Это видео недоступно.
Сожалеем об этом.
Nuclear fusion's hope - The dream of endless clean energy | DW Documentary
HTML-код
- Опубликовано: 11 июл 2024
- Could nuclear fusion generate an infinite amount of clean energy? In contrast to nuclear fission, nuclear fusion looks favorable when it comes to environmental and safety concerns. Could nuclear fusion be the solution to our environmental problems?
The sun and other stars generate energy. In the sun, a fusion fire burns in a huge ball of plasma. Here, hydrogen nuclei fuse to form helium. This releases a lot of energy. Fusion research is attempting to replicate these processes here on Earth.
This endeavor is being led by the ITER mega-project, an international collaboration worth approximately 20 billion dollars. Some 5,000 people active in science and technology and hailing from all around the globe are working on ITER. Together, they are working on a gigantic puzzle consisting of more than a million components. Research into nuclear fusion has been ongoing for decades. But so far, it has proven incredibly difficult to carry out nuclear fusion on a scale that ultimately produces more energy than is needed to initiate fusion.
In the sun, heat and pressure force the fusion of atomic nuclei. On Earth, there are two methods for this: magnetic and laser fusion. Along with a major German project, W-7X, a new wave of start-ups are vying to be the first to produce clean, inexhaustible energy.
The film explains how nuclear fusion works and what role it could play in the European energy landscape, the challenges involved, the difference between fission and fusion and whether this just might be the solution to humanity's hunger for energy.
#documentary #dwdocumentary #energy #cleanenergy #nuclear
______
DW Documentary gives you knowledge beyond the headlines. Watch top documentaries from German broadcasters and international production companies. Meet intriguing people, travel to distant lands, get a look behind the complexities of daily life and build a deeper understanding of current affairs and global events. Subscribe and explore the world around you with DW Documentary.
Subscribe to:
⮞ DW Documentary (English): / dwdocumentary
⮞ DW Documental (Spanish): / dwdocumental
⮞ DW Documentary وثائقية دي دبليو (Arabic): / dwdocarabia
⮞ DW Doku (German): / dwdoku
⮞ DW Documentary हिन्दी (Hindi): / dwdochindi
For more visit: www.dw.com/en/t...
Follow DW Documentary on Instagram: / dwdocumentary
Follow DW Documental on Facebook: / dwdocumental
We kindly ask viewers to read and stick to the DW netiquette policy on our channel: p.dw.com/p/MF1G
I find it ironic that one of the most difficult, challenging and expensive feats that humankind has ever attempted, is also the very first thing that Nature ever did.
Ha, that's true! Although expensive? I think the USA spends more per year on peanut subsidies than it does on fusion.
It's hard to make a substitute for gravity. This entire thing requires to power electromagnets, cooling, heating, and sustaining everything all at the same time. If you really think about it, at this scale, it's actually bonkers. But, they're doing their best to make it work.
Imagine if manipulating gravity on the small scale like Lab rooms and spaceships were actually super easy and it just flew under researchers noses the entire time
Like a steam train built like a donut moving to objects around really fast that heats piping that contains water converting to it steam to turn a mechanical wheel and provide energy. 😊
We're like microbes trying to reinvent the sun.
Wish the documentary touched on why nuclear fusion is not here already and exact technical difficulties
Exactly. I feel as if it explains more about how it works and its applications than about the difficulties we face.
The exact technical difficulties are fairly simple, though nuclear fusion has been something humans have been able to create for over half a century, since Oliphant used Rutherford's 1934 deuterium to helium methods on deuterium to form tritium.
The main problem is that it takes far, far more energy to purify deuterium or tritium enough to make the fusion reaction than fusion produces. Other light elements' heaviest isotopes also take too much energy to purify for what you get out of their fusion. It's a net loss process.
Then there's the technical problem of sustaining the reaction once initiated, which takes more energy than can be recovered from the process.
Then there are the harsh conditions of a reactor to contain such a process, which is orders of magnitude more destructive than any material or technology Physics believes possible.
These are three technically unachievable requirements.
But they did touch on it. It was explained that it's very hard to get positively charged atoms to fuse together because in principle they will repel each other. So we need extremely high pressures and temperatures to do it. And then we need a way to contain (by magnetic force) this extremely hot plasma. Because obviously you can't let it get into direct contact with your machine or that would just turn into plasma itself. So there are several (theoretical) methods to do all this, but all of those need to be tested in the real world and at scale. At the end it was said that the science has all been figured out already, but what remains is to develop the engineering to make it real.
Thanks. you saved me 42 minutes
@@olavl8827 Except the theory has also been worked out to show that the engineering is impossible, ever.
You need more energy to purify deuterium or tritium to useful concentrations than can be gotten out of the reaction.
You need more energy for the containment field, whatever form of containment is used, than can be gotten out of the reaction.
You can't stabilize the ongoing reaction.
