and the magnetic field will heat it further. Finally, when fusing begins, the waste heat from it will preheat the incoming plasma and the reaction will be self sustained as long as the gas blowers are operational and helium is purged.
I hope we make some significant breakthroughs in fusion. We could really use this as a civilization.
The climate activists will try and ban it as soon as we crack it.
We might, but it probably won't be tokamak based. The JET experimental tokamak consumes 800MW of power to maintain the plasma! That's the output of a large nuclear reactor.
According to them, if it works, it will generate between 1 and 2 GW of power. That is a terrible EROI. It's under 3 even assuming 2gw. If you assume 1, the low end of their estimate, it's 20%. You put in 800mw and you get 1gw out. Who knows just how much power the rest of the plant will consume.
Outstanding video Matt! The videography and the Outstanding simulation graphics really took it to whole new level, and the coverage of the robotics, spot on...Thank You! Your "kid in a candy store" Awe, reminded me when I got to go through the Bevetron building at Berkley 5+ decades ago and meet and talk with some of the top people...something you never forget. Tokamak's have made leaps and bounds forward since the 80's and may become viable at some point in the next decade or so especially if we can get abundant He3 off the moon, but I'm still trying to visualize something much simpler and less dangerous that can be localized and less centralized. Worrisome to me with the infant AI connections to such powerful tools with so many bad actors on the planet, but doable. So enjoyed this, Thank You!
I found this show very enjoyable and I look forward to seeing more.
Also I was a bit surprised that they're using Deuterium and I'm not fully concerned about the amount of neutron that is expelled from the reaction since that new trying to damage the reactor wall. Helium three is actually a better choice to go with because it doesn't expel out so much neutron. Plus our own moon is loaded with helium three hence the reason why they're trying to establish a moon base there to one day mine the helium three.
Unbelievable! You are taller than what I thought! Great work Matt!! Cheers from Argentina!
Ha! Everyone says that when they meet me in person. It’s pretty funny.
Umm...I assumed 6' 2" and above.
Thank you Matt! I always enjoy your videos, but the best thing is when I can see the passion in the eyes and smile of someone lucky enough to witness structure like these.
Keep up the good work!
I think you can make a good argument that being able to make net positive fusion energy is now less than 30 years away. What I would like to see you cover is the analysis of future LCOE for fusion v. the renewables we are now putting on the grid. It is hard for me to see the fusion LCOE getting lower than the ever dropping renewable LCOE (any time soon) because even when it starts working, the cost of these facilities (even if you assume the fuel is essentially free) will be higher than building out existing renewables for the same power. If fusion starts to work in the next 10 years, then it might be reasonable to see a commercial grid plant in 20 years. However, in the next 20 years we also expect to see the cost of drilling a deep hole for geothermal to drop to the point where a cheap power station can be built anywhere on Earth that supplies energy 24 hours a day, every day in the year (no fuel cost, no neutrons making radioactive waste). Please do a video on the LCOE projections for all these potentials for future grid power.
Finally!!! Someone in your face says the differences between fission and fusion...I watch so many videos that lump them into the same boat
He just mentioned one difference, and well, there he should have really mentioned one of the other huge differences, that is that in fission you don't need to add energy to start it up, just the appropiate amount and kind of materials, while for fusion you need that, and A LOT of energy to start it up.
I say it because that alone makes fusion orders of magnitude harder to make it viable for electricity production.
I actually think this will be a thing in our lifetime, progress has been slow but it's speeding up. Very exciting tech, I can hardly wait for your following videos on it.
Glad you liked it Dan! I'm really excited to see what progress happens in the next 5 years or so. Things definitely seem to be picking up speed.
@@UndecidedMF me too! I really believe it will be something we see in our lifetime, if not in a decade or hopefully 2 at the most, maybe it's just 10 or 20 years away?
People were saying that in the 60s. Tokamak is so bad that one of these research centers could have hired someone right out of school and then they worked their entire lives to age 65 and retired without ever making energy! An entire working career without ever achieving the thing they exist to achieve.
This would not happen in the private sector. It's a big expensive too complex toy that consumes way too much energy to be viable. The JET tokamak consumes 800megawatts to generate and maintain the plasma. They same themselves on their webpage that if it works, it will generate between 1000 and 2000mw of power (1-2GW)
This is so cool. Also, I noticed that lady in the JET at 9:24 even has a James Webb Telescope necklace. Seeing a bunch of geeks do cool stuff is great.
