@leicanoct It's technically not, although it is in fact considered the second worst sin of the Seven Deadly Sins (Only Pride is worse.). What's especially interesting is how Republican love to cling to a so-called "Christian Identity", when in fact the entire core of their being revolves around actively practicing and promoting the two worst Seven Deadly Sins.
@@Wasserkaktus Brazilians have every right to burn that dump for development all countries have destroyed their Forrests why Brazil should be only one forced to keep theirs
The nuclear power plant operator was greeted when he begun his shift, "May the weak force be with you!" For those who didn't get the joke, I quote Wikipedia. "In particle physics, the weak interaction, which is also often called the weak force or weak nuclear force, is the mechanism of interaction between subatomic particles that is responsible for the radioactive decay of atoms"
Being for the environment and against nuclear is the most hypocritical way one could think. Also, the data processing abilities and AI algorithms have sped the race to positive production fusion.
yet amazingly almost no one actually think there's an enormous nuclear reaction inside the Earth that has been burning more than 4 billion years, I doubt that even the most destructive volcano eruption that has the power to wipe the entire human race could make people realize how much energy in it
I am actually tempted to agree with this. I remember supporting environmental policies over ten years ago, but it astounded me how much a large portion of the environmentalist movement hates nuclear as much if not more than fossil fuels. I understand the risks with catastrophic meltdowns, and I also understand how nuclear waste is a very bad problem, but both of these risks are grossly outweighed by all of the pollution and greenhouse effects that fossil fuels have created. Nuclear also stands to become much more refined and cleaner with more research: Fossil fuels are pretty much at a dead end when it comes to research, apart from just increasing fuel efficiency.
Fusion being a huge game changer is an understatement. It would be a technological breakthrough as great as fire, or gunpower, or the transistor. It would open up the potential for a golden age for humanity.
Infinite growth on a finite planet was never a possibility. The only way to prolong humanity would be if everyone lived in mud huts and grew fruits and vegetables using hand tools and stopped making babies.
@Kargadan Not really. Hell, it's pretty natural, people are creative. Someone is always gonna wonder if they can put someone in the dirt with a new invention.
Maybe we should have taken better care of the most beautiful planet that we know and gives us life. Greedy humans don't deserve to trash anymore planets. We are the most invasive species in the universe.
@@vsbrosis957 please don't spam the comments section with links to your video. It's not relevant to the topic being discussed, it's not informative, it's not accurate, it's badly made and you're not adding to the discussion by replying to everyone in the comments section of this video with a link to it.
Justice Warrior Virgin Mary?? Wow nice reference. I was referring to the condom breaking or failing birth control pill...they aren’t 100% preventative so yes...”Accidentally “
It's not renewable, but neither does anything else if you look at it hard enough. It's practically renewable though, we won't ever run out of water (unless we become Venus).
Nuclear engineering is amazing. I had the privledge of knowing Tom Andrews, Senior Instant Response Coordinator for the Nuclear Regulatory Commission in the Dallas area. Amazing guy. Was my neighbor growing up, and ended up being a second dad to me. Nuclear is the way to go. Wanted to shout out to Tom who passed away. Love you dude! I know you're in heaven smiling down at all of us wondering wth were thinking!
Nuclear is absolutely the best way to be "green." Glad to see some attention being shined on the subject...this is a debate we seriously need to have. Safe, clean and plentiful, why would we NOT be producing more Nuclear plants, that is the question.
Because even one disaster is enough to wipe out the surrounding area, on such a large scale that it is still known today(Like Japan's one). It may be safe, but not safe enough to be placed all over, because the more you place, the higher the chance of something going boom
@@kongwee1978 how can you recycle Nuclear Waste? I have never seen it happen anywhere. They just store it in a Faraway place and hope it doesn't get exposed anywhere
No sane person should argue for the currently existing nuclear power generation as a "safe" option. The true cost of this technology is insane compared to almost every other means, not only renewable.
@@nitishkannan2919 "and the world is flat". Sorry, but you have no argument but only ideology. Specially the this is the "only way" means that your belief is based upon a very limited worldview. So what is wrong with the alternatives? And just for fun: how do you plan to handle the actual risk of nuclear fusion as well as the impact in terms of waste? How do you protect a nuclear plant against a terrorist group? And are you willing to act on your belief and start a career as a nuclear waste worker?
Opposing fission because of exceedingly rare disasters is akin to opposing aviation due to airliner crashes. Yes when things go bad they go really bad....but it's still much safer to fly than it is to drive. The same goes for nuclear fission. It's safer not only directly for us, but for the planet.
@just another human ruclips.net/video/zIk5sIaYIQA/видео.html A Farnsworth Fusor is an early design for a nuclear fusion reactor. The design is ultimately impractical for fusion power generation, because the amount of power generated with such a design has never come close to even equaling the amount of power that must be put in to sustain the reaction. PRODUCING A NET ENERGY DEFICIT IS WORSE THAN POINTLESS. BTW, have you heard of Professor Stephen Hawking ? Went to the same school as me. Founded in 948, not 1948 btw, not a typo.
Nuclear is the best way. We have to break through this mental barrier that society hold on nuclear...it's absolutely safe, even safer then other energy production. Cost will go down by itself as the technology advances. We saw this with our phones and laptops. We just have to start funding it now to maybe have a future.
Nuclear is promising but I think we also need to be honest about its shortcomings. As the video pointed out the economics aren't great even after decades of experience with nuclear tech. Its also not going to solve climate change all by itself, since we can't build nuclear power plants in every country due to a) proliferation risks (just think Iran) and b) lack of energy infrastructure to operate a massive nuclear power plant (think 3rd world countries). The 5-10 year built time is also an issue. We need to reduce CO2 emissions right now so relying on nuclear alone will cost to much time to get it done and there is a limit on how many reactors a country can build at the same time, since there just aren't that many nuclear engineers around. Just pointing this out since some people seem to think that nuclear is the silver bullet that solves all problems when it isn't. Its just an important piece of the solution.
The main obstacle is that weapons grade Uranium is needed to start the process. That would give more nations an excuse to produce or procure weapons grade Uranium. Most rouge states already possess weapons grad Uranium...so I think this is a dumb reason to hold back Thorium reactors.
I totally agree. This is definitely a mentality issue. We have to encourage governments to contribute actively in fusion energy projects no matter how long it takes. If finally a breakthrough is achieved, it's going to be the biggest solution to our energy crises. We have to make the public aware of the benefits of fusion energy to our planet and our future generation by educating them. This is the only way a mentality change can occur. At the moment the vast majority are ignorant to the benefits and knowledge of fusion energy.
its a funding mainly same problem with space advancement stalled due to funding. But something like this is going to take 200 years to develop if not more its a synthetic sun in a cage
did not watch the video. but, nuclear fusion hasnt been done yet. If it does work, it will be a great source of energy. Until then, stick to nuclear fission, which is actually a great replacement for oil!
@@gags730 For the US we only use oil in Hawaii (there are some plants in reserve for emergencies though mostly in the eastern US). The reason we got in the first oil crisis in the 1970's was that we had moved a huge amount of power production to oil. This greatly increased the consumption of oil and made us highly reliant on the Middle East. These mistakes were made by Johnson and Nixon especially and to lesser a degree Kennedy. The crisis is worse than most people realize. It caused a rush on US gold reserves and has lead to the inflation from that time to today. We moved away from oil after that mostly building coal power plants and some nuclear, but with fracking, natural gas became very plentiful and cheap in the US and most new plants became natural gas. There are two kinds of natural gas plants: simple cycle and combined cycle. Combined cycle is much more efficient. Simple cycle is cheaper to build and the old oil plants that were not demolished were converted into these inefficient natural gas plants. Nuclear became hard after 3 mile island. But this was due to lies put forth by the anti-nukes (who were actually bankrolled initially by oil tycoons because oil was being used for power generation at the time). They said tens to hundreds of thousands of people would die prematurely from cancer as a result of the radiation cloud release. That of course did not happen. Lots of studies...no increase. We have mechanisms in our cells that repair DNA provided the damage rate is slow. The media ate up the lies and continue to spout them because fearmongering brings in viewers which sells advertising. They said in this piece that long term exposure to low level radiation creates new worries...hogwash! We are designed to live in a radioactive environment and always have. It is called background radiation. Stick a Geiger counter next to a banana it will go bonkers. Also the background radiation levels have fallen off dramatically since they stopped above ground nuclear testing. Fukushima is a drop in the bucket compared to that previous level. In fact, it did not even stop the falling levels due to half life reduction of background radiation from the 1950's and 1960's. Not one person died due to radiation in Fukushima, but the news never says: "Big news nobody died" The guy mentioned that nuclear cost the least amount of lives per year on average. That number is 90 lives (mostly industrial in nature not radiation) per trillionkWhr (including the disasters). Sounds terrible doesn't it? Coal is over 100,000 lives! Oil is 36,000 lives. Even biomass is 24,000 lives. Natural gas is 4,000 lives. Even solar is 440 lives. And the US number for nuclear is 0.1 lives. We use oil in the US obviously but it is used for transportation. All other uses are peanuts.
@Usze 'Taham that is not strictly true we had electric cars before we had petrol and if we had not gone the oil route bettered would have advanced singifincalt and we would have used coal I'm jot saying coal is good I'm simply saying oil was not the reason why technology went forward it was simply one option to fuel that push forward there was and still is many others
It's at least three. Anyway, even two would be too much. Take a look at Japan. Fukushima nuclear disaster happened in 2011, but they are still struggling to contain it. The total cost of the disaster will be more than the construction costs of all of Japan's nuclear reactors combined, according to current estimates at least 450 billion dollars. One disaster made Japan's nuclear energy extremely expensive. Because of the Chernobyl disaster large part of the forests and agricultural lands of Ukraine and Belarus are unusable. Again, intolerably expensive and damaging. There are other good reasons to give up nuclear power, but even these are enough. Nuclear power (fission based) is slowly dying anyway. Building of new reactors has practically stopped in developed countries, and by far the largest builder, China, has recently stripped down most of it's ambitious nuclear program, and is building renewables instead. In 2019 China made more than half of the global investments in renewable energy. I'd say the competition is already over. The future is renewable. Fusion might have been good, but has already missed it's time window (I originally wrote "fission might have been good..." by accident - sorry about that).
@@ademeionademo3703 the fact that renewables are most invested in isn't an argument that they are the best. Problem with renewables is that you need to rely on something that is unreliable. Nuclear power plants are hugely effective and incredibly green for their reliable output (even with kWh/co2 they go toe to toe with solar and wind and usually come out better). In my country (Czech Republic, around 10M people) there are only two nuclear power plants which are back bone of our power production still to this day (built in 80s). One thing you can also reconsider is that IF (and that is a big if) nuclear accident happen, it will probably ruin a lot of agricultural land. If you build solar panel field, you will ruin that field 100%. Because another great problem is kWh/km^2. I understand your worries about nuclear energy. From my point of view renewables have not convinced me that they are solutions to the problems they claimed to be
Ademeion Ademo Nuclear is the only way, nothing else can scale to our needs. We start with fission and then move to fusion once we figure out how to do that, fusion is certainly the only option looking hundreds of years into the future.
@@TheShadowBannedBandit You are quite correct about nuclear, except we don't need fusion. 1/ We won't get hundreds of years into the future without nuclear. 2/ Nuclear fusion is not nearly as free from residual radioactivity as in 1961 I thought it was. Helium is not radioactive, but the superfast neutrons that get nearly all of the energy have the capacity to transform any other nuclei into something radioactive. 3/ I have read that the brilliant Andrei Sakharov, one of the inventors of the Tokamak, pointed out that fission of massive nuclei produces more energy _per reaction_ than fusion. It's also IMHO easier to capture for civilian purposes. Given that one atom each of tritium and deuterium has a mass of 5, and that thorium, uranium and up have masses over 230, the energy per unit mass comes out better for fusion, but when you consider the apparatus, that's probably misleading.
What's the point, no nuclear reaction is free from radiation and nuclear decay, they are all messy processes. People will still complain when 2 radioactive nuclei exit the core accidentally and the whole project will be canceled.