These are things that can be shown with a few simple equations, and have been known for over half a century.
This isn't a matter of maybe someone will invent something new that works.
This is a matter of people who don't know what they're talking about saying it's possible, or worse, people who do know it's impossible just pretending it is.
I'm kindly happy for the multinationals working at the site ,let's all keep our difference aside and work together for the prosperity of mankind
the iter youtube channel is fun to watch as it all comes together. thanks to everyone making this achievement possible.
Quick synopsis: Various people saying fusion is hard and expensive for 42 minutes. Very few technical insights on the technology provided.
Came to the comments for exactly this.
Welcome to RUclips science
Ignore the naysayers. This is important work that is making progress
Nuclear fusion is the holy grail of alternative energy.
It's the holy grail of energy in general.
And so it'll continue to be.
You guys are so 2000-and-late! Antimatter is the energy of tomorrow.
Antimatter as an energy source is possibly the energy of next century.
Holy grail was an overhyped myth for religious zealots, too.
One step closer to Type 1. This is the right way to make history.
Germany removing nuclear power will remain as one of the most baffling and very questionable decision in the country's history
Despite having such a remarkable machinery, the way they extract energy is still by heating water and using steam to turn a turbine. It's like having the freaking Tesseract light a fire so we can have a tiny light.
It’s crazy isn’t it. All that to make steam.
Exactly, I have just commented the same without seeing your comment first. It’s crazy, we should be trying to figure out how to harness the electrons directly from atoms for our electricity needs, not spinning big magnets using steam to generate electricity as it’s far too inefficient and requires huge amounts of infrastructure plus it’s practically Victorian technology.
@@markdraycott3974 it's easy to say we should directly get electricity out of a fusion reaction, but doing so is very hard! We've been turning the energy of fossil fuel burning into electricity for 250 years, and 99% of the time still heat water into steam to turn a generator. Helion is a fusion company that hopes to get useful electricity from the way slamming hydrogen and helium together to fuse pushes back on a magnetic field.
@@markdraycott3974there is the startup Helion currently looking further into harnessing power through the protons.(I do not want to explain the complicated stuff XD). Well in Tokamak everything that is charged gets trapped in the fields... I would love to see another way to get energy in another way than having a big teapot !
Another fusion vid that finds it necessary to explain that fusion is not the same thing as fission. And I was hoping for news of a breakthrough that would bring commercial fusion power sooner.
You’d be surprised at the number of people that still don’t understand how fusion and fission are different though.
@@DeftPoland most of the others think fusion is a magical, free energy technology with no radioactive by-products... 😂
@@growtocycle6992 What are the by-products of fusion energy?
I wish these folks the best of luck on these projects. I fear we started the development of these technologies several hundred years late. I sure hope I'm wrong.
What does that mean? Humankind did not know about atomic fusion than, how can you start developing something you do not exists?
Meanwhile nuclear energy is still here and not being used
True. LMFBR can already provide endless clean energy
Nucular. Its called nucular
endless energy would be amazing for our endless greed and consumption. The planet was not made for nothing eternal. we will only live at peace when we realize growth is not forever and the only option is the balance between what we burn vs what the planet is able to renew.
This is true, and it'd be best if we could all collectively reduce our energy needs. However, I don't think it's likely; especially when the peoples of developing nations want to live like the developed world. Being pragmatic about it would mean making our energy in a sustainable way, rather than wishing we would simply consume less.
Maybe the trick is not to produce more, but be like video encoding and use less.
An hour and a half movie would once take over 100 gigabytes or 20 dvds just at 480p before any video encoding. Now, we can get full length movies in 4k on a single disc or streaming over the internet.
Perhaps we could "encode" appliances and other electronics to have that level of non-loss compression. Perhaps we could power an air conditioner for a full year on the equivalent of a single AA battery. Perhaps we could make container ships have just one car-sized battery that would only need to be recharged or switched out at each end of the ocean.
I dont think fusion is infinite... it needs those source materials too. It is just much better than fission. Physics basic laws logic is entropy prevails thus no free lunch exist in longterm.
The global population is rising and will keep rising till 2100. Plus, people from developing countries will get richer and thus consume more energy. You can't tell people fresh out of poverty, that they can't use as much energy as people before have done. So atleast for the next 80-100 years, growth is a given. That's why extracting resources from the moon and other planets is necessary for a growing species.
True
i love the way at the end of that utterly enthralling and overwhelming explanation and visualisation, his voice tails off as he reaches the admission it all goes to power a good ol-fashioned steam engine
It's a bit disappointing. There must be a more efficient way to harness this energy that we just haven't discovered yet.
Stephen O Dean has written a history of fusion, available from Springer Verlag, which you may find helpful. It waswritten for people who are wondering about that exact question.