Amazing video! As someone whose formal science education ended in high school. this was very informative and not totally over my head. Great access.
Sooo many "experts" in the comments. Thank goodness we have people on this planet with the vision, intellect, and drive to pursue what appears to many to be impossible.
Gotta love Italian people leading the way into fusion. It’s unfortunate our country doesn’t support our physicists, but I am VERY glad the UK is giving them a chance to make the world a better place. 🇮🇹 BRAVI!
I am Italian too, and worked in JET for 15 or so years! Fantastic experience and I witnessed and contributed to the progress of fusion. JET was designed, assembled and operated by teams of European scientists and engineers, bringing in the best from all over Europe. And, very importantly, JET financing comes from the European Commission, making all that has been shown possible
0:11 What an amusing dichotomy. Your response waa "Whoa ... its MASSIVE !", whereas my response was " Whoa ... it's TINY !"
I hav visited the NIF that recently set a record fo producing more energy that was applied to cause that fussion reaction. So advancements are slowly being made. The NIFs record dose'nt include the energy required to produce the laser beam that caused it.
It makes more sense to use helium-3. Our moon is loaded with it. The energy produced by the helium-3 would be 250 times greater than the energy needed to extract it from the moon and get it to Earth. It becomes even more worthwhile when used on the moon for a future research station.
Do you have supporting references for that 250 times figure?
I've been following fusion since the 70's, I always remember the joke as fusion only being 20 years away, not 30
Was any solution to neutrons eating the reactor as it runs mentioned in here?
Also the plasma, itself. They talk about the low fuel cost, but these things will constantly eat themselves by stray plasma so the parts have to be continually replaced. That means disposal of the radioactive stuff from the neutrons, but also continuing operating costs from part replacements and the associated down time.
... sacrifice ... sacrifice ... sacrifice!...
Where are you going to get all the tritium you need? How about putting a viable heat exchanger on it? How have you fixed the parasitic losses? Have you sorted out the material fatigue issues?
I love fusion talk - stoked for this
I’ve heard The stellorator has more potential in that, the magnets are built in the shape of simulated magnetic torus.
Any thoughts?
The fact that my own natural curiosity has led me to your channel through multiple independent inquiries leads me to believe I should actually subscribe to your channel. Clearly we share similar interests, and I'm happy to witness your venture into emerging sciences / technologies.
So glad to see focus on the proper research being done on fusion. Sad to see Real Engineering and some other channels agree to full-video ads for Helion.
I got offered a job at Vulcan many moons ago. On the maintenance team. Awesome facility with massive doors from memory 11,000 tonnes. I turned it down because back then the traffic around Oxford was horrendous and would of extended my working day by 2.5 hours.
This takes humanity to the next level and some do not know what is meant by that
Would like to see more on robotics. Enjoy your vids. I'm 69 and have been following Fusion since the 70's in Popular Science and Popular Mechanics magazines which I had subscriptions to then.
Amazing, isn't it, to see stuff from those magazines back then come true?
Appreciate the feedback.
Great video Matt. I hope you had a good time over here in the UK
Nice one Matt: I really like the fact that it reveals the extent of the world wide effort, working on important subsystems that well eventually be needed to support the largest machines, not the same old CNN visit to Lawrence Livermore, etc. Glad to see my Italian countrymen in on the action too!
What wonders do private corps withhold? I learn volumes from your vids Matt, thank you! 🐈
Progress indeed! When I was a kid, fusion power was 30 years away, and always would be. Then in my middle years, it was 20 years away, and always would be. Now I'm an old man and it is 10 years away, and always will be. Progress!
14:55 what the heck is happening in the background? Lense effect, post-prod?
As much as I hope the challenges of fusion energy are solved, I am growing less hopeful that it will be the holy grail of energy that it has been hyped to be.
Even if experimental reactors eventually produce significant energy output, we are still decades away from bringing the first reactors on-line, providing electricity to the grid.
By that time, renewables and storage will have become mature and cheap enough that there will be little need for fusion.
In the end, I think that fusion will be a niche technology, not the game changing solution we have been sold on.
It will change the game off planet for sure. :-) That might be quite an extreme change of game.