I think getting usable work directly from the fusion reactor is just as important as the reactor itself. As they mentioned, they're going to use the fusion reaction (just like fission now) to heat water to steam to spin turbines. We're harnessing the power of a star, to turn it [basically] into a windmill. We need a more efficient way for the reactor to directly generate electricity.
Turning heat into electricity is always inefficient. There are solid state electrical devices called Thermoelectric generators, that generate electricity straight from temperature differences. This is probably the most high-tech way to generate electricity directly from a heat source. That means one side has to be heated while the other side is cooled...to create the temperature differential. (Most likely, water would be used to cool the cold side...so back to square one😅🤣) Anyway, efficiency is determined by the temperature difference and how well the hot side and cold side is insulated.
Like PV generation all across the world.!!!.!.!. STOP the govt and corporate selfishness on energy.!.!.!. Individual and community solar constructs are much more efficient.and secure.!.!.!.
why? Just because steam turbines were invented a while ago doesn't mean you should throw them away. Do you still use wood, fire, hammers nails, spades and indoor plumbing. They aren't new.
@@michaeldavison9808 yes but we use those because there cheap strong and hold up well with time. But thats luck. we still use those because they've always been amazing at there job but energy is different. Its harder and expensive and when we are literally using the power of the stars for a spinning rod with wings that carries barely any energy compared to what we could get. Well can you see the problem, all the effort all that power for a spinny wheel to waste most of it. Its not only inefficient but wasteful and optimization is key in generating electricity. Even those good ole materials we still use may eventually be replaced. Heck in space travel alot if not most are and nuclear fusion could be key to space stations or moon colonys.
@Ben Vail No, he is just talking about that specific method. The video is misleading here. Laser ignited fusion technology was never meant to work as a power plant. It was designed to study fusion. In contrast, reactors like ITER are designed with the long term goal of energy production.
The public in general isn't even strongly against Nuclear energy are they (I'm talking about conventional Nuclear energy using current, proven technology)? Isn't the fact that Nuclear is really expensive (and takes a really long time to start getting a return on your investment) the biggest reason why Nuclear isn't more popular? Once you do get to the point where your Nuclear plant has paid for itself, you're getting an enormous amount of power relative to the operating costs (including the costs of storing nuclear waste). And that's with current Nuclear technology. It could end up getting a lot better, and we should invest in trying to figure out how.
MALAY SUBTITLES Part 3 of 5 09:19 masa yang singkat, dan pengurungan magnet, yang menggunakan sederhana 09:22 tekanan untuk jangka masa yang lama. 09:25 Apabila dipanaskan hingga suhu yang melampau, bahan bakar peleburan menjadi plasma, a 09:28 keadaan jirim yang serupa dengan gas, kecuali bahawa ia mengandungi zarah yang dicas 09:32 yang membolehkannya mengalirkan elektrik dan bertindak balas terhadap medan magnet. 09:36 Pemampat kami akan menjadi sfera besar sekitar 4 meter, 15 kaki 09:41 melintasi bahagian dalam. Dan ke dalam bidang besar itu, kita akan meletakkan cecair 09:47 logam. Dan logam cair itu, kita akan berputar dalam bulatan sehingga 09:50 membuka lubang. Dan ke dalam lubang itu kita akan memasukkan bahan bakar kita, iaitu 09:53 gas hidrogen. 09:54 Ia dipanaskan hingga beberapa juta darjah. 09:56 Dan di sekitar bahagian luar sfera ini terdapat sebilangan besar omboh 10:00 didorong oleh gas termampat. 10:01 Oleh itu, mereka menekan logam cair dan mereka merobohkan lubang dengan bahan bakar ini 10:04 terperangkap di dalam. Dan keruntuhan itu berlaku dengan sangat cepat dan menekan 10:08 bahan bakar sehingga keadaan pelakuran. 10:10 Puncak mampatan, bahan bakar menyala dan memberikan reaksi peleburan. 10:14 Tenaga itu masuk ke dalam logam cecair ini. 10:16 Jadi logam cair memanas, anda mengeluarkan logam cair panas ini, anda lari 10:20 melalui penukar haba dan anda mendidih air dan membuat wap. 10:22 Dan kemudian wap mendorong turbin untuk membuat elektrik dan menyalakannya 10:26 grid. Dan kami terus berdenyut dan melakukannya berulang kali. 10:31 Buat masa ini, komponen utama General Fusion, seperti penyuntik plasma, 10:35 susunan omboh dan ruang bahan bakar, semuanya wujud secara berasingan. 10:38 Delage ingin mengintegrasikannya ke dalam satu reaktor demonstrasi besar, a 10:42 proses yang dianggarkannya akan memakan masa sekitar lima tahun. 10:45 Ruang kira-kira seukuran ini sesuai dengan loji janakuasa yang cukup untuk 10:49 seratus ribu rumah. Dan ketika reaktor masuk dalam talian, kata Laberge 10:53 ia akan menjadikan kos kuasa General Fusion bersaing dengan arang batu 10:56 dan pembaharuan seperti angin dan solar. 10:59 Pada kadar 5 sen per kilowatt jam, sebenarnya cukup kompetitif. 11:01 Seperti lebih murah daripada banyak perkara lain. 11:04 Tetapi ia tidak lebih murah daripada gas asli. 11:07 Laberge berharap ia akhirnya akan menjadi lebih murah, kemungkinan jika 11:11 A.S. memutuskan untuk melaksanakan cukai karbon. 11:14 Pasaran tenaga di planet ini adalah satu trilion setahun. 11:16 Oleh itu, jika kita mengambil sebahagian besar dari itu, kita akan mendapat sebahagian besar daripada 11:20 trilion dolar setahun. Tetapi sebilangan pakar industri percaya bahawa swasta 11:24 syarikat seperti General Fusion terlalu optimis dengan syarikat mereka 11:27 garis masa. Dalam 10 tahun terakhir, terdapat banyak industri kecil 11:32 datang untuk mengatakan bahawa kita dapat mencapai perpaduan dalam lima tahun, sepuluh tahun. 11:36 Saya tidak mempercayainya. 11:38 Saya rasa mereka memandang rendah dan tidak memandang penuh cabaran a 11:43 reaktor pelakuran. Peleburan nuklear sukar. 11:47 Tidak ada kumpulan atau syarikat penyelidikan yang dapat mencapai apa yang disebut 11:50 titik pulang modal, di mana tenaga yang dibebaskan dari tindak balas pelakuran berada 11:54 lebih besar daripada tenaga yang diperlukan untuk memanaskan plasma yang digunakan dalam tindak balas. 11:58 Ini sebenarnya bukan teknologi tenaga. 12:04 Ini adalah penyelidikan asas. 12:07 Penyelidikan asas mempunyai nilai. 12:09 Tetapi untuk menjualnya sebagai teknologi yang akan menyelesaikan keperluan tenaga kita di 12:14 20 hingga 30 tahun akan datang adalah menipu. 12:16 Kami tidak begitu dekat. 12:18 Tetapi penyelidikan asas adalah roti dan mentega Lawrence Livermore National 12:21 Makmal. Ini telah meneliti fusion sejak penubuhannya pada tahun 1950-an. 12:27 Pada tahun 2009, makmal membuka Kemudahan Pencucuhan Nasional dengan tujuan untuk 12:30 mencapai titik pulang modal dan akhirnya memicu tindak balas pelakuran. 12:34 Dan dengan menyala kita bermaksud bahawa ia dapat memelihara diri. 12:37 Ia dapat menyebar ke seluruh bahan bakar yang terdapat dalam letupan. 12:42 Lawrence Livermore mengejar perpaduan inersia. 12:46 Iaitu, mengurung plasma pada tekanan yang sangat tinggi untuk jangka masa yang pendek 12:49 jumlah masa, menggunakan laser tenaga tinggi untuk melakukannya. 12:53 Kami berdiri dalam apa yang kami sebut sebagai Target Bay kami, melihat sasaran kami 12:58 ruang. Ruang sasaran adalah bola besar sekitar 30 kaki di seberang, dan di 13:04 di tengah-tengah bola itu, kami meletakkan sasaran yang sangat kecil mengenai ukuran 13:09 hujung jari saya, dan kami memancarkan sasaran itu dengan seratus sembilan puluh 13:15 dua laser paling bertenaga di dunia. 13:18 Penyelidik di Kemudahan Pencucuhan Nasional dan makmal nasional lain mempunyai 13:21 akses ke kekuatan pengkomputeran yang sangat besar, yang membolehkan mereka berjalan kompleks 13:24 simulasi yang membantu mereka memahami keadaan sebenar yang diperlukan 13:27 mencapai pencucuhan. Oleh itu berdasarkan simulasi terbaik kami, mereka mengatakan bahawa a 13:31 kemudahan skala ini cukup besar untuk mewujudkan reaksi pelarian ini, jika 13:37 semuanya berfungsi dengan ideal. 13:39 Tetapi jelas, menjadikan semuanya berfungsi dengan sempurna di dunia nyata adalah 13:42 jauh lebih sukar daripada yang kelihatan di skrin.
Besides hydropower, nuclear energy is the only renewable energy that is available 24/7 and 365 days a year. Confusing fusion with fission might be the greatest limitation to the success of nuclear power.
Hydropower can affect local tectonic and cause e.g. localized earthquakes. Wind power plants can affect weather conditions - e.g. prevent humid air from reaching inland. Neither source of energy is without cons.
I think electricity in general is amazing in our everyday lives. It’s easy to forget that and take it for granted. As for side effects, I suppose weighing pros and cons is the best we can do.
@@NetZeroTech Yes, that is true. Considering impact on environment, on all stages (including production of required components of power plant), I think nuclear energy is slightly better, causing less environmental impact.
Fusion is the solution to the human race and living standard. It is insane that globaly we invest more in R&D for cellphones and the next best camera rather than prioritize less than 20 B to build the future of energy security.
We need to support nuclear fusion power research! Its not about us, its about the future. Our children and their children will benefit from our actions. Think of our medical or technology advances during our own generation that have been astronomical and how its immensely changed our lives, just imagine what our future holds with cleaner, safer and abundant energy. Also think bigger, not just our own immediate benefit which we see in our homes. Say good bye to coal, petrol and other fossil fuels. Say hello to entire countries run on electric cars, ships, airplanes, factories, building machinery, desalinations plants, etc. made with smaller carbon footprints but near zero emissions. Nobody wants to pay for the installation of sewer systems, fiber optics for internet or highways for the community but there is no arguing the benefits when they are completed and when we're using them.
Nuclear is much safer using salt as a containment. It's the Heavy & light water reactors that are used for making weapons fuel & polute the environment.
20:24 Nuclear Power isn't a zero sum game. Fission is the solution for the short term, near future, up to 2050 (perhaps even 2100) but Fusion is the long term solution for 2100+ and beyond and won't just meet our energy needs here on Earth but will also allow humanity to begin colonizing the solar system. Fission harnesses the power of splitting the atom while Fusion harnessing the power of fusing it, which is what powers the sun, which is the reason for all life on Earth. We should be investing in BOTH!
Wholeheartedly agree, development and improvement of fission plants as well as further research and investment into eventual fusion power are both imperitive
Assuming we will find a way to NOT fry our planet before then with too much CO2 being dumped in to the atmosphere and heating up the permafrost CO2 storage bank.
"Its just not possible in the next 20-30 years" -Science journalist "We are building one that will be 500MW output for 50MW input" -PHD Scientist running large scale multinational project - What is it with journalists commenting on things that they literally are not qualified to comment on? You guys are reporters not field experts, its like asking an actor who played the president on TV how the president should respond to an international crisis.
@@SR-bm7vv Cool, in that case I meant the commercial reactor called DEMO. My point stands journalist are supposed to report the opinions of field experts or document events. Journalists are not supposed to interview their friends to create an alternative perspective.
Most critics of nuclear energy are those who don't really understand what energy is, how it's transferred, how it can be generated, and the different types of conversion.
Maybe. But there are also critics who look beyond fancy simulations of how well nuclear power plants can handle limited range of situations. If you look at the details of nuclear disasters, the pattern emerges: human operator errors, unexpected conditions, several small accidents leading to the critical failure. You can create complex automatic systems and strict opertation protocols all you want but some plane crashing straight into the reactor can still lead to a disaster. Other energy options just don't have so tremendously high cost for a failure. And failure is natural thing for both humans and things they create.