@kovy689 I'll go point by point:
- "It takes far, far more energy to purify deuterium or tritium enough to make the fusion reaction than fusion produces": False. Deuterium exists in seawater (1/10,000 water molecules) and can be extracted efficiently with chemical exchange and electrolysis. Tritium is bred in the reactor from Lithium-6 (exothermic) or Lithium-7 (endothermic). The energy balance is massively in favour of fusion.
- "Stabilisation can't be achieve". False. Stable, continuous plasmas have already been achieved. Countermeasures are already developed for edge-localised modes, runaway electron beams and other disruption events. Machine learning has even been used to predict plasma behaviour on a per-machine basis.
- "Technical problem of sustaining the reaction once initiated, which takes more energy than can be recovered from the process." False. This has been a condition for our small experimental machines, but will not be so for a commercial power plant. 20% of the fusion reaction's energy is in the form of an energetic charged particle (helium nucleus). Because it's charged, it stays in the plasma and heats it. With a high enough Q, you can achieve a self-heating ("ignited") plasma where these charged particles sustain the heat required for fusion. In principle, you could turn off external heat sources if you wanted, although to make control easier, you may just want to keep the plasma close to the point of self-heating.
- "Harsh conditions of a reactor to contain such a process, which is orders of magnitude more destructive than any material or technology Physics believes possible.". False. While it's true no material can handle 6,000degC, they don't need to. Particles from the plasma lose their energy via Bremsstrahlung radiation as they impinge on gas near the walls, resulting in 1-5MW/m2, which is manageable. In the divertor, you can get up to 20MW/m2, and for this, you can use liquid metal armour.
Everything @bartroberts1514 said about fusion was objectively false. Poster either knows nothing, or has an incentive to deceive you.
Thank you for putting the clarification out there 👍
How long, you think we will have our first completely working fusion reactor? Giving us electricity, to our house holds? Any rough guess or idea? Like one century or ten years?
@@abdulmuqeet515 I reckon if we funded it adequately and treated it like a major infrastructure or military project, we could have experimental materials data done in 3-5 years, and a plant putting electricity on the grid in 10-15 years. The first one will likely be expensive, but in making it, we'd build the industry to make future machines cheaper.
"Tritium is bred in the reactor". Hasn't been achieved yet.
This guy is drinking the Kool aid. But hey, "only fools and dreamers..."
Only three mentions of tritium, and no discussion whatsoever of the difficulty of breeding enough tritium to keep the machine running.
To breed tritium in the lithium blanket, you have two possible reactions: n+Li6 -> He + H3 where the neutron is consumed, and n+Li7 -> He + H3 + n. This second reaction requires a high energy (fast) neutron, and is endothermic, absorbing 2.5MeV. Some energy is also taken in the kinetic energy of the two nuclei, so after a few reactions, the neutron is too slow to breed more tritium.
Given that a lot of neutrons are going to be absorbed by e.g. the support structure of the reactor, getting enough yield to produce more tritium than is consumed is going to be a very interesting engineering project. One which isn't getting as attention as it should.
A compact tritium production device for fusion reactors utilizes a small cylindrical design with a magnetic field to prevent plasma exposure. The device loads lithium-6, exposes it to neutron flux, and produces tritium through neutron-lithium-6 reactions. The magnetic field minimizes radiation risks, and the compact design enhances efficiency and reliability. Easy to install and remove, the device is scalable for increased tritium production, offering a promising solution for fusion reactors."
It was a wonderful scientific explanation and introduction documentary of a international nuclear fusion project. Magnetic vacuum vessel...used as an artificial environment for creating a large amount of energy through nuclear fusion..that ultra scientific technology passing through plasma phase of material .. .thank you for an excellent ( DW )documentary channel.
4:50 The VFX and sound effects are so great!
Assuming it works, industry is left with a “template” of largest most complicated device in the history of mankind. Who exactly is gonna be willing to build one on their own dime? Even if the fuel and operational costs were free, the interest on the capital would outweigh the income.
These geniuses claimed fusion is the solution to providing electricity to everyone! With 47% of the earth's population living below the poverty line (less than 7 dollars a day), knock off plants must be dirt cheap to build. Right? Oooooooooooooooops. Welcome to the $1000 electric bill and a third world that falls farther behind still cooking and heating with cow dung. What a crock.
I enjoyed A Lot the first half of this video. The second part not as much, especially where it starts talking about specific companies and just random business talk…
spot on!
I feel the private sector isn't financing fusion because they know it's not feasible.
Now the fusion enthusiasts are trying to get government funding, which includes bringing the public on board.
I really wish it wasn't the case but most of what they talked about in the video sounded like a public relations stunt.
Yes and no -- there are some things that are too risky for private enterprise that simply require funding from government. Historical examples have included ship-building, semi-conductors and the development of titanium alloys. In fusion, you could make a company that develops and creates large superconducting magnets, but without a guarantee that they'll be purchased, it simply becomes too risky for private industry.