Thanks for a most informative video. The extremely high quality of your production rivals anything produced by the world’s greatest documentary makers. Impressive!
if its possible to enrich uranium for u235, would it be possible to enrich Iron for Fe54 (for example) - thus when it did absorb a couple of neutrons it would transmute into another stable isotope. The point being that this sort of thing would reduce the quantity of radioactive materials for the de-commisiong process.
Or would that idea be crazy expensive and impractical?
I was going to sleep but this makes me wanna dive into all kinds of rabbit holes! thanks for the vid
and wow what kinda access you have!
A lot of advanced technology has these sorts of holistic, knock-on advances. Space travel is very similar; so many things developed for the ISS, for example, have proven useful in other applications and even become normal parts of the lives of a lot of people. Maybe we won't get to useful fusion power in 30 years still, but the tech we develop along the way will still be useful.
Completely agree with the adjacent technology innovation and advances. TAE has formed a Life Sciences division to treat cancer with neutron beams and Power Solutions to delver advanced EV drive trains and power storage solutions (No Need for Giant Flywheels) - I do however believe we will see a Q> 1 before the end of the decade.
8:20 That guy standing behind the desk, inside the cage, looks like your doppelganger Matt
Cool! The new thumbnail is more eye catching. 👍
Thanks for the feedback!
Hey Matt, your graphic at 3:03 shows two Hydrogen-1 (Protium) atoms fusing into one Helium-4 atom. Somehow you gained approximately two neutrons' worth of mass that you didn't account for. You might want to start that reaction over with a pair of Hydrogen-2 (Deuterium) atoms.
MAST is something new an brilliant that I learned through this. It is great solution to the exhaust problem. Interesting to see if that concept finds its way into more fusion designs.
To say fusion is a complete waste of time is ignorant, but it does still have a long way to go. Like even with increased interest, we probably won't see practical implementation of fusion for power generation anytime in the near future.
Trillion dollar toy.
@@ronvosick8253 I mean basically every good invention started out as a novelty, toy, or luxury item before they hit the mainstream.
And the functional absence of tritium on the earth’s surface isn’t a small challenge. We can’t run power grids on an unobtainable isotope.
@@ronvosick8253 You'd have said the same thing about fission reactors - which are almost certainly powering your daily life right now.
do they have an VR (stereoscopic view) approach when working with the handlers?
Matt, Please do a “history of fusion” to date, highlighting the technical aspects and advances. And separately, please do a video explaining AI. How it works…Risks….in simple terms for us non computer people.
Just curious, was this vid originally (or once) titled or labled "The Reality of Fusion Power"? (I took a screenshot when it was first published; the length of the two videos and their publication window seem the same, but I thought I'd ask.)
Really enjoy your videos, btw. (For context, I'm a fellow upstater by birth who lived in a fully active & passive solar home in Manchester, NH in the mid-1980s. In addition, my dad has a PhD in physics. While I'm still trying to figure out my own path to and through grad school (at 50), he did his post doc at Argonne before teaching at Villanova before I was born. After Villanova? Staff and advisory physicist at IBM. #sws (small world syndrome... lol).)
Looking forward to more & keep up the great work!
Now, when fusion power may finally be LESS than 30 years away, do we want/need it? With solar, wind, hydro, geothermal, does it make sense to spend big on a tech we may not need?
The more tools we have in our tool belt, the better. Each tech has its own pros and cons, and different places around the world have different needs and conditions.
Fusion is still 30 years away and probably always will be the only thing that has really progress is the size and inventing new terms for smaller and smaller parts of the progress I close to break even to keep funding flowing.
I remember visiting this a long time ago. I was predictably interested in the teleoperated robot things, but it is an experience that has stayed with me fr a long time. The massive flywheel is also an eye opener....
Good job, Matt! 😊
Unfortunately, when you walked into the Tokamak, your reaction created more energy than it does.
.. yet.
go back in 30 years,, it be covered in spider webs
@@nSnowCrow Let's hope. I'm glad smart people are working on it.
@Jo Po , gonna happen. A young teen built a fusion device at home several years ago. Imagine what corporations coupled with centers of learning could accomplish if they put their efforts toward it.
suprised at this kind of stupid comment on a science channel. walking into the JET doesn't "create" any energy. JET has made 59 megajoules which is way more than whatever you're talking about, you can make the same facile comments about early solar panels
It seems to me that the manual manipulation of those robot arms would be more intuitive with a VR headset. There's probably some other complication I don't know about, though.
yes!! please do a future video on the robotics!!