@@billsgui 95% of the humans on this planet are fearful of the word nuclear. Most don't know the difference between fusion and fusion. Not only are the terms similar but the explanation sounds the same to many. One doesnt call his boss a 'schmuck'. One shouldn't be advocating 'nuclear' solutions.
@@OscarDiaz-nn9ch @fhd fah 95% of the humans on this planet are fearful of the word nuclear. Most don't know the difference between fusion and fusion. Not only are the terms similar but the explanation sounds the same to many. One doesnt call his boss a 'schmuck'. One shouldn't be advocating 'nuclear' solutions.
That "science writer" is so pessimistic. Here some inspiring news: we achieved a vaccine in less than a year, something that took several years or even decades before. Humanity is improving. Have faith.
We were already working on that vaccine though. It was a different stead of COVID which we made a vaccine before and some modifications were all it needed. The issue was producing and distributing.
This was excellent. Thank you CNBC. Of the scientists featured, I would have like to have heard their opinion on thorium reactors. But I appreciate how all of them agreed that it's not simply one solution that should be looked at, and innovation should be promoted in all the areas discussed.
9:50 “preheated up to a few million degrees” I’m sorry, what??? I want to know more about that! Sounds really interesting to learn how it’s preheated to those temperatures amongst other things!
It depends a lot on the type of fusion reactor, but often it's done by basically microwaving the gas in a way if I recall correctly (definitely not a nuclear scientist, do not take any of my word as fact). The reason it works is because the gas is kept away from the walls by electromagnets, and thus there isn't really anything to give heat off to. Second reason is because the amount of gas is tiny, just a few grams, if even that, so relatively little energy is necessary to get it to those temperatures (Still needs an incredible amount of energy however). Linus Tech Tips has an entire video about this specific reactor design, as they visited it.
As SlayerOfTheBad said, there are many approaches. But the typical tokamak reactor design uses lasers to heat a very small space, confined by an intense electromagnetic field (so it doesn't directly contact the other materials in the reactor). This is also why it is so difficult to get more energy out than in, because both those lasers and strong electromagnetic fields take lots of energy. But, as with most things, these things tend to get more optimized and efficient over time.
David pretty sure a tokamak doesnt use lasers just regular old microwaves Lasers though are used in a different design where they shoot lasers from all sides and that way compressing and heating a tiny peelt containing hydrogen But im no nuclear scientist
When they finally achieve sustained fusion reaction at ITER, i really want the lead scientist to say: ''The power of the sun... in the palm of my hand.'' Can we make a petition for that?
Thorium is a possible fuel for fast breeder reactors, but currently it is more hype than anything else. There is enough already mined uranium out there, even enriched one. Just disassemble those terrible nuclear weapons and use them as fuel. And use the light water reactor waste as fuel too. When we get low on these resources, then we could start mining Thorium. But until then so much time has passed, that there is the possibility that fusion is also an option. Currently existing technology are Gen III and Gen III+ reactors. These are the reactor types that are inherently secure (don't need active cooling, won't self destruct when let alone) and can be built right now. There are even designs for Gen IV reactors like the GE Hitachi Prism. Unfortunately we live in a time where people are scared to death by one the safest forms of energy production ( www.nextbigfuture.com/2011/03/deaths-per-twh-by-energy-source.html ).
Molten salt nuclear reactors running on thorium is the safe way to do nuclear fission. They cannot meltdown, and they don't explode like today's reactors. The radioactive waste they produce is safe after three hundreds compared to today's radioactive waste taking tens of thousands of years to become safe. ruclips.net/video/uK367T7h6ZY/видео.html
@@Les_S537 yes and advancements to make reactors safer are being worked on all the time. Unfortunate that so many people have such a negative stigma surrounding nuclear power, they won't even open their minds to accept research or new developments.
Why not talk about thorium fission reactors? There's a lot of potential to be used there and it would fit beautifully to the theme. Great documentary tho.
Because we need "normal" nuclear reactors to hide the true cost of building nuclear bombs (which is why, for example, in the US, nuclear weapon grade material creation comes under the Department of Energy, rather than being part of the defence budget) so there's a lot of money and power behind giving people a false impression of thorium not actually having any benefits, including some very official reports that can easily convince gullible reporters (who think they are journalists) who are left with the impression that it's just some quackery that people on the internet believe.
@@annoloki you know that in normal nuclear reactors low enriched uranium is used, while nuclear weapons need highly enriched uranium. Also this would only explain the reason why it's not used in the USA, while most countries don't even have nukes anymore.
So far there is no other feasible alternative with anywhere near the potential and capacity to replace fossil fuel electricity generation. Yet even fusion is a long time off. Our full time reliance on fossil fuels and present nuclear is essential at the moment until fusion is fully successful. Why don't more people understand these basic realistic facts?
“If the human race is still around in the year 2500” What the ... is the human race? Why does everything in America always have to be assigned to a race?
It's entirely possible that we won't and that's not being pessimistic. It's obvious that instead of trying to understand the way people who might live peaceful but different lives than our own are subject to fear and hatred when they shouldn't be. The divisions we see in government, religion, race and gender have fueled murder and genocide for as long as there have been humans. At this point, it looks like we're heading in the wrong direction. The only way we get to 2500 is with peace and understanding. The outstanding and more pressing reason are the people who don't believe in climate change. Belief cannot change stop rising sea levels and melting polar ice caps. Aboriginal peoples are being displaced. Whether you believe it or not, it's happening.
@@wat3r-243 I am talking about human 'race' and I ask what it could be and why only US-People obviously know what it could be, because they talking a lot about it. Even scientist. What is ist and why they always talk about? Can we are all literally humans and simultaneously a human race? At school in US, children must indicate which race they belong to? True or false?
Sorry to have to tell you this, but nuclear fusion is NOT like the solar fusion process. The sun takes four protons and with inordinately high densities and temperatures (1000 times that of the photosphere) in a remarkably long time makes a helium nucleus. The Bikini bomb fused together a tritium and a deuterium nucleus. That's two protons and three neutrons, and it makes a helium nucleus and a fiendishly high powered neutron. The problem is that the nuclear strong force needs neutrons to make it work. The other options --we have three or even four versions of the nuclear fission option quite well proven. But the biggest or "most successful" of the popularly defined "renewable energy" quite clearly are an expensive environmental blunder or abomination.
Thorium is no magic solution it has a bad scattering cross section. so to slow the newtons down to get a chain reaction you need a graphite medium. Which is hard to replace. Uranium reactors are already a well developed technology we could deploy today.
@@janousekjakob6408 I was trying to say that thorium is no magic solution not that it dose not work there are reactors today that use the thorium cycles in use for example CANDU reactors. But there just are not a lot of big advantages to use thorium. I'v just seen a lot of people act like thorium is some magic thing that will solve all the worlds problems. Its a usable fuel with a large abundance but its not like we would run out of U238 to run in breeder reactors.
In the meantime we should be investing in thorium fission reactors, much less nuclear waste (than conventional reactors) and almost impossible to get into a dangerous state like a melt down.
If something this pandemic has taught us, then it is that the public opinion is not a very reliable source to make a well-educated judgment and take the best course of action even if the most efficient solution is presented on a silver platter
Yeah, how dare he be skeptical of the pipe dream that scamming "experts" have been selling people for 100 years and try to deny them their well-earned tax money subsidies? He should obviously just fall in line with everyone else and pretend that fusion power is now definitely just around the corner despite the fact that these glorious visionaries still have yet to even produce a proof of concept. And just in case you are going to say "the Sun": Don't make me laugh.
@@levisalvini4110 It was, indeed, Edison. However, Tesla did have a snappy comeback to that quote: "If Edison had a needle to find in a haystack, he would proceed at once with the diligence of the bee to examine straw after straw until he found the object of his search. I was a sorry witness of such doing that a little theory and calculation would have saved him ninety percent of his labor.”
When things work in ways you don't know, they work in ways you don't like... I wish the average common modern person knew more about how nuclear energy works
@@krystal5887 sure, I guess you also believe the erth is flat? Always funny when some random dude believe to be more intelligent the our best scientists that we have on earth.
I mean, it is. "Converted" may be the wrong word seeing as mass *is* energy, but in context, we are converting one form of energy (mass), to another (heat/radiation), sooo.....
The internal combustion engine has been around and improved to an amazing degree for over 130 years. We should be spending more time improving nuclear fission, Thorium reactors are still largely unused and need more research instead of wasting so much money and time on only fusion.
But cars and planes only got viable once the internal combustion engine was developed, even though steam engines had been optimized for close to 150 years by then. Likewise, the first jet engines developed were so far above the piston engine in performance, that 10 years after the first jet powered fighter had flown, no modern military on earth was building prop fighters anymore. There is never an argument for spending less on research. Technologies like fusion are just so far above all the rest in power and potential, that it's like comparing a modern supersonic fighter aircraft to a WW2 era prop plane.
Yes, and if nuclear fission had been allowed to develop into planes and rockets, we'd probably have come further along with fusion from the experiments in alternate designs.
Fun fact: artificial gravity generated by gravity plating or similar means (Not centrifugal force) would actual create mass. This means a small object like a starship would have the same 1G of earth, thus able to move the planet out of orbit or cause massive earthquakes when in orbit. Artificial gravity would have to have simulated centrifuges or real ones to avoid such catastrophes.
1. Stabilizing magnetic field during reaction = solving one of the millennium puzzles 2. Better superconducting material 3. Materials that can either self repair or survive the neutron bombardment. Those are just a couple obstacles in the way and im sure I'm missing a couple hundred.
The video is very old. Lots of breakthrough is already happening right now. The fact that they do not showcase that nuclear fusion positive netgain is possible in 2024 just shows how old this video is. Nuclear fusion is not fairytale anymore nowadays.
The problem is that scientists are groping along fusion, at that scale matter and energy behave in a very strange way and they find a lot of engineering issues that cannot be forseen. ITER is the replacement for JET, that was tobe the final reactor, however scientists found unsolvable problems once JET was build and they projected ITER to solve them and nobody knows if the situation will happen again with ITER and we will need an ITER 2.0.
While I want fusion to be a thing, it's hard to be excited when the working result from even the first prototype would come out in whoever know how many years into the future.
They can’t even take care of the spare rods they already have. Just put them in big containers and not checked to see if they are leaking into the ground water? The guy at EPA that was head of that division, had a red passport and didn’t show up to work for three years. They have improved anything since then? Actually, it’s worse now.
Elon actually was asked in an interview once what would he do if he wasn"t occupied with Tesla and SpaceX do and he replied "I could probably make fusion work" :D So fingers crossed for him to succeed quickly and find a replacement CEO for himself there to run things while he makes this happen. By the way these old faithless pessimist guys... They sound pretty much how NASA sounded before Elon actually landed the first Falcon9. They wouldn't be on the team with this attitude if I could have a say in it that's for sure.
Dont buy any. Dead end. What they propose is no doubt possible and simple but economically its not viable. Producing energy is one thing, producing CHEAP energy is another completely... makes tokamaks seens like a good idea in comparison. In fact, tokamaks ARE a very good idea, the problem right now is more a engineering problem than a physics problem.. Its the sun in a bottle problem: we know how to create the sun but its not easy to build a bottle that can stand insane levels of all kinds of radiation for prolonged periods of time... and thats only the small fraction of radiation which escapes the (insanely strong) magnetic field. And the general fusion vessel must handle ALL of that radiation!!! I hope they have a unobitanium or vibranium mine secretly somewhere...
I absolutely agree: nuclear fission is only scary for those who don't know about it. I've studied it as part of my education as a chemical engineer, and I'm convinced that nuclear will be fundamental to the clean energy future of the world. Of special note are liquid fluoride thorium reactors, which are clean, safe, efficient, and can produce tons of useful (and lucrative) by-products that have essential applications (like in radiological imaging of cancers, etc.).
I too am a chemical engineer, and I used to work on the JET project at Culham. Unfortunately, we most likely will not be seeing viable fusion power in our lifetimes (certainly not from Tokamak types).
Rikkerd Harderz One political party is trying to shut fission plants down. Biden tried to shut my father's plant in NJ down since the goddamn 90's. We would have plants and procedures on par with France and India by now if they weren't busy fear-mongering and setting up roadblocks.