Privately funded Fusion - Commonwealth Fusion Systems, General Fusion, Helion Energy, TAE Technologies, Tokamak Energy, Zap Energy, First Light Fusion, Focused Energy, Thea Energy, Lockheed.
Fusion will magically become available when gas & oil has been completely depleted.
A few years before the plastic giants need some crude for there products
plot twist: they won't ever deplete
I've been told they will be depleted since the 70's.
Earth could very well be like Venus (or at least on an essentially irreversible trajectory towards such conditions due to feedback loops) by the time we deplete all of the coal, oil, and gas. At the very least, the tropics would be uninhabitable to humans and a significant proportion of the life currently living there.
The major fusion steps we need to overcome:
1) Scientific breakeven: proof that it's possible to have more energy output than the input (so called ignition) - already achieved (NIF, 2022)
2) Engineering breakeven: proof that you can generate more electrical power than the total power used as input - yet to be demonstrated (ITER will not produce electricity)
3) Economic breakeven: proof that it's possible to have more revenue than the operating costs of a fusion facility - yet to be demonstrated
1) This video is not on Laser fusion like NIF. NIF breakeven is only when comparing X-ray energy in versus heat energy out. NIF is not breakeven when comparing electrical energy in versus heat energy out. Let alone electrical energy in versus electrical energy out.
NIF is about simulations of reactions needed to maintain H bombs. It has nothing at all to do with practical fusion energy. There are really only two practical ways ahead in that regard, tokomaks and it's cousin the stellerator.
Imagine if gravity manipulation on the small scale (lab rooms and spaceships) were super easy but it flew right under researchers' noses. Instead if tomahawks (misspelt, sorry) you'd just fill a room with hydrogen gas, cancel out the gravity except in the centre and crank it up to dwarf star core level (100Gs). The hydrogen would then converge onto the gravitational core and then fusion would create helium.
That's only when they don't include powering the enormously powerful lasers.
I’m not sure how they will develop nuclear fusion, when the only known examples are in the cores of stars. I believe the core of our sun is 340 billion atmospheres( almost 6 trillion psi) 27 million degrees, and 10 times the density of lead. The real question is designing a vessel that could contain that material. Currently, they’re relying on high temp, like 950 million degrees, but missing the density and pressure to sustain a long lasting reaction.
I'm a great fusion enthusiast, although I believe there should have more investment on the eletricity conversion part, which is often overlooked.
I really hope that fusion will become feasible one day. However, despite the progress made in this young scientific field, it seems that there is still a long way to go until researchers can theorize, build the proper materials, and control enough variables to make fusion self-sustaining and replicable. Many variables and pitfalls are not fully understood, which indicates that the issue goes beyond just technical and engineering challenges - it lies in the theory itself. Despite the numerous documentaries, articles, and interviews on this topic, it's clear that there's still much to learn before fusion can become a practical energy source.
I wating for this from a long time. Glad to watch this one from DW ❤. But I think one point the documentary didn't addressed is that how and from where we will source the energy required to initiate and run the electro magnetic field in the reactor.
The concept of fusion power was big in the 1970s. Right around the corner! Not much has changed in 50 years.
Scientists have been working on fusion energy since the early 1970s. They have been working on it for over 50 years (studies/proposals began in the 1960s).
Theyve tried to reverse engineer the antimatter reactors found on 👽 ships, since the 40's and 50's crash events.
Fusion is the closest humanity could get as today
Well done on the animation!
My whole life fusion power has been 10 years away. I hope they can get it working and am glad they have not given up as then we would never have fusion.
If the human race work on this together it would have been done already. Funding $$ should be the least of the problems, but we won’t stop spending billions wars.
wars make more money tho
All of the human race is in on this already? What are you talking about?
And billions on oil subsidy. Without subsidies, petrochems would be one of the most expensive sources of energy.
Clean energy is inevitable. 🎉🎉🎉
Solar PV. Wind. Enhanced Geothermal. All scales of hydro. Biomass.
The sun already provides us a gob smacking 173,000-terawatts of clean fusion energy non-stop for billions of years and billions more.
@@bartroberts1514 Check out Quaise Energy's geothermal concept; it absolutely rocks. I hope it works.
A very comprehensive, and informative video about the possible solutions to energy, and climate change. I hope I live long enough to see the fruits of these peoples efforts. Best of luck to you all for my children’s sake’s.
Thanks so much for posting
Incredibly inspiring! Thanks❤
The dream of endless energy already exists. It’s called nuclear fission with 4th gen fast breeders.
People just, dumb, they still think fission is dangerous
It's called the sun 😂
Indeed an insightful documentary…. but not that clear. It is well understood within academia that fusion energy won’t be commercially deployable at least for the next 40 years… we will probably be able to see some fusion reactors to be operational around 2060… how much solar pv, wind turbines and battery storage can we build during this 40 year period? A lot… by 2060 most developed countries probably won’t even need these type of expensive reactors.