First time on this channel. Good stuff. Hope you'll post more of this stuff soon...i know this is a tech channel but it would be interesting to know more about fusion projects from a regulatory and legal aspect.
Well done Matt! Thanks
It took 2 years to build the first self-sustaining fission reactor (the chicargo pile), it has taken over 70 years and we're still not there with fusion, that is how far we are away...
That's sorta the problem with fission, it's so easy to start and it just never stops. That's how you get a meltdown. Fusion on the other hand, perfectly easy to shut down with no lingering radiation... so much so that we can't get it to keep going lol
Everything isn't of equal difficulty. Flying a plane is harder than riding a bike. Fusion is harder than Fission.
Trying to compare the two as if they were equal, when you're not a scientist, makes a very different point than the one you intended.
Seems like everything is almost paralyzed for the past several decades. There is progress, but just a tiny fraction of what we used to accomplish. For example, the interstate highway near where I live crosses a a river on the state line. The bridge is nearly a century old, and they've been trying to replace it for half that time. Meanwhile, the bypass highway bridge was built around 1980 on time, under budget, paid in full.
Too right fusion is harder than fission, by default solving fusion is more than solving fission (e.g. neutron damage resistance, higher melting temps, robotic maintenance, etc). Accidents in fusion are going to be near instant and uncontrollable but the safety framework isn't developed yet. So all considered fusion reactors (if you've got tritium to start it, and other materials to build it) will inherently not be as reliable as fission reactors and they probably aren't as safe either but we'll need to wait for a proper regulatory framework to find out.
@@dscraggs I can only hope the Nuclear Regulatory Commission makes good use of the experiments in progress to anticipate risks and quickly develop that regulatory framework.
It's worth pointing out that fusing iron and heavier elements consumes energy instead of releasing more. Likely due to all the energy needed for the extra binding force carriers (guess). This is why heavier elements tend to only be created in supernovae and very powerful particle accelerators. And it's why fission is better with very heavy elements, and fusion is better with very light elements. Though of course if you could convert the lighter elements completely to radiant energy, then that would work just fine. However for that you need matter-antimatter annihilation to the best of our knowledge. But it also slowly happens all the time due to the weak nuclear force. Nuclear decay. That said Hydrogen is stable. Although Hydrogen's isotopes are not.
Also. It's neat how they disperse the plasma. I wonder if it could be possible to funnel it in a vortex.
@@karlwithak. Not even close to a bomb. For a bomb of any kind you need a cascading reaction that maintains itself for long enough for an out of control conflagration. The plasmas in experimental fusion reactors simply do not work like that. Something as simple as the plasma touching the walls (as opposed to being magnetically suspended) may damage the walls, but it also cools the plasma to a severe degree, enough to disrupt the entire run.
First thing first...
The geometry is wrong.
You need to build the housing to optimally hold an expanding magnetic field not the residual curvature of the flux lines of a bar magnet.
It is easier to control a plasma with magnetic fields than it is to contain it with mass and keep the mass cool.
one might try using a maser (microwave laser) to follow a magnetic barrier, essentially isolating the plasma from the side walls.
optimally the chamber should be in the form of a doughnut... or in other words a toroid with two multi tier/core magnets in the center of the toroid set to push off each other.
pushing the magnetic flux out into the doughnut with a twist as well as a rotation.
induce an electrical arc.... high voltage arcing will trace the edges of the magnets.. and when the second and third and fourth tiers are activated the arcs will expand into the doughnut and twist into tendrils that will confine and press against the plasma in waves and pulses while circulating the plasma around the inner circumference...avoiding the outer walls.
Your video implies that the fusion of two hydrogen atoms yields more energy than the fission of one radioactive atom. This didn't sound right, so I checked. Deuterium + Tritium fusion results in 17MeV, while U235 fission results in 200MeV. The reality is much more complicated, as there are multiple pathways, but in any case your video is wrong. Fusion releases a much higher percentage of the mass energy, because the atoms are much lighter. So 1kg of deuterium can release more energy than 1kg of Uranium, because there are many more atoms of hydrogen in a kilogram, not because the individual reactions are more energetic.
This was awesome! Thank you for sharing this. Fusion energy gives me hope for human capabilities in the future.
I just saw a "part for a Fusion reactor" Pass through our warehouse a few days ago. That was its description on the shipping documents. (I have no idea what part it was though.)
How could anyone categorize the shipping and hazard class with a description like that?