JerseySlayer Not necessarily, is it not a good thing to not accept things as is, you may not agree with their ideas or anything they stand for but when others challenge us to do better its human nature to go above and beyond what we ever thought was possible, rejection is the if not one of the best tools for growth because it allows for reflection and us to question ourselves and what’s possible, we must strive for excellence. “We are what we repeatedly do. Excellence, then, is not an act, but a habit.” Aristotle. So never accept things as good enough. Simply look at how long it took for electric cars to become competitive and even considered plausible that wasn’t possible until we looked past short term economic gains and employment disruptions to push towards a greater objective, (I think automation is another great idea that’s not being nearly as embraced as it should be because of the short term economic disruptions) or go back to the origin of nuclear energy, you must understand. It was crisis that pushed mankind hard enough to accomplish those things and build the frame work and institutions of world governments that still exists today which would have not been possible unless for the great crisis’s of the era the Great Depression and WW2, namely. It takes people challenging the status quo even when it’s not convenient and great crisis’s like harsh rejections to spark the thirst for knowledge that gives us the greatest of innovations. “The Chinese use two brush strokes to write the word 'crisis.' One brush stroke stands for danger; the other for opportunity. In a crisis, be aware of the danger--but recognize the opportunity.” “Institutionalized rejection of difference is an absolute necessity in a profit economy which needs outsiders as surplus people.” Audre Lorde
people over reaction nuclear waste but it isnt that bad. All forms of energy make waste. Coal has killed millions by bad air and dozens by failed coal slug collapses
The fusion reaction at 6:07 is not complete: a neutron is missing. It is D + T --> He + n. This is quite a significant mistake, as the neutron is used to heat up the walls of the vessel surrounding the plasma, and thus eventually driving a turbine (generating electricity). The energy of the Helium nucleus is used to further heat the plasma, trying to sustain the fusion reaction.
Because the NRC is against their use. They claim they're too complex to operate, etc... NASA rocket scientists said reusable rockets would never work, and look at what SpaceX has done. Government bureaucracies rarely get things right.
@@NoobNoobNews i would not call it a gamble. I call it a first step solution to solving our problems. UBI won't raise our debt and it cost around $1.5 to $3 trillion. Three major factors to pay for it are: 1) Putting money into people hands...when people get more money they spend more money and it circulates into the economy. the money doesnt go away and it would pay back around $600 billion 2) Welfare overlap...america typically spends around $1 trillion on it. If everyone who is on welfare and wants to keep it then the cost for UBI will go down. If people who want to switch from their welfare to UBI then the cost would go up and the money typically spent on welware will go towards UBI. 3) VAT (Value added tax)...this is the most complicated. tech corporations dont pay their taxes. Amazon paid 0 in taxes in 2018. VAT has been already implemented in developed countries like Europe and Australia. VAT make sure big tech corporations like google,facebook,apple,etc. pay their taxes. So VAT at 10% half the European level will pay back around. $800 billion There are also small factors like the carbon fee tax where you charge companies every time they pollute a certain amount of pollution. Small factors should add up to paying back around a few hundred billion bucks. Also UBI is supposed to combat against job loss due to automation displacing half of common american jobs as we are entering the fourth industrial revolution. Elon Musk agrees and supports Yang.
![[#2024MAMA] G-DRAGON - 무제(Untitled, 2014)+POWER+HOME SWEET HOME+뱅뱅뱅+FANTASTIC BABY | Mnet 241123 방송](http://i.ytimg.com/vi/Ox29z5Nf1Uk/mqdefault.jpg)
CNBC really upping their RUclips game.
They should do more videos about the crimes and greedy behaviour of Amazon
@leicanoct It's technically not, although it is in fact considered the second worst sin of the Seven Deadly Sins (Only Pride is worse.).
What's especially interesting is how Republican love to cling to a so-called "Christian Identity", when in fact the entire core of their being revolves around actively practicing and promoting the two worst Seven Deadly Sins.
Why this exact comment is everywhere on this channel..
@@Wasserkaktus Brazilians have every right to burn that dump for development all countries have destroyed their Forrests why Brazil should be only one forced to keep theirs
@@Wasserkaktus even it means death for all human being. Atleast death will fair it won't ask country, race place of birth,religion etc
17:44 “public opinion on nuclear fission remains split”
Badum tss
That’s a good one 👍
The nuclear power plant operator was greeted when he begun his shift, "May the weak force be with you!"
For those who didn't get the joke, I quote Wikipedia.
"In particle physics, the weak interaction, which is also often called the weak force or weak nuclear force, is the mechanism of interaction between subatomic particles that is responsible for the radioactive decay of atoms"
Rofl xD, good one.
@@Night-Sight Fission is splitting and it's what we currently use. Fusion is combining.
@@Manalor6955 you are right I mixed the names accidently fusion/fission.
Might have to 'fuse' those public opinions together ;)
Being for the environment and against nuclear is the most hypocritical way one could think. Also, the data processing abilities and AI algorithms have sped the race to positive production fusion.
Being for the environment and against nuclear is basically for the destruction of the modern world.
They don’t understand that the amount of pollution from nuclear energy is astronomically less than coal, and we still rely mainly on coal for energy
STOP fission now!!!!
STOP gas now!!!!!
Let's use candles and horses to save the planet!!!!!!
yet amazingly almost no one actually think there's an enormous nuclear reaction inside the Earth that has been burning more than 4 billion years, I doubt that even the most destructive volcano eruption that has the power to wipe the entire human race could make people realize how much energy in it
I am actually tempted to agree with this. I remember supporting environmental policies over ten years ago, but it astounded me how much a large portion of the environmentalist movement hates nuclear as much if not more than fossil fuels. I understand the risks with catastrophic meltdowns, and I also understand how nuclear waste is a very bad problem, but both of these risks are grossly outweighed by all of the pollution and greenhouse effects that fossil fuels have created. Nuclear also stands to become much more refined and cleaner with more research: Fossil fuels are pretty much at a dead end when it comes to research, apart from just increasing fuel efficiency.
Fusion being a huge game changer is an understatement. It would be a technological breakthrough as great as fire, or gunpower, or the transistor. It would open up the potential for a golden age for humanity.
@paul lennon Ummm...we've had fusion weapons for over half a century
Infinite growth on a finite planet was never a possibility. The only way to prolong humanity would be if everyone lived in mud huts and grew fruits and vegetables using hand tools and stopped making babies.
@Kargadan Not really. Hell, it's pretty natural, people are creative. Someone is always gonna wonder if they can put someone in the dirt with a new invention.
@@driftlesshermit yes thats true, this is why there is a need to diverify and extend our reach to the stars above
Maybe we should have taken better care of the most beautiful planet that we know and gives us life. Greedy humans don't deserve to trash anymore planets. We are the most invasive species in the universe.
This is a lot better reporting on something like nuclear energy than I was expecting from CNBC, well done.
must have come out of the fact department instead of the propaganda department
ruclips.net/video/pLDUIofn5KY/видео.html
@@vsbrosis957 please don't spam the comments section with links to your video. It's not relevant to the topic being discussed, it's not informative, it's not accurate, it's badly made and you're not adding to the discussion by replying to everyone in the comments section of this video with a link to it.
bruhh solar panel destroys local climate and mass solar panel will destroy whole eco system wheather pattern nothing is safe when we need energy
@@coreymicallef365 Puke!
The moral of the story is :
It's a lot easy to break things (fission), than to make make things (fusion)
That's entropy for you
You can accidentally make a baby, but you can’t accidentally make a pizza...😒
@@LadiesMan-bo2cc
Accidentally have a baby??
Who are you?
Virgin Mary??
Justice Warrior Virgin Mary?? Wow nice reference. I was referring to the condom breaking or failing birth control pill...they aren’t 100% preventative so yes...”Accidentally “
Entropy
Nuclear energy is like the only renewable energy source that many people dislike, despite its pros.
Nuclear is not renewable
EyesOfTheLion 11 depends on the type, but some of it is. Fusion is renewable.
It is not renewable. Sorry.
It's not renewable, but neither does anything else if you look at it hard enough.
It's practically renewable though, we won't ever run out of water (unless we become Venus).
@@PetrGladkikh Solar isn't either
Nuclear engineering is amazing. I had the privledge of knowing Tom Andrews, Senior Instant Response Coordinator for the Nuclear Regulatory Commission in the Dallas area. Amazing guy. Was my neighbor growing up, and ended up being a second dad to me. Nuclear is the way to go. Wanted to shout out to Tom who passed away. Love you dude! I know you're in heaven smiling down at all of us wondering wth were thinking!
Sounds like he was a great guy.
Nuclear is absolutely the best way to be "green." Glad to see some attention being shined on the subject...this is a debate we seriously need to have. Safe, clean and plentiful, why would we NOT be producing more Nuclear plants, that is the question.
Because if push came to shove, Nuclear could go disastrously wrong.
How do you actually handle nuclear waste
@@vasu6494 Nuclear waste can be recycled, but US refuse to do that.
Because even one disaster is enough to wipe out the surrounding area, on such a large scale that it is still known today(Like Japan's one).
It may be safe, but not safe enough to be placed all over, because the more you place, the higher the chance of something going boom
@@kongwee1978 how can you recycle Nuclear Waste? I have never seen it happen anywhere. They just store it in a Faraway place and hope it doesn't get exposed anywhere
@@kongwee1978 don't forget something like Stuxnet can make this a soft target for cyber warfare
6:06 a neutron should have came out of that reaction.
They're not scientists. Journalists don't care much about details...
Shhh. Let the media fearmongering kill fusion after it has been made viable.
Definitely, I thought something was off. Maybe it's for simplicity's sake in the animation...
Nice videos
Are you saying that one of the neutrons shouldn't be there or that there should be only one neutron there?
No environmentalist should be against nuclear.
No sane person should argue for the currently existing nuclear power generation as a "safe" option. The true cost of this technology is insane compared to almost every other means, not only renewable.
Nuclear fusion is environmental friendly it’s the only way forward
@@nitishkannan2919 "and the world is flat". Sorry, but you have no argument but only ideology. Specially the this is the "only way" means that your belief is based upon a very limited worldview.
So what is wrong with the alternatives?
And just for fun: how do you plan to handle the actual risk of nuclear fusion as well as the impact in terms of waste? How do you protect a nuclear plant against a terrorist group? And are you willing to act on your belief and start a career as a nuclear waste worker?
@@BernhardWelzel How many terrorist extracurricular activities has oil managed to fund it's time?
@@BernhardWelzel ... i'm sane. Nuclear power is safe. It's clean and it's efficient. It is the future.
Opposing fission because of exceedingly rare disasters is akin to opposing aviation due to airliner crashes.
Yes when things go bad they go really bad....but it's still much safer to fly than it is to drive. The same goes for nuclear fission. It's safer not only directly for us, but for the planet.
@just another human 'Farnsworth' never built a nuclear reactor you nitwit, fusion, fission or otherwise.
@just another human
ruclips.net/video/zIk5sIaYIQA/видео.html
A Farnsworth Fusor is an early design for a nuclear fusion reactor. The design is ultimately impractical for fusion power generation, because the amount of power generated with such a design has never come close to even equaling the amount of power that must be put in to sustain the reaction.
PRODUCING A NET ENERGY DEFICIT IS WORSE THAN POINTLESS.
BTW, have you heard of Professor Stephen Hawking ? Went to the same school as me. Founded in 948, not 1948 btw, not a typo.
@@grahamstevenson1740 ruclips.net/video/dOD6gm_krmQ/видео.html
great analogy
I oppose it because of costs. It's simply waaaay too expensive. I don't want my electricity bill to double.
In Sim City 3000 I believe the nuclear fusion power plant was unlocked once your city reached the year 2050 :)
Wokis 😂😂
Some of my citizens became mutants because of it.
their actual predictions line up with fallout timeline
It was based on how many high-tech industries you had. Awesome game, too bad they messed up the series with that online bs
expertly planned with so many details, and yeah they sold out my favorite game series.
whenever this video talks about private funding bill gates pops up.
Nuclear is the best way. We have to break through this mental barrier that society hold on nuclear...it's absolutely safe, even safer then other energy production. Cost will go down by itself as the technology advances. We saw this with our phones and laptops. We just have to start funding it now to maybe have a future.