Cool technology!!
Literally cool for me as India is building lowest temp and largest cryo vessel.
Wishing for full success..🙏
At 7:13 mins they mention the piece built By Larson and Turbo in India. It's the insulting module that acts a core part to protect near absolute zero temperatures in the core. India has a lot of issues and poverty as well. But I am so proud my country is contributing to this civilisational initiative.
The insulting module. It just sits there shouting "You’re so ugly your portraits hang themselves" at the engineers.
@@Kenneth_James lol Insulating***
Makes me giggle when I hear people asking why it’s taking so long. In geological time we’re moving at the speed of light. We’ve climbed out the trees and flown helicopters on Mars in the blink of an eye.
How ironic that Germany is doing fusion research when they have abandoned fission reactors in favour of .... burning coal.
I'm from India Work in L& T where we build refrigerator for this reactor ... It was huge
Cheers to you Sir! Thank you for your hard work, and paying attention to every detail so that nothing breaks, and taking pride in your job so that we can find a beautiful future where there are no more fires in the Rain forests. Fire in the lands of ice, and snow are happening all across the North now as well. Russian Siberia, and the Canadian Artic have been burning for years now. It's craziness! We need things to stop!
I was expecting to read a torrent of bitter, cynical comments and contrary remarks about how this documentary doesn't present the perspective of armchair physicists.
I wasn't disappointed. 😊
They spend time explaining the differences that don't matter. Fusion is just another way to heat water. It is the giant steam apparatus that costs billions of dollars, employs a small town, and uses ridiculous amounts of water. Even if the fusion-y bit and its fuel were free, it still is a thermal steam plant that costs too much vs solar, wind, and batteries.
It's the better alternative than solar, and wind energy, it's just better for the future
@@06.arkan2a2 Why? I am not convinced its even any better than current advanced nuclear.
@@themogget8808ever heard of nuclear waste?and nuclear waste disposal challanges?.risk like fukushima nuclear power plant?
@@themogget8808 fusion can't explode
@@themogget8808 generates even more energy
CTR (Controlled Nuclear Fusion) will happen some day.There are many approaches from all over the world. You still need to move it around with the grid. The ultimate energy source won't need a grid. The ITER is expensive and huge. The replication cost are monstrous. The bigger question is even if ITER reaches 100% of its goals is it economical or practical?
iam putting this comment 2024 ,i wish i can see ITER works ,may be iam dead now,i hope new genaration use the power of ITER,clean energy ,something i want to see in my lifetime,happy for u guys❤❤❤❤
I'm happy for my grand grand kids. They'll be able to see this project complete
The problem I see right off the bat is that this will take too long to build. By the time of it's completion, technology will have progressed 10 fold and now what they have built will be out of date and useless.
Imagine if gravity manipulation on the small scale (lab rooms and spaceships) were super easy but it flew right under researchers' noses. Instead if tomahawks (misspelt, sorry) you'd just fill a room with hydrogen gas, cancel out the gravity except in the centre and crank it up to dwarf star core level (100Gs). The hydrogen would then converge onto the gravitational core and then fusion would create helium.
first of all, copy/pasteing your scifi fanfiction under multiple comments is "NOT GOOD"
and secondly... no Tokamak could come close to the simple efficiency of Stellerators, when it comes to fusion! waaay easier then manipulating gravity with magic!
We learn new things everyday 😊
Born in 1965, I've been captivated by nature and science since childhood. Around the age of 10, there were talks of humanity soon conquering cancer and achieving an inexhaustible energy source - nuclear fusion. While time seems short, I hold onto the hope of witnessing these breakthroughs before my time comes.
we're getting closer!!!
so this complicate reactor is to boiling water too produce steam?
We unfortunatelly don´t posses technology to capture the energy directly. There are a few startups with interesting ideas about direct campture of plasma energy, but at this point it´s just a sci-fi technology.
@@user-bx7ye2zx5x i hope they success before climate become hostile to human
Well, that's how the vast majority of energy is produced; generating heat to produce steam to drive a turbine.
You could boil a lot of water with a fusion reaction
More unified fields on the right frequency is important. You're missing a few different fields. Remember X-rays, Electromagnetic, subsonic, lasers with the Deuterium, and Tritium being shot at eachother. With a exterior speeding up the particals, then be shot at a centre from four jet pointing towards center, then those 4 jets have smaller jets pointing towards center. I wish i could draw it. Yes in the center we will need both systems added together. I wish i could draw on here.
20 June 2024 - The revamped plan for ITER "a robust initial phase of operations, deuterium-deuterium fusion in 2035, full magnetic energy and plasma current operation".