@@DistracticusPrime Most likely the part was not a hazardous component.
Right. It's probably fine. How do you feel today? ☢📶🥽🦺🧤🍌
Welcome to Oxfordshire! I think I saw my car in that first drone shot of the carpark.
Given the annual production of tritium annually worldwide is less that 50 grams and US production over 40 years before we stopped making it on purpose was 225kg of which 16 kg is currently remaining, we are going to really have to crank up the nuclear fission reactors to fuel up for "green energy".
Nah, just use Seawater. There is 352 quintillion gallons of seawater on Earth. Helion, Zap Energy, ITER, NIF, Commonwealth and the rest of the Hot Fusion folks should be putting seawater into their reactors instead of expensive and hard to fabricate "gaseous matter" like deuterium and tritium. Should be using the dielectric of water instead. Green Hydrogen production from seawater for over 1 billion years.
I'd forgotten about JET, I used to drive or cycle past there six times a week in the mid eighties.
one of your best mate! well done
Thanks for this Matt
submerg it in water and use the rising steam to turn turbines and produce more electrictiy to power the cooling system as a closed loop.
The thumbnail made me laugh! Of course Matt’s in a nuclear reactor 😂
❤This channel!
Outstanding content and well presented!
Thank you kindly!
It will be interesting one day looking back on JET and seeing it as primitive. Go back and look at Chicago Pile 1 or EBR1, and compare it to a modern nuclear rector, for example.
Woa! This video is fresh off the hot plate. 😮
Awesome. Thanks for the video. Feels like things are moving forward. A space faring civilisation and fusion in the next 10 years? Wow
11:00 the joke that fusion energy is always 30 years away doesn't ignore the progress, but rather highlights just how little we understood about fusion the first time we used it in a bomb.
Yes, more of everything on this please!
"Let me know if you'd like to know more about robotics." Come on man, you know the answer is yes. Very cool video.
😂 noted. And glad you liked the video.
Great video. Excellent topic. At least 30 years out.
i think you'd fit in well over here in the UK Matt.
Brilliant vid, thank you
This is awesome! I nurd out on this stuff
This was an awesome update on the progress of fusion energy. I’m surprised you can go in the chamber without a radiation suit on! I would have thought that area would be extremely irradiated. I’m also curious about the fuel supply chain. Deuterium is relatively common, helium is extremely limited, and the energy gains of tritium must be worth it if they’re pushing that route 🤷♂️
The one where Matt went in is only a replica. 9:00
@@SunnyNatividad ooh! Cool. Thanks for clarifying that for me 😸
Great to see that you actually took the time to visit the facility and make the video. Sorry to say this, but making RUclips content by googling a topic and then sharing it with viewers is not much of a feat, as unfortunately many content creators do on RUclips these days.
I try to reach out to companies and do behind the scenes conversations as much as I can. Doing site visits like this takes a lot of time and money, but I do want to do more of it.
Very interesting Matt. Thanks for sharing.
@UndecidedMF i was stunned at the simplicity of near-star fusion, id love to see a comprehensive brakedown of their device and your opinion on it! Have a great day!
Glad you enjoyed your trip to the UK. Hope you had a chance to check out some of our renewable generation as well.
Matt! Nice to finally see your see you with more hair. 😂😂💂
Great video. Many thanks. Would you do a video on TRISO please. I am interested to learn about that and to know your point of view.
I hope that Windows 98 computer @17:04 isn't connected to anything related to that nuclear reactor, because if it is, that would be a huge security concern....
Fusion makes a collectively lighter atom....
That makes so much sense!
Check you out finally on site! Loving the progress buddy! Keep it up! Crazy you are now in the UK. You are only 1 hour from me! :)
Trying to get out and about more often! I love the UK and want to get back over there soon.
@@UndecidedMF Well i'd be quick because we are just entering summer here and the weather is gorgeous now. But it doesn't last long. :)
I like the idea of using saltwater for nuclear plants turning the salt water to steam and collecting it four desalinated water
The like button is too small to show my appreciation of both what is happening with fusion and how you presented it. Wondering how it will workout financially compared to renewables. It will beat fission when all cost are factored in.
GREAT video Matt. Very interesting to get the latest. Thanks. :)
I have noticed a trend of youtubers holding a camera and filming while being filmed by another camera. The footage is very awkward. The interviewee is looking at you but you are looking at them through a camera. I love your videos, just something i have noticed recently.