Nuclear is promising but I think we also need to be honest about its shortcomings. As the video pointed out the economics aren't great even after decades of experience with nuclear tech. Its also not going to solve climate change all by itself, since we can't build nuclear power plants in every country due to a) proliferation risks (just think Iran) and b) lack of energy infrastructure to operate a massive nuclear power plant (think 3rd world countries). The 5-10 year built time is also an issue. We need to reduce CO2 emissions right now so relying on nuclear alone will cost to much time to get it done and there is a limit on how many reactors a country can build at the same time, since there just aren't that many nuclear engineers around.
Just pointing this out since some people seem to think that nuclear is the silver bullet that solves all problems when it isn't. Its just an important piece of the solution.
3 years later and the breakthrough happened 12/12/22
incredible isnt it
14:07 who needs fusion, this guy is welding IN REVERSE
I bet he put is welder in reverse
lmao
LOL eagle eyes. I just noticed the sparks
It's a complicated way to create welding electrodes.
@@zvpunry1971 reverse, reuse, recycle
Just go Thorium, 20 Tons of Thorium produce almost the equivalent of 200 tons of Uranium or 10 000 000 tons of coal
problem is you have to build new reactors.
@@donmargareto i've heard that it should be as simple as retrofitting old powerplants to suit moltensalt reactor
Not to mention it’s nearly impossible to create weapons with, cannot have a meltdown in a reactor, and is more common than uranium
problem is it's rare and cannot be used to supply even 2 percent of the world
The main obstacle is that weapons grade Uranium is needed to start the process.
That would give more nations an excuse to produce or procure weapons grade Uranium.
Most rouge states already possess weapons grad Uranium...so I think this is a dumb reason to hold back Thorium reactors.
I totally agree. This is definitely a mentality issue. We have to encourage governments to contribute actively in fusion energy projects no matter how long it takes. If finally a breakthrough is achieved, it's going to be the biggest solution to our energy crises. We have to make the public aware of the benefits of fusion energy to our planet and our future generation by educating them. This is the only way a mentality change can occur. At the moment the vast majority are ignorant to the benefits and knowledge of fusion energy.
its a funding mainly same problem with space advancement stalled due to funding. But something like this is going to take 200 years to develop if not more its a synthetic sun in a cage
Fast forward to today when multiple times already fusion has achieved a net positive energy production
17:44 _"public opinion on nuclear fission remains split"_
then we must *unite* our efforts for nuclear fusion
That pessimistic guy is an oil mogul. He has huge investment oil.
hahahah true that
Or plans for it.
did not watch the video.
but, nuclear fusion hasnt been done yet. If it does work, it will be a great source of energy. Until then, stick to nuclear fission, which is actually a great replacement for oil!
@@gags730 For the US we only use oil in Hawaii (there are some plants in reserve for emergencies though mostly in the eastern US). The reason we got in the first oil crisis in the 1970's was that we had moved a huge amount of power production to oil. This greatly increased the consumption of oil and made us highly reliant on the Middle East. These mistakes were made by Johnson and Nixon especially and to lesser a degree Kennedy. The crisis is worse than most people realize. It caused a rush on US gold reserves and has lead to the inflation from that time to today. We moved away from oil after that mostly building coal power plants and some nuclear, but with fracking, natural gas became very plentiful and cheap in the US and most new plants became natural gas. There are two kinds of natural gas plants: simple cycle and combined cycle. Combined cycle is much more efficient. Simple cycle is cheaper to build and the old oil plants that were not demolished were converted into these inefficient natural gas plants. Nuclear became hard after 3 mile island. But this was due to lies put forth by the anti-nukes (who were actually bankrolled initially by oil tycoons because oil was being used for power generation at the time). They said tens to hundreds of thousands of people would die prematurely from cancer as a result of the radiation cloud release. That of course did not happen. Lots of studies...no increase. We have mechanisms in our cells that repair DNA provided the damage rate is slow. The media ate up the lies and continue to spout them because fearmongering brings in viewers which sells advertising. They said in this piece that long term exposure to low level radiation creates new worries...hogwash! We are designed to live in a radioactive environment and always have. It is called background radiation. Stick a Geiger counter next to a banana it will go bonkers. Also the background radiation levels have fallen off dramatically since they stopped above ground nuclear testing. Fukushima is a drop in the bucket compared to that previous level. In fact, it did not even stop the falling levels due to half life reduction of background radiation from the 1950's and 1960's. Not one person died due to radiation in Fukushima, but the news never says: "Big news nobody died"
The guy mentioned that nuclear cost the least amount of lives per year on average. That number is 90 lives (mostly industrial in nature not radiation) per trillionkWhr (including the disasters). Sounds terrible doesn't it? Coal is over 100,000 lives! Oil is 36,000 lives. Even biomass is 24,000 lives. Natural gas is 4,000 lives. Even solar is 440 lives. And the US number for nuclear is 0.1 lives.
We use oil in the US obviously but it is used for transportation. All other uses are peanuts.
@Usze 'Taham that is not strictly true we had electric cars before we had petrol and if we had not gone the oil route bettered would have advanced singifincalt and we would have used coal I'm jot saying coal is good I'm simply saying oil was not the reason why technology went forward it was simply one option to fuel that push forward there was and still is many others
We humans have used so much time to figure thousand ways to boil water.
You're not wrong lol 😂
They do good at high tech then fall off the wagon and use 200 year old technology to make electricity. Time to rethink the machine.
@@offgridwanabe don't need to fix what isn't broke... please propose a superior method of energy conversion.
@@fearthemerciful hydrogen fuel cell direct production of electricity from hydrogen
@@offgridwanabe good luck getting enough hydrogen
"A number of high profile accidents.." You mean 3....in the last 70 years. And really only 2.
It's at least three. Anyway, even two would be too much. Take a look at Japan. Fukushima nuclear disaster happened in 2011, but they are still struggling to contain it. The total cost of the disaster will be more than the construction costs of all of Japan's nuclear reactors combined, according to current estimates at least 450 billion dollars. One disaster made Japan's nuclear energy extremely expensive. Because of the Chernobyl disaster large part of the forests and agricultural lands of Ukraine and Belarus are unusable. Again, intolerably expensive and damaging. There are other good reasons to give up nuclear power, but even these are enough. Nuclear power (fission based) is slowly dying anyway. Building of new reactors has practically stopped in developed countries, and by far the largest builder, China, has recently stripped down most of it's ambitious nuclear program, and is building renewables instead. In 2019 China made more than half of the global investments in renewable energy. I'd say the competition is already over. The future is renewable. Fusion might have been good, but has already missed it's time window (I originally wrote "fission might have been good..." by accident - sorry about that).
@@ademeionademo3703 the fact that renewables are most invested in isn't an argument that they are the best. Problem with renewables is that you need to rely on something that is unreliable. Nuclear power plants are hugely effective and incredibly green for their reliable output (even with kWh/co2 they go toe to toe with solar and wind and usually come out better). In my country (Czech Republic, around 10M people) there are only two nuclear power plants which are back bone of our power production still to this day (built in 80s).
One thing you can also reconsider is that IF (and that is a big if) nuclear accident happen, it will probably ruin a lot of agricultural land. If you build solar panel field, you will ruin that field 100%. Because another great problem is kWh/km^2. I understand your worries about nuclear energy. From my point of view renewables have not convinced me that they are solutions to the problems they claimed to be
Ademeion Ademo Nuclear is the only way, nothing else can scale to our needs. We start with fission and then move to fusion once we figure out how to do that, fusion is certainly the only option looking hundreds of years into the future.
@@TheShadowBannedBandit You are quite correct about nuclear, except we don't need fusion.
1/ We won't get hundreds of years into the future without nuclear.
2/ Nuclear fusion is not nearly as free from residual radioactivity as in 1961 I thought it was.
Helium is not radioactive, but the superfast neutrons that get nearly all of the energy have the capacity to transform any other nuclei into something radioactive.
3/ I have read that the brilliant Andrei Sakharov, one of the inventors of the Tokamak, pointed out that fission of massive nuclei produces more energy _per reaction_ than fusion. It's also IMHO easier to capture for civilian purposes. Given that one atom each of tritium and deuterium has a mass of 5, and that thorium, uranium and up have masses over 230, the energy per unit mass comes out better for fusion, but when you consider the apparatus, that's probably misleading.
albert rogers Well, considering the big ball of fire in the sky runs on fusion not fission... somewhere your logic is flawed.
Fusion power has only been 10 years away for the last 50 years.
I got it to work in my basement lab one time and I recorded it, but the file got corrupted. :(
@@peppersaltman1805 🧢
@@peppersaltman1805 sure bud.
Who is watching in 2050, I want to say Fusion is technology of future, and we will sure achive it.
I come from 2050 we aren't there yet but expect to be in another 10years.
we are all dead already in 12 years according to AOC!!!!
What's the point, no nuclear reaction is free from radiation and nuclear decay, they are all messy processes. People will still complain when 2 radioactive nuclei exit the core accidentally and the whole project will be canceled.
@@kronek88 nothing better than NUCLEAR!! that can offer more energy at lower price!
Ha, I see what you did there.
9:10 you know youre on a budget when you turn a wrench like that lol
Yes---I thought the same thing. It looks like one step up from using channel locks.
If it works, it works.
Could be there is not enough room for a socket. A ratchet wrench, 12" extension, and socket probably cost the same as those wrenches.
That's why most private ventures are successful, atleast in an economic sense, than most public ventures.
The first company to crack fusion will be raking in money for a long time. They will be in history books as one of the most profitable companies.
More Science technology programs
Keep it up cnbc!!!!
"Nuclear fission was discovered in late 1938" (Germany).
Nuclear fission was first theorized by Tadayoshi (Japan, 1934)
Isaac Newton didn't "discover" gravity he simply formulated a way of explaining it.
Nah but Hahn could explained it, which Tayadoshi wasn't able to(He couldn't proof it).
I think getting usable work directly from the fusion reactor is just as important as the reactor itself. As they mentioned, they're going to use the fusion reaction (just like fission now) to heat water to steam to spin turbines.
We're harnessing the power of a star, to turn it [basically] into a windmill. We need a more efficient way for the reactor to directly generate electricity.
Turning heat into electricity is always inefficient.
There are solid state electrical devices called Thermoelectric generators, that generate electricity straight from temperature differences. This is probably the most high-tech way to generate electricity directly from a heat source.
That means one side has to be heated while the other side is cooled...to create the temperature differential. (Most likely, water would be used to cool the cold side...so back to square one😅🤣)
Anyway, efficiency is determined by the temperature difference and how well the hot side and cold side is insulated.
Thermodynamics.
Like PV generation all across the world.!!!.!.!. STOP the govt and corporate selfishness on energy.!.!.!. Individual and community solar constructs are much more efficient.and secure.!.!.!.
why?
Just because steam turbines were invented a while ago doesn't mean you should throw them away. Do you still use wood, fire, hammers nails, spades and indoor plumbing. They aren't new.
@@michaeldavison9808 yes but we use those because there cheap strong and hold up well with time. But thats luck. we still use those because they've always been amazing at there job but energy is different. Its harder and expensive and when we are literally using the power of the stars for a spinning rod with wings that carries barely any energy compared to what we could get. Well can you see the problem, all the effort all that power for a spinny wheel to waste most of it. Its not only inefficient but wasteful and optimization is key in generating electricity. Even those good ole materials we still use may eventually be replaced. Heck in space travel alot if not most are and nuclear fusion could be key to space stations or moon colonys.
The guy who doesn't know how to operate a comb is quite the pessimist.
But he knows more about the subject than you ever will.
@@squatch545 Unlikely.
@@zachcarmichael699 Very likely.
@Ben Vail No, he is just talking about that specific method. The video is misleading here. Laser ignited fusion technology was never meant to work as a power plant. It was designed to study fusion. In contrast, reactors like ITER are designed with the long term goal of energy production.
@@aheinstein291 it's just bad editing on cnbc's part.