Director General Pietro Barabaschi, described it as a "realistic" project timeline. ☢
Mark my words, oil companies will find a way to prevent this from happening. Did you guys just hear him say " 10 to 20 years " why that long ?
this video made my day, this is hope
The last hurdle of fusion power is how to make it produce more usable energy than the input. Not the problem/difficulites of fusing the "fuel" together, they already have to know how since 2-3 decades ago.
Crossing my fingers this arrives quickly!
Do we have materials that can hold 150 million degree ?
No. All materials are gas or plasma at those temperatures. The theory is to use strong magnetic fields to contain everything right before and after fusion
@@meritamity How can u hold them in place if u do not have material that can hold 150 million degree ? He said, that the idea is to run it at highest possible speed and then use that heat to produce electricity ! If u don't have material that can hold 150 million degree, how u gonna make it? This project seems fake to me... Btw friend of mine told that this project is old and launched more than 10 years ago and there is nothing new about it !
@@502opz346 The plasma isn't touching anything, and it's held midair away from the walls of the reactor by magnetic fields. The fuel is tiny.. a few nano grams.. the atoms fuse at ~ 150+ million degrees, and that only lasts a microsecond at a time.. The resulting energy spreads and the temperature drops as it travels to the reactor walls where it can be collected and converted to electricity.. So, yeah fusion is gonna be hard until they find the right way to do it.
@@502opz346 It's not that difficult. All charged particles can be controlled and contained with the magnets. Therefore, despite the high temperature - they do not touch the reactor wall. During the fusion reaction, a high energetic neutron is released. Neutrons are NOT charged - therefore they can NOT be contained with the magnets. As a result, these uncharged particles transfer their high kinetic energy to the reactor wall. By controlling the angle and distance of the plasma, you can control the energy, that is transferred out of the system over the chamber walls. (which are cooled of course). The heated-up coolant runs a turbine, generator and thus generates electricity.
Oil production is said to peak in 2030, that's really close.. so we need to find a better energy source if we want to still live like we do today.
Trust me, they are still twenty years away. Probably 50 years until the first operating reactor tied into the power grid.
The neutrons created by the fusion process will effect the materials of the fusion reactor, making the reactor brittle.
AMAZING 😢🙏🏻❤️
200MW laser to make 2-5MW of light power to get out slightly more in power in gamma rays and neutrons. Then no way yet of converting that to electricity or heat efficiently. Maybe get 30% there. We are like 3% there, period
Great things happen when humans collaborate. Interesting how some countries that are military rivals work together in this and other projects such as the ISS.
The price of the World Cup in Qatar was 200 miliard (billion U.S.) euros. If we can have the funding for such a project I don't see why we couldn't put a similar amount into a fusion reactor.
Very good point - comparing the dimensions is indeed crucial.
However, the challenge remains significant: Early reactors like DEMO won’t be economically viable from the outset. Each reactor could require an investment of $20-50 billion just to build a machine that might not even produce electricity in its initial stages.
In other words, we’re talking about billions of dollars invested to eventually create a machine that generates electricity. But beyond that, fusion needs to be competitive with fission or coal.
The reality is that most people are primarily concerned with costs, regardless of whether their energy comes from coal plants or nuclear fusion. This is the real issue-doing the right thing often takes a back seat in a society driven by short-term financial considerations.
This is an example of a project where AI is absolutely useless and we need actual human brains to figure it out
You don’t know what you’re talking about
IN short Solucion could be to induce DIRRECT CURRENT on a gass ring instead of Inductive Coil(this approach have a limit)
AND it could be done in a way similar to that of how a REILGUN works(except it is a generator, not a thruster(motor))
And former is strait meanwhile latter is disc.
Why? becouse low resistance and high current isnt a hindrance for DC
Thats why unipolar generators could geneate enormous current - there is no inductive resistance.
If Elaborate a little :
how about a disc where current flows from center to perifery and this disc with current rotating simultaneously
but only disc part of this circuit is rotating , then we could induce current in coild that winded around such a disc.
(the same princip as in reilgun except former is a motor(propell a mass) and latter is a generator(inducind a current))
Whats the difference you could ask - there is no inductive resistance for Dirrect Current (it is a Crucial difference)
One of the biggest problems in delivering of power via inductive means is that when plasma became hot its resistance became really low and its hard to deliver any sufficient power to the conductor with low resistance via inductive means.
The same amount of current would create different amount of heat depending on the resistance.
There is a limit of a current that we could deliver to the coil(there is a point where our coil would overheat and reap itself apart)
But if we were to induce Dirrect Voltage that would maintain Dirrect Current it is whole different story.
What do you say? there is low resistence? not a problem anymore , there would be just higher current and power would be still delivered.
Bigger current would just mean we should deliver more torque to our disc with rotating current.
So temperature it chamber in this case would depend only on torque and current that we could deliver to the disc.
Inducing Dirrect Current in a coil is a way. (in our case on a one ring of gas)
==
If done this way you could just heat this thing, just heat it up .