That I.T.E.R. Scientist be flexing on us with his AirPods
The public in general isn't even strongly against Nuclear energy are they (I'm talking about conventional Nuclear energy using current, proven technology)? Isn't the fact that Nuclear is really expensive (and takes a really long time to start getting a return on your investment) the biggest reason why Nuclear isn't more popular? Once you do get to the point where your Nuclear plant has paid for itself, you're getting an enormous amount of power relative to the operating costs (including the costs of storing nuclear waste). And that's with current Nuclear technology. It could end up getting a lot better, and we should invest in trying to figure out how.
"i am limited by the technology of my time"
Howard Stark in Iron Man 2 (2010)?
Watch the intro part of the fallout 4 game it's inspiring
"It will not happen in our lifespan, it will happen I our grandchildren's lifespan", that guy is like the prof in intersellar.
Do not enter gentle in that good night
By the time you get back from Gargantua… I’ll have solved the problem of Fusion
Nope windmills bigger than hover dams that reverse in tides to.with magnetic bearings geared to light speeds just ditch the rich virus makers in way.
ruclips.net/video/pLDUIofn5KY/видео.html
@@andrerichardson the history of major great innovation was with rejection, ridiculed, and laughter..
I think nuclear energy is the future of humanity
And fissions the only thing that can save us and the earth
I just want to thank all the people working so hard for the world on impossibly difficult issues.
MALAY SUBTITLES Part 3 of 5
09:19
masa yang singkat, dan pengurungan magnet, yang menggunakan sederhana
09:22
tekanan untuk jangka masa yang lama.
09:25
Apabila dipanaskan hingga suhu yang melampau, bahan bakar peleburan menjadi plasma, a
09:28
keadaan jirim yang serupa dengan gas, kecuali bahawa ia mengandungi zarah yang dicas
09:32
yang membolehkannya mengalirkan elektrik dan bertindak balas terhadap medan magnet.
09:36
Pemampat kami akan menjadi sfera besar sekitar 4 meter, 15 kaki
09:41
melintasi bahagian dalam. Dan ke dalam bidang besar itu, kita akan meletakkan cecair
09:47
logam. Dan logam cair itu, kita akan berputar dalam bulatan sehingga
09:50
membuka lubang. Dan ke dalam lubang itu kita akan memasukkan bahan bakar kita, iaitu
09:53
gas hidrogen.
09:54
Ia dipanaskan hingga beberapa juta darjah.
09:56
Dan di sekitar bahagian luar sfera ini terdapat sebilangan besar omboh
10:00
didorong oleh gas termampat.
10:01
Oleh itu, mereka menekan logam cair dan mereka merobohkan lubang dengan bahan bakar ini
10:04
terperangkap di dalam. Dan keruntuhan itu berlaku dengan sangat cepat dan menekan
10:08
bahan bakar sehingga keadaan pelakuran.
10:10
Puncak mampatan, bahan bakar menyala dan memberikan reaksi peleburan.
10:14
Tenaga itu masuk ke dalam logam cecair ini.
10:16
Jadi logam cair memanas, anda mengeluarkan logam cair panas ini, anda lari
10:20
melalui penukar haba dan anda mendidih air dan membuat wap.
10:22
Dan kemudian wap mendorong turbin untuk membuat elektrik dan menyalakannya
10:26
grid. Dan kami terus berdenyut dan melakukannya berulang kali.
10:31
Buat masa ini, komponen utama General Fusion, seperti penyuntik plasma,
10:35
susunan omboh dan ruang bahan bakar, semuanya wujud secara berasingan.
10:38
Delage ingin mengintegrasikannya ke dalam satu reaktor demonstrasi besar, a
10:42
proses yang dianggarkannya akan memakan masa sekitar lima tahun.
10:45
Ruang kira-kira seukuran ini sesuai dengan loji janakuasa yang cukup untuk
10:49
seratus ribu rumah. Dan ketika reaktor masuk dalam talian, kata Laberge
10:53
ia akan menjadikan kos kuasa General Fusion bersaing dengan arang batu
10:56
dan pembaharuan seperti angin dan solar.
10:59
Pada kadar 5 sen per kilowatt jam, sebenarnya cukup kompetitif.
11:01
Seperti lebih murah daripada banyak perkara lain.
11:04
Tetapi ia tidak lebih murah daripada gas asli.
11:07
Laberge berharap ia akhirnya akan menjadi lebih murah, kemungkinan jika
11:11
A.S. memutuskan untuk melaksanakan cukai karbon.
11:14
Pasaran tenaga di planet ini adalah satu trilion setahun.
11:16
Oleh itu, jika kita mengambil sebahagian besar dari itu, kita akan mendapat sebahagian besar daripada
11:20
trilion dolar setahun. Tetapi sebilangan pakar industri percaya bahawa swasta
11:24
syarikat seperti General Fusion terlalu optimis dengan syarikat mereka
11:27
garis masa. Dalam 10 tahun terakhir, terdapat banyak industri kecil
11:32
datang untuk mengatakan bahawa kita dapat mencapai perpaduan dalam lima tahun, sepuluh tahun.
11:36
Saya tidak mempercayainya.
11:38
Saya rasa mereka memandang rendah dan tidak memandang penuh cabaran a
11:43
reaktor pelakuran. Peleburan nuklear sukar.
11:47
Tidak ada kumpulan atau syarikat penyelidikan yang dapat mencapai apa yang disebut
11:50
titik pulang modal, di mana tenaga yang dibebaskan dari tindak balas pelakuran berada
11:54
lebih besar daripada tenaga yang diperlukan untuk memanaskan plasma yang digunakan dalam tindak balas.
11:58
Ini sebenarnya bukan teknologi tenaga.
12:04
Ini adalah penyelidikan asas.
12:07
Penyelidikan asas mempunyai nilai.
12:09
Tetapi untuk menjualnya sebagai teknologi yang akan menyelesaikan keperluan tenaga kita di
12:14
20 hingga 30 tahun akan datang adalah menipu.
12:16
Kami tidak begitu dekat.
12:18
Tetapi penyelidikan asas adalah roti dan mentega Lawrence Livermore National
12:21
Makmal. Ini telah meneliti fusion sejak penubuhannya pada tahun 1950-an.
12:27
Pada tahun 2009, makmal membuka Kemudahan Pencucuhan Nasional dengan tujuan untuk
12:30
mencapai titik pulang modal dan akhirnya memicu tindak balas pelakuran.
12:34
Dan dengan menyala kita bermaksud bahawa ia dapat memelihara diri.
12:37
Ia dapat menyebar ke seluruh bahan bakar yang terdapat dalam letupan.
12:42
Lawrence Livermore mengejar perpaduan inersia.
12:46
Iaitu, mengurung plasma pada tekanan yang sangat tinggi untuk jangka masa yang pendek
12:49
jumlah masa, menggunakan laser tenaga tinggi untuk melakukannya.
12:53
Kami berdiri dalam apa yang kami sebut sebagai Target Bay kami, melihat sasaran kami
12:58
ruang. Ruang sasaran adalah bola besar sekitar 30 kaki di seberang, dan di
13:04
di tengah-tengah bola itu, kami meletakkan sasaran yang sangat kecil mengenai ukuran
13:09
hujung jari saya, dan kami memancarkan sasaran itu dengan seratus sembilan puluh
13:15
dua laser paling bertenaga di dunia.
13:18
Penyelidik di Kemudahan Pencucuhan Nasional dan makmal nasional lain mempunyai
13:21
akses ke kekuatan pengkomputeran yang sangat besar, yang membolehkan mereka berjalan kompleks
13:24
simulasi yang membantu mereka memahami keadaan sebenar yang diperlukan
13:27
mencapai pencucuhan. Oleh itu berdasarkan simulasi terbaik kami, mereka mengatakan bahawa a
13:31
kemudahan skala ini cukup besar untuk mewujudkan reaksi pelarian ini, jika
13:37
semuanya berfungsi dengan ideal.
13:39
Tetapi jelas, menjadikan semuanya berfungsi dengan sempurna di dunia nyata adalah
13:42
jauh lebih sukar daripada yang kelihatan di skrin.
you can sign up for volunteer translator
I have never seen a "traditional" Tv channel that embraced *so well* the RUclips format.
Besides hydropower, nuclear energy is the only renewable energy that is available 24/7 and 365 days a year.
Confusing fusion with fission might be the greatest limitation to the success of nuclear power.
don't forget geothermal, which is great where it is available.
@@jsmariani4180 Agreed. :-)
Hydropower can affect local tectonic and cause e.g. localized earthquakes.
Wind power plants can affect weather conditions - e.g. prevent humid air from reaching inland.
Neither source of energy is without cons.
I think electricity in general is amazing in our everyday lives. It’s easy to forget that and take it for granted. As for side effects, I suppose weighing pros and cons is the best we can do.
@@NetZeroTech Yes, that is true. Considering impact on environment, on all stages (including production of required components of power plant), I think nuclear energy is slightly better, causing less environmental impact.
Fusion is the solution to the human race and living standard. It is insane that globaly we invest more in R&D for cellphones and the next best camera rather than prioritize less than 20 B to build the future of energy security.
volker engels thats what research and investment is
Andrew Yang running for president will change this!
Great reporting, editing, writing and production. Great to see CNBC delivering stuff like this.
Yang for thorium reactors! Secure the stepping stone
We need to support nuclear fusion power research!
Its not about us, its about the future. Our children and their children will benefit from our actions. Think of our medical or technology advances during our own generation that have been astronomical and how its immensely changed our lives, just imagine what our future holds with cleaner, safer and abundant energy.
Also think bigger, not just our own immediate benefit which we see in our homes. Say good bye to coal, petrol and other fossil fuels. Say hello to entire countries run on electric cars, ships, airplanes, factories, building machinery, desalinations plants, etc. made with smaller carbon footprints but near zero emissions.
Nobody wants to pay for the installation of sewer systems, fiber optics for internet or highways for the community but there is no arguing the benefits when they are completed and when we're using them.
Nuclear Fission: Exists
Nuclear Fusion: I'm about to end this man's entire career.
Blaze I was looking for a comment similar to this.
what career, WHAT CAREER
(in thirty years, thirty years from now)
No suprise. They are spin machines... They hate Tesla for the same reason.
Nuclear is much safer using salt as a containment.
It's the Heavy & light water reactors that are used for making weapons fuel & polute the environment.
20:24 Nuclear Power isn't a zero sum game. Fission is the solution for the short term, near future, up to 2050 (perhaps even 2100) but Fusion is the long term solution for 2100+ and beyond and won't just meet our energy needs here on Earth but will also allow humanity to begin colonizing the solar system.
Fission harnesses the power of splitting the atom while Fusion harnessing the power of fusing it, which is what powers the sun, which is the reason for all life on Earth.
We should be investing in BOTH!
Precisely. 💯💯
Exactly
Wholeheartedly agree, development and improvement of fission plants as well as further research and investment into eventual fusion power are both imperitive
Assuming we will find a way to NOT fry our planet before then with too much CO2 being dumped in to the atmosphere and heating up the permafrost CO2 storage bank.
ruclips.net/video/pLDUIofn5KY/видео.html
"Its just not possible in the next 20-30 years"
-Science journalist
"We are building one that will be 500MW output for 50MW input"
-PHD Scientist running large scale multinational project
-
What is it with journalists commenting on things that they literally are not qualified to comment on? You guys are reporters not field experts, its like asking an actor who played the president on TV how the president should respond to an international crisis.
Dude! He meant commercial plant is not possible in next 20-30 years
@@SR-bm7vv Cool, in that case I meant the commercial reactor called DEMO.
My point stands journalist are supposed to report the opinions of field experts or document events. Journalists are not supposed to interview their friends to create an alternative perspective.
Most critics of nuclear energy are those who don't really understand what energy is, how it's transferred, how it can be generated, and the different types of conversion.
Maybe. But there are also critics who look beyond fancy simulations of how well nuclear power plants can handle limited range of situations. If you look at the details of nuclear disasters, the pattern emerges: human operator errors, unexpected conditions, several small accidents leading to the critical failure. You can create complex automatic systems and strict opertation protocols all you want but some plane crashing straight into the reactor can still lead to a disaster. Other energy options just don't have so tremendously high cost for a failure. And failure is natural thing for both humans and things they create.
Well it worked wonders for Goku and Vegeta when they went up against Buu, so yeah Fusion is ok....
this is not.. fusion
What does the scouter say about Nuclear Fusion’s power level?