No other metods could be as effective as torque itself ,
there is a little catch tough - voltage would be induced not only on a plasma ring but also in a disc itself but we could recuperate this power not entirely though.
But even so we still could deliver power this is the main thing.
As a kid in the US i dreamed of becoming a scientist and working on things like this. As an adult in the US, I know that is about as likely to come true as pigs flying. Alas I am poor and unable to do anything but hard labor while my body is weakening and breaking. This whole country is a crock of shit, I wish I was born in europe, I may of had a chance. Now I just wait to die.
Keep competing with the Sun. Cavernicolas playing just with organized fire.
That's the real deal.
It was great information about fusion energy. It means fusion energy is 100 times better than nuclear and renewable energies.
The great Albert Einstein's famous equation E=mc^2 is useful for many things. If fusion energy's force is 10 times stronger than Sun, then fusion energy should split mass from speed of light. A certain amount of mass can produce a vast amount of energy that 10 times faster than the speed of light.
FE=m+c^10.
Which particles are responsible for producing strong radiation and radioactive ☢ waste inside atom?
try to get some more insights - simply wrong statement in your comment. "fusion energy's force is 10 times stronger than Sun", "10 times faster than the speed of light" are just complete nonsense for example.
to your question: Specifically utilizing the Deuterium - Tritium fusion, helium (He) and a high energetic neutron is released in the process. This neutron transfers its kinetic energy to the chamber wall since it has no charge and can not be controlled by the magnets. As a side result, the chamber wall is being "activated" - means that starting with Element A, after a certain processing time, Element B is a result. Depending on the choice of wall materials (modern machines use tungsten), the radioactive waste has a resulting decay time of roughly 100 years.
I think fusion is certainly something we need to research and try to fully understand, but i am increasingly doubtful it will be viable for energy production any time soon. If we have learned anything in the last 20 years, it is that fusion is far more complicated and finicky than anyone had imagined.
Actually, we’re getting closer and closer. For a long time, our main limitation was computing power. Imagine trying to model a plasma at 200 million °C inside a vacuum vessel-it's a monumental task. We’ve made significant progress in plasma physics; now, the challenge is primarily engineering. The more we invest, the more people we educate, and the quicker we’ll achieve a functional reactor.
It’s less about whether it takes another 50 or even 100 years and more about the importance of continuous investment. We can’t afford to stop investing in a technology that has the potential to replace coal, oil, and gas. Fusion offers a sustainable, fuel-efficient energy source that could serve as a reliable base-load supplier, making it a potential critical component of our future energy landscape.
Why not harvesting energy in its purest form, the quantum singularity energy? It's requiring cheaper initials to produce.
Hmm the Wendelstein... That's brilliant
I find it amusing he had to specify it doesn't have hands and feet lol
We need less, not endless energy. Most of it is already wasted even before we start to use it.
Source?
Two points, if I may:
(1) I'm also still struck that all power generation with the exception of solar panels, still requires generating steam to turn turbines like a bloody 19th century locomotive. Come on! Can we think of some other way to generate power on that end? Can the fusion/fission/wind/geothermal operate without the 19th century middleman?
________________
(2) Maybe the trick is not to produce more electricity, but be like video encoding and use less.
An hour and a half movie would once take over 100 gigabytes or 20 dvds just at 480p before any video encoding. Now, we can get full length movies in 4k on a single disc or streaming over the internet.
Perhaps we could "encode" appliances and other electronics to have that level of non-loss compression. Perhaps we could power an air conditioner for a full year on the equivalent of a single AA battery. Perhaps we could make container ships have just one car-sized battery that would only need to be recharged or switched out at each end of the ocean.
no thanks. I like my lights, stove, heating etc
maybe you mean "we need better energy transmission, not endless energy" ?
How do the fusion walls not melt at 150 million degrees?
the hot plasma is swirling in a magnetic field. its not actually touching the walls
@fabianmok2206 I know that much I just still think you take away most of the heat by "not touching" the walls you still are gonna have a lot of heat radiating off right?
@@zombiebullshark3834 theres not alot of the hot stuff. just a tiny bit of plasma, so the magnetic field actually manages to hold off that heat. that tiny bit plasma will instantly cools off if it actually touches the wall. so perfectly safe
@fabianmok2206 bro makes so much sense forgot how little of material we are talking about here
@@zombiebullshark3834 Additional insights for you: D-T Fusion releases a high energetic neutron. Neutrons are uncharged and can NOT be contained by the magnets anymore. That's how to get energy out of the system. You control the CHARGED particles, increase the kinetic energy up to the point when they can overcome the Coloumb barrier and fuse into an heavier element (Helium), releasing this neutron in the process.
The kinetic energy is transferred to the COOLED chamber walls. Heated up coolant runs turbine, generator...
Powerful oil interests have been actively working against fusion budget funding in most countries so ofc its taking time.
This is false. The contrary is true, they are investing in it.
and there's already better designs of fusion engines, much smaller too, but those instead of heating water, they want to capture the energy created by the fusion directly, it is a race of who makes the most cost efficient ones.
People make fun of boiling water, but it works (somewhat inefficiently). Helion Energy's got a cool concept, capturing the energy of the charged fusion products via direct energy conversion. Whether or not it'll pan out is still to see, but I hope it does, it's very cool!
@@evilpanky Helion seems the most plausible, if net positive fusion is at all possible, since it doesn't use Tritium, and doesn't need to scale so much that each time you are doing something unprecedented, like ITER where almost every component and every process is brand new, never tested before, prone to failure and setbacks, and is a huge gamble considering all the moving parts. ITER had to create entire assembly buildings and transformer stations just to power this 500MW research reactor. So that means if in case and that's a huge if, if it works, then that means humanity will need to scale this reactor to 10-100x its current size. How the heck will that even be possible?
Don't fall for these objectively physically unworkable scams.
Main objective should be not to create new energy source but rather to reduce demand for existing ones.
Like wind and solar
Best wishes ❤
I would love to see fusion energy come online in my lifetime . . . maybe. It seems to me that one very important aspect of fusion power that was not addressed in this documentary is the socio-economic ramifications. Once fusion energy goes online in full production for the masses, coal and oil will have the bottoms fall out. The number of people becoming unemployed could easily run into the hundreds of thousands if not millions. And the guy who was responsible for feeding coal into the coal-burning power plant would very unlikely be capable of being re-trained to feed fuel into a fusion reactor. Ironically, fusion power would be a life saver for the planet but it could very well lead to social and economic upheaval thus having a hand in potentially destroying humanity.
What do you think will happen once nuclear fusion energy becomes a reality? It’s not just about building a single reactor; to make a meaningful impact on global energy production, we would need to construct thousands of reactors. This will require a large workforce, but retraining workers isn’t the primary challenge. In fact, coal power plants, for example, don’t employ nearly as many workers as one might think, so workforce scaling is unlikely to be a significant issue.
Basically, you’re correct that scaling up is important, but the real challenges are more political than workforce-related. The most pressing issues lie in the regulatory domain. For instance, will nuclear fusion reactors be governed by existing laws like the Radiation Protection Act or those designed for nuclear fission reactors? Or will entirely new regulations be developed? And how standardized will these regulations be across different regions?
Moreover, securing consistent funding and investment is crucial. While fusion promises long-term benefits, the initial costs are substantial, and sustained financial support is necessary to transition from experimental reactors to a commercial fleet.
Additionally, public perception will play a significant role. Despite its promise of cleaner energy, nuclear fusion may still face public skepticism due to its association with nuclear technology. Effective communication and education efforts will be needed to ensure public trust and acceptance.
I'll save you 45 minutes. They have no answers, they are just hopeful that someone out there will figure out a clean source of energy. We might need to borrow Thanos and a glove to help reduce the energy demand.
Instead of talking over the scientists, why not just subtitle it? Hearing the 2 voices is very annoying.
Should have interviewed people from private ventures like General Fusion that seem to make better advances than ITER that is delayed all the time.
So they say. I won't believe it until I see it.
Hah, everything I've seen of the small fusion startups is fancy CGI, some machines, but no results. It took the Livermore national lab a massive amount of power and lasers to achieve ignition for a tiny period of time as an experiment, and those startups have never managed even close to that.
The future at all cost lies in nuclear Fusion Although it has very high Cap Cost but it has to be achieved
still atleast 25 years away and probably will never be used for commercial purposes because of its sheer complexity and costs. However the technology developed will be of great use.
Fusion reactor looks like Tony stark's arc reactor😅
Not gonna happen with current science & technology 😌👍🏻.
Fusion energy has been "a decade away" for like 7 dedades now. I wonder if we'd have been better off investing in more efficient, walk away safe, fission reactors.
We have a Diploma.
Very informative and promising.... who knows what the future lies ahead... hopefully nuclear fusion is the answer...❤❤❤
Thanks for watching and taking the time to comment.
I see that we will use coal and gas for at least another 500 years
What's with the weird AI voice over?
I am waiting for the day that they make a 3 d printer out of this that prints with entangled or other dimensional particels😊
Title is kind a wrong, should be Endless dream of a clean energy cause even Sun will die eventually.
Wouldn’t it be more feasible to capture and redirect suns energy rather than creating a sun in a lab with very limited resource???
Actually not. Simple explanation: The sun does not always shine. It is a saisonal energy source, which requires a) a lot of space and b) energy storage systems.
Nuclear fusion is all about energy efficiency and stability. We do need alternatives for coal, gas, oil etc. - you can not compare wind and solar with e.g. nuclear technologies, since these are two different things.