@@billoddy5637 Only that it's over 9000
Of course there HAD to be this joke...
and I love it! XD
just as long as we get those dragon balls...
Good name: Magnetic Plasma Fusion.
Bad name: Nuclear Fusion.
--
Erase the word "nuclear" from this industry's efforts.
The bad word is fission, everyone is on board with nuclear fusion
@@billsgui Everyone who knows what they are talking about.
But when you consider the general public... Yeah, you'd better not use the word " Nuclear "
It needs to use the word “nuclear” because both fission and fusion energy are generated altering substance’s nucleus
@@billsgui 95% of the humans on this planet are fearful of the word nuclear. Most don't know the difference between fusion and fusion. Not only are the terms similar but the explanation sounds the same to many. One doesnt call his boss a 'schmuck'. One shouldn't be advocating 'nuclear' solutions.
@@OscarDiaz-nn9ch @fhd fah 95% of the humans on this planet are fearful of the word nuclear. Most don't know the difference between fusion and fusion. Not only are the terms similar but the explanation sounds the same to many. One doesnt call his boss a 'schmuck'. One shouldn't be advocating 'nuclear' solutions.
When I hear nuclear reactor
I remember my 2012's
(Minecraft IC2)
tepco2011
That "science writer" is so pessimistic.
Here some inspiring news: we achieved a vaccine in less than a year, something that took several years or even decades before.
Humanity is improving. Have faith.
That dude is so annoying
We were already working on that vaccine though. It was a different stead of COVID which we made a vaccine before and some modifications were all it needed. The issue was producing and distributing.
It's not a 'vaccine'.
This was excellent. Thank you CNBC. Of the scientists featured, I would have like to have heard their opinion on thorium reactors. But I appreciate how all of them agreed that it's not simply one solution that should be looked at, and innovation should be promoted in all the areas discussed.
9:50 “preheated up to a few million degrees”
I’m sorry, what??? I want to know more about that! Sounds really interesting to learn how it’s preheated to those temperatures amongst other things!
It depends a lot on the type of fusion reactor, but often it's done by basically microwaving the gas in a way if I recall correctly (definitely not a nuclear scientist, do not take any of my word as fact). The reason it works is because the gas is kept away from the walls by electromagnets, and thus there isn't really anything to give heat off to. Second reason is because the amount of gas is tiny, just a few grams, if even that, so relatively little energy is necessary to get it to those temperatures (Still needs an incredible amount of energy however). Linus Tech Tips has an entire video about this specific reactor design, as they visited it.
Yo are heating only two hydrogen atoms.even at few million degrees,the heat i unlikely to be dangerous
As SlayerOfTheBad said, there are many approaches. But the typical tokamak reactor design uses lasers to heat a very small space, confined by an intense electromagnetic field (so it doesn't directly contact the other materials in the reactor). This is also why it is so difficult to get more energy out than in, because both those lasers and strong electromagnetic fields take lots of energy. But, as with most things, these things tend to get more optimized and efficient over time.
David pretty sure a tokamak doesnt use lasers just regular old microwaves
Lasers though are used in a different design where they shoot lasers from all sides and that way compressing and heating a tiny peelt containing hydrogen
But im no nuclear scientist
You know you could just search some educational videos or Google for the wiki article
"public opinion on nuclear fission remains split" 17:43
i see what you did there
this.
When they finally achieve sustained fusion reaction at ITER, i really want the lead scientist to say: ''The power of the sun... in the palm of my hand.'' Can we make a petition for that?
There was no coverage here on Thorium which is cheaper and considerably less hazardous.
Thorium is a possible fuel for fast breeder reactors, but currently it is more hype than anything else. There is enough already mined uranium out there, even enriched one. Just disassemble those terrible nuclear weapons and use them as fuel. And use the light water reactor waste as fuel too. When we get low on these resources, then we could start mining Thorium. But until then so much time has passed, that there is the possibility that fusion is also an option.
Currently existing technology are Gen III and Gen III+ reactors. These are the reactor types that are inherently secure (don't need active cooling, won't self destruct when let alone) and can be built right now. There are even designs for Gen IV reactors like the GE Hitachi Prism.
Unfortunately we live in a time where people are scared to death by one the safest forms of energy production ( www.nextbigfuture.com/2011/03/deaths-per-twh-by-energy-source.html ).
In what ways are thorium cheaper? The logistics alone will be expensive, not to mention the ongoing trade war with all thorium rich countries.
@@wyw201 its like far more abundant in the earths crust by alot go check it out if u dont believe me
Patheir Brown that doesn’t make it cheaper
@@iain3713 it also produces significantly less secondary radioactive left overs as they are safer than the current bread of uranium reactors.
The Russian and Japan Reactor mishaps were old tech from the 60s and 70s.
I,m sure a reactor with 2020 innovations would be much safer.
Molten salt nuclear reactors running on thorium is the safe way to do nuclear fission. They cannot meltdown, and they don't explode like today's reactors. The radioactive waste they produce is safe after three hundreds compared to today's radioactive waste taking tens of thousands of years to become safe.
ruclips.net/video/uK367T7h6ZY/видео.html
🤣🤣🤣
@@Les_S537 yes and advancements to make reactors safer are being worked on all the time. Unfortunate that so many people have such a negative stigma surrounding nuclear power, they won't even open their minds to accept research or new developments.
@Jason Tempel What does that mean?
@Jason Tempel are you talking about what happened to the funds for the cleaning up programmes?
Why not talk about thorium fission reactors? There's a lot of potential to be used there and it would fit beautifully to the theme. Great documentary tho.
Because we need "normal" nuclear reactors to hide the true cost of building nuclear bombs (which is why, for example, in the US, nuclear weapon grade material creation comes under the Department of Energy, rather than being part of the defence budget) so there's a lot of money and power behind giving people a false impression of thorium not actually having any benefits, including some very official reports that can easily convince gullible reporters (who think they are journalists) who are left with the impression that it's just some quackery that people on the internet believe.
@@annoloki you know that in normal nuclear reactors low enriched uranium is used, while nuclear weapons need highly enriched uranium. Also this would only explain the reason why it's not used in the USA, while most countries don't even have nukes anymore.
ruclips.net/video/GQ9Ll5EX1jc/видео.html
annoloki no
@@flipsmith5426 click the link. It makes sense because the government wanted uranium for bombs more than clean nuclear power
So far there is no other feasible alternative with anywhere near the potential and capacity to replace fossil fuel electricity generation. Yet even fusion is a long time off. Our full time reliance on fossil fuels and present nuclear is essential at the moment until fusion is fully successful. Why don't more people understand these basic realistic facts?
fossil fuel electricity generation can entirely be phased out by nuclear fission, which also doubles as the safest energy source we have.
Meanwhile Tony Stark built one of these in a cave with a box of scaps
BEST COMMENT
Well.... these guys aren't Tony Stark.
hahahaha!
what is a "scap"?
@@CaryGlennDavisbasically metal that is junk that could be used to make something in the apocalypse
“If the human race is still around in the year 2500”, this guy gives the vibe that we won’t lol
He's prolly right. Like his vibe makes me sad, but looking at how things are headed :D... :(
“If the human race is still around in the year 2500” What the ... is the human race? Why does everything in America always have to be assigned to a race?
It's entirely possible that we won't and that's not being pessimistic. It's obvious that instead of trying to understand the way people who might live peaceful but different lives than our own are subject to fear and hatred when they shouldn't be. The divisions we see in government, religion, race and gender have fueled murder and genocide for as long as there have been humans. At this point, it looks like we're heading in the wrong direction. The only way we get to 2500 is with peace and understanding. The outstanding and more pressing reason are the people who don't believe in climate change. Belief cannot change stop rising sea levels and melting polar ice caps. Aboriginal peoples are being displaced. Whether you believe it or not, it's happening.
Schmorfi Torfi we are all literally humans, what are you talking about
@@wat3r-243 I am talking about human 'race' and I ask what it could be and why only US-People obviously know what it could be, because they talking a lot about it. Even scientist. What is ist and why they always talk about? Can we are all literally humans and simultaneously a human race?
At school in US, children must indicate which race they belong to? True or false?
I like the idea of fusion but I also like that we are looking at all kinds of ideas. We are keeping our options open.
Sorry to have to tell you this, but nuclear fusion is NOT like the solar fusion process. The sun takes four protons and with inordinately high densities and temperatures (1000 times that of the photosphere) in a remarkably long time makes a helium nucleus. The Bikini bomb fused together a tritium and a deuterium nucleus. That's two protons and three neutrons, and it makes a helium nucleus and a fiendishly high powered neutron. The problem is that the nuclear strong force needs neutrons to make it work.
The other options --we have three or even four versions of the nuclear fission option quite well proven.
But the biggest or "most successful" of the popularly defined "renewable energy" quite clearly are an expensive environmental blunder or abomination.
What about the development Thorium while we continue working on fusion. If we ever get there it will be an amazing time to be alive.
Thorium is no magic solution it has a bad scattering cross section. so to slow the newtons down to get a chain reaction you need a graphite medium. Which is hard to replace. Uranium reactors are already a well developed technology we could deploy today.
@@the0dued we are deploying it today. your argument sounds like the arguments they used against EV cars... outdated
@@janousekjakob6408 I was trying to say that thorium is no magic solution not that it dose not work there are reactors today that use the thorium cycles in use for example CANDU reactors. But there just are not a lot of big advantages to use thorium. I'v just seen a lot of people act like thorium is some magic thing that will solve all the worlds problems. Its a usable fuel with a large abundance but its not like we would run out of U238 to run in breeder reactors.
We won't and I guarantee the next 10 years are going to be terrible.
@@the0dued Hi, could you pls tell me the names of the thorium reactors. And what are the main disadvantages? Thanks!
Scientific interview, scientist gives dimensions in yards...
triggered
You'd be much happier letting things go that dont affect you.
@@BoogerDeluxe22 It's still very odd and sounds wrong to me
Probably just trying to make it easier to understand for more people, as actual smart people do
He has to dumb it down. You cannot assume that the vast mass of people is sufficiently educated. He did a good job
In the meantime we should be investing in thorium fission reactors, much less nuclear waste (than conventional reactors) and almost impossible to get into a dangerous state like a melt down.
Yes. Preach.
Thorium is a more accessible solution because it’s already been invented. Search RUclips for TEAC.
.
If something this pandemic has taught us, then it is that the public opinion is not a very reliable source to make a well-educated judgment and take the best course of action even if the most efficient solution is presented on a silver platter
I think that you are absolutely right!👍
That one guy is a totally hater. It sounds like he got fired by them
he was just depressing to listen to
Yeah, how dare he be skeptical of the pipe dream that scamming "experts" have been selling people for 100 years and try to deny them their well-earned tax money subsidies? He should obviously just fall in line with everyone else and pretend that fusion power is now definitely just around the corner despite the fact that these glorious visionaries still have yet to even produce a proof of concept. And just in case you are going to say "the Sun": Don't make me laugh.
@@ole555 What? Why would I mention the sun?😂 Your sarcasm is kinda cute
@@moisesmontecillo7570 Because that is the only "proof" of fusion power which is ever cited by anyone.
@@ole555 well theres the hydron collider but yeah not really contained energy
Thomas Edison: "I have not failed. I have just found 10,000 ways that won't work."
That's a Nikola Tesla quote, sir.
Not Thomas Edison.
Check better, sorry I did not mean to be a smart ass.
@@levisalvini4110 It was, indeed, Edison.
However, Tesla did have a snappy comeback to that quote:
"If Edison had a needle to find in a haystack, he would proceed at once with the diligence of the bee to examine straw after straw until he found the object of his search. I was a sorry witness of such doing that a little theory and calculation would have saved him ninety percent of his labor.”
@@DesertTripper Or yknow, using magnet ...
Tesla also said "Do the math right the first time and then you don't have 1000 mistakes."
9:10 guys nuclear reactor making tool is two spanners jimmy rigged together to tighten a bolt! state of the art... what can possibly go wrong?!
Lol
I feel like they should use a torque wrench
Cherokee93 ehh it’ll be fine
Ha ha, plumbers have better tools. Not enough investment?
When things work in ways you don't know, they work in ways you don't like...
I wish the average common modern person knew more about how nuclear energy works
Fun fact: nuclear energy is actually roughly 200x cleaner than solar
Alen Zhang and cheaper that’s why the fossil fuel lobby and the wind/solar lobby are fighting it.
Fun fact. I HAVE NEVER SEEN PEOPLE WEARING PROTECTIVE SUITS WHILE INSTALLING #SOLAR SYSTEM. TRY THAT WITH #CLEAN #NUCLEAR.
@@texasdude1 your statement is 100% #FAKENEWS. IT'S NOT IN ANY WAY CHEAPER THEN #WIND AND #SOLAR.
@@mexicanracer03 LOL you're the fake news....
C Angel they sure were protective suits and respirators making solar panels that’s toxic, you don’t think nuclear is cheaper 😂
Nuclear fusion is kinda like a modern day cathedral, taking generations to complete.
@@krystal5887 sure, I guess you also believe the erth is flat? Always funny when some random dude believe to be more intelligent the our best scientists that we have on earth.
@@krystal5887 How does nuclear fusion defy the laws of physics?
Good analogy!!
That computer guy haircut is legendary
Check out George tsoukalos from ancient aliens. His hairdo is a meme.
0:00 , 3:21 nice this power plant is in Switzerland Gösgen kkw😝
THORIUM REACTORS!!!
RIGHT!!! Like really needed it 50 years ago.
Yang Gang 2020!!!!
Thorium reactors might be a dead end looking at all the research around
Thorium will never be able to beat nuclear fusion reactors, stop bullshitting
can't make a bomb out of it.
When she says mass is converted to energy.
Well yeah, but actually no.
I mean, it is. "Converted" may be the wrong word seeing as mass *is* energy, but in context, we are converting one form of energy (mass), to another (heat/radiation), sooo.....
Mass already _ARE_ energy... tied up energy that is...
Genesis You keep using that word; I don’t think it means what you think it means
The internal combustion engine has been around and improved to an amazing degree for over 130 years. We should be spending more time improving nuclear fission, Thorium reactors are still largely unused and need more research instead of wasting so much money and time on only fusion.
But cars and planes only got viable once the internal combustion engine was developed, even though steam engines had been optimized for close to 150 years by then. Likewise, the first jet engines developed were so far above the piston engine in performance, that 10 years after the first jet powered fighter had flown, no modern military on earth was building prop fighters anymore.
There is never an argument for spending less on research. Technologies like fusion are just so far above all the rest in power and potential, that it's like comparing a modern supersonic fighter aircraft to a WW2 era prop plane.
Yes, and if nuclear fission had been allowed to develop into planes and rockets, we'd probably have come further along with fusion from the experiments in alternate designs.
@@Servetus54 Maybe, but the word radiation sounds scary and so the people stayed uneducated and obstinate.
I'm here after the announcement.
Same, revisiting the sentiment 2 yrs ago to now.
Thorium reactors should be cheaper and safer.
Vote for Andrew Yang for president. He is the only democratic candidate to mention thorium.
What everyone forgets about Star Trek is that the ships of the Federation also have fusion reactions in addition to the warp core.
Fun fact: artificial gravity generated by gravity plating or similar means (Not centrifugal force) would actual create mass. This means a small object like a starship would have the same 1G of earth, thus able to move the planet out of orbit or cause massive earthquakes when in orbit.
Artificial gravity would have to have simulated centrifuges or real ones to avoid such catastrophes.
@@리주민 That's not the important part here! With Clarketech like real artificial gravity, there are nigh infinite possibilities for all sorts of things!
What a group of scifi writers came up with has little bearing on reality, other than giving engineers and designers ideas.
1. Stabilizing magnetic field during reaction = solving one of the millennium puzzles
2. Better superconducting material
3. Materials that can either self repair or survive the neutron bombardment.
Those are just a couple obstacles in the way and im sure I'm missing a couple hundred.
Is the millenium puzzle you are referring to the navier stokes equations?
Self-sustaining plasma would solve two of those issues.
@@SAAARC yh and some other intractable problems I'm not aware of.
The video is very old. Lots of breakthrough is already happening right now. The fact that they do not showcase that nuclear fusion positive netgain is possible in 2024 just shows how old this video is. Nuclear fusion is not fairytale anymore nowadays.
People have been saying nuclear fusion is “30 years away” for 70 years.
Thats just good marketing, because no matter when they figure it out, it will be 30 years ahead of schedule^^
Now it is 30 years away
The problem is that scientists are groping along fusion, at that scale matter and energy behave in a very strange way and they find a lot of engineering issues that cannot be forseen. ITER is the replacement for JET, that was tobe the final reactor, however scientists found unsolvable problems once JET was build and they projected ITER to solve them and nobody knows if the situation will happen again with ITER and we will need an ITER 2.0.
he said they got 10000 times for fusion outa prototypes now than 40 years ago so they are obviously making good progress.
We used to say that in grad school -- called it the Fusion Constant. 30 years.
this was a very good documentary, I was surprised it came from CNBC
While I want fusion to be a thing, it's hard to be excited when the working result from even the first prototype would come out in whoever know how many years into the future.
They can’t even take care of the spare rods they already have. Just put them in big containers and not checked to see if they are leaking into the ground water? The guy at EPA that was head of that division, had a red passport and didn’t show up to work for three years. They have improved anything since then? Actually, it’s worse now.
ruclips.net/video/CMdBXg1LUY0/видео.html
ruclips.net/video/kqmy9jrKync/видео.html
Damn CNBC i'm impressed but all jokes aside we need to get Stark Industries in on this project.
Elon actually was asked in an interview once what would he do if he wasn"t occupied with Tesla and SpaceX do and he replied "I could probably make fusion work" :D So fingers crossed for him to succeed quickly and find a replacement CEO for himself there to run things while he makes this happen. By the way these old faithless pessimist guys... They sound pretty much how NASA sounded before Elon actually landed the first Falcon9. They wouldn't be on the team with this attitude if I could have a say in it that's for sure.
Iron man was actually powered by a mini fusion reactor, that’s what was in Tony’s chest
Bruce banner was way ahead
I can't wait for General Fusion to have an IPO
Yessir!!🤑
International pancake order?
You will lose all your money if you go long
Dont buy any. Dead end. What they propose is no doubt possible and simple but economically its not viable. Producing energy is one thing, producing CHEAP energy is another completely... makes tokamaks seens like a good idea in comparison. In fact, tokamaks ARE a very good idea, the problem right now is more a engineering problem than a physics problem.. Its the sun in a bottle problem: we know how to create the sun but its not easy to build a bottle that can stand insane levels of all kinds of radiation for prolonged periods of time... and thats only the small fraction of radiation which escapes the (insanely strong) magnetic field. And the general fusion vessel must handle ALL of that radiation!!! I hope they have a unobitanium or vibranium mine secretly somewhere...
@@MrThepinkeagle who says I'm going long? I just want to see their cash flows. I can do my own fundamental analysis beyond that.
I absolutely agree: nuclear fission is only scary for those who don't know about it. I've studied it as part of my education as a chemical engineer, and I'm convinced that nuclear will be fundamental to the clean energy future of the world. Of special note are liquid fluoride thorium reactors, which are clean, safe, efficient, and can produce tons of useful (and lucrative) by-products that have essential applications (like in radiological imaging of cancers, etc.).
I wholeheartedly agree!
I too am a chemical engineer, and I used to work on the JET project at Culham. Unfortunately, we most likely will not be seeing viable fusion power in our lifetimes (certainly not from Tokamak types).
I actually lived in front of a nuclear laboratory for the majority of my life (They built reactors for the US navy). I'm still alive
Fusion might be in the future but lftr fission would use the old “waste” fuel from other reactors
So it's a good thing both are being researched :)
Rikkerd Harderz One political party is trying to shut fission plants down. Biden tried to shut my father's plant in NJ down since the goddamn 90's. We would have plants and procedures on par with France and India by now if they weren't busy fear-mongering and setting up roadblocks.
JerseySlayer Not necessarily, is it not a good thing to not accept things as is, you may not agree with their ideas or anything they stand for but when others challenge us to do better its human nature to go above and beyond what we ever thought was possible, rejection is the if not one of the best tools for growth because it allows for reflection and us to question ourselves and what’s possible, we must strive for excellence. “We are what we repeatedly do. Excellence, then, is not an act, but a habit.” Aristotle. So never accept things as good enough. Simply look at how long it took for electric cars to become competitive and even considered plausible that wasn’t possible until we looked past short term economic gains and employment disruptions to push towards a greater objective, (I think automation is another great idea that’s not being nearly as embraced as it should be because of the short term economic disruptions) or go back to the origin of nuclear energy, you must understand. It was crisis that pushed mankind hard enough to accomplish those things and build the frame work and institutions of world governments that still exists today which would have not been possible unless for the great crisis’s of the era the Great Depression and WW2, namely. It takes people challenging the status quo even when it’s not convenient and great crisis’s like harsh rejections to spark the thirst for knowledge that gives us the greatest of innovations. “The Chinese use two brush strokes to write the word 'crisis.' One brush stroke stands for danger; the other for opportunity. In a crisis, be aware of the danger--but recognize the opportunity.” “Institutionalized rejection of difference is an absolute necessity in a profit economy which needs outsiders as surplus people.” Audre Lorde
people over reaction nuclear waste but it isnt that bad. All forms of energy make waste. Coal has killed millions by bad air and dozens by failed coal slug collapses
I like how they are working to achieve fusion using completely different methods
Yes thes different ideas led into a perfectly success or a worst experience.
ONLY FEW COUNTRIES HAVE DONE SUCCESSFUL EXPERIMENTS CAREFULLY .
@@ramsesrameez5430 they finally did it
12/12/22, the day we achieved net positive energy output from nuclear fusion
The fusion reaction at 6:07 is not complete: a neutron is missing. It is D + T --> He + n.
This is quite a significant mistake, as the neutron is used to heat up the walls of the vessel surrounding the plasma, and thus eventually driving a turbine (generating electricity).
The energy of the Helium nucleus is used to further heat the plasma, trying to sustain the fusion reaction.
He + He --> S +H + Am + O + U + Na
Deuterium is rich in the Philippines for those who wants a sample experiment.
Why no mention of thorium molten salt reactors?
Because the NRC is against their use. They claim they're too complex to operate, etc... NASA rocket scientists said reusable rockets would never work, and look at what SpaceX has done. Government bureaucracies rarely get things right.
ruclips.net/video/GQ9Ll5EX1jc/видео.html
That's why, US government wanted bombs
@@anonymoususer6185 Well, you can get nuclear bombs from thorium reactors, but it's a convoluted process to do it.
Vote for Andrew Yang for president. He is the only democratic candidate to mention thorium.
Thorium nuclear power plants - that's the future!
Vote for Andrew Yang for president. He is the only democratic candidate to mention thorium.
noob noob sadly the only candidates to apply modern solutions to modern times and the only one addressing how technology is changing our lives
@@NoobNoobNews i would not call it a gamble. I call it a first step solution to solving our problems. UBI won't raise our debt and it cost around $1.5 to $3 trillion. Three major factors to pay for it are:
1) Putting money into people hands...when people get more money they spend more money and it circulates into the economy. the money doesnt go away and it would pay back around $600 billion
2) Welfare overlap...america typically spends around $1 trillion on it. If everyone who is on welfare and wants to keep it then the cost for UBI will go down. If people who want to switch from their welfare to UBI then the cost would go up and the money typically spent on welware will go towards UBI.
3) VAT (Value added tax)...this is the most complicated. tech corporations dont pay their taxes. Amazon paid 0 in taxes in 2018. VAT has been already implemented in developed countries like Europe and Australia. VAT make sure big tech corporations like google,facebook,apple,etc. pay their taxes. So VAT at 10% half the European level will pay back around. $800 billion
There are also small factors like the carbon fee tax where you charge companies every time they pollute a certain amount of pollution. Small factors should add up to paying back around a few hundred billion bucks. Also UBI is supposed to combat against job loss due to automation displacing half of common american jobs as we are entering the fourth industrial revolution. Elon Musk agrees and supports Yang.
14:06 this dude invented backwards welding
I saw that too. I had to rewatch it several times to be sure I wasn’t seeing things.
I also think we should invest more in thorium reactors
I really think this could be the answer