Why Don't We Have Nuclear Fusion Power Yet?

Share
Embed
  • Published on Feb 6, 2019
  • Thanks to LastPass for sponsoring this video. Check out LastPass here: bit.ly/2GbcEci
    Fusion power is supposed to save us from fossil fuels, so when is nuclear fusion going to be a viable option and why has it been so elusive?
    Hosted by: Stefan Chin
    SciShow has a spinoff podcast! It's called SciShow Tangents. Check it out at www.scishowtangents.org
    ----------
    Support SciShow by becoming a patron on Patreon: www.patreon.com/scishow
    ----------
    Dooblydoo thanks go to the following Patreon supporters: Greg, Alex Schuerch, Alex Hackman, Andrew Finley Brenan, Sam Lutfi, D.A. Noe, الخليفي سلطان, Piya Shedden, KatieMarie Magnone, Scott Satovsky Jr, Charles Southerland, Patrick D. Ashmore, charles george, Kevin Bealer, Chris Peters
    ----------
    Looking for SciShow elsewhere on the internet?
    Facebook: facebook.com/scishow
    Twitter: twitter.com/scishow
    Tumblr: scishow.tumblr.com
    Instagram: instagram.com/thescishow
    ----------
    Sources:
    www.scientificamerican.com/article/how-long-will-global-uranium-deposits-last/
    www.teslarati.com/porsche-ceo-hints-taycan-initial-production-911-hybrid/
    www.bbc.co.uk/news/science-environment-27138087
    www.scientificamerican.com/article/experts-urge-u-s-to-continue-support-for-nuclear-fusion-research/
    www.businessinsider.com/china-east-experimental-advanced-superconducting-tokamak-nuclear-fusion-reactor-100-million-degrees-2018-12?r=US&IR=T
    www.theengineer.co.uk/first-light-fusion-debut-test/
    www.theengineer.co.uk/tokamak-energy-15-million-fusion/
    www3.nd.edu/~nsl/Lectures/phys20061/pdf/10.pdf
    nuclearweaponarchive.org/Library/Teller.html
    science.howstuffworks.com/nuclear-waste-disposal.htm
    www.iter.org/newsline/-/2845
    fire.pppl.gov/NIF_NIC_rev6_Koonin_2012.pdf
    large.stanford.edu/courses/2015/ph241/baumer1/
    e-reports-ext.llnl.gov/pdf/550771.pdf
    www.iter.org/fr/newsline/-/3121
    www.iter.org/doc/www/content/com/Lists/ITER%20Technical%20Reports/Attachments/9/ITER-Research-Plan_final_ITR_FINAL-Cover_High-Res.pdf
    physics.stackexchange.com/questions/175830/nuclear-fusion-scaling-with-reactor-size

    ITER:
    www.iter.org/sci/whatisfusion
    www.iter.org/sci/plasmaheating
    www.iter.org/sci/Fusion
    www.iter.org/sci/Goals
    NIF:
    lasers.llnl.gov/science/energy-for-the-future
    lasers.llnl.gov/science/ignition/ignition-experiments
    lasers.llnl.gov/news/experimental-highlights/2015/may

Comments • 2 024

  • TheRumpus
    TheRumpus 13 hours ago

    Any script which includes the lines "a bunch of energy" as occurs about the the 2:45 mark, suggests the author has no idea what they are talking about. So I stopped watching there.
    Why is it that the non-regular presenters seem to have dumb-downed scripts? Presumably they have some input on the script.

  • JS Wong
    JS Wong 13 hours ago

    Starts of by saying fusion doesn't produce any radioactive waste or by-product, unlike nuclear fission.
    Ends up stating correctly, 7 minutes later, that neutrons released from fusion turns the reactor vessel itself highly radioactive. The vessel itself becomes the "radioactive waste".
    Unlike the fission products and "unburned" mixed oxide fuel elements in nuclear fission reactors, which can be reprocessed to new fuel (in the case of the "unburned" fuel) or diverted for beneficial use e.g. industrial materials and radiomedicine (for the fission products), or even consumed in another type of reactor (heavy isotopes produced in thermal spectrum reactors can be fissioned in fast spectrum reactors), there's pretty much nothing you can do with the radioactive reactor vessel of a fusion reactor. Besides letting it stick around, buried somewhere, irradiating the surroundings for thousands of years.

  • Chris Ashby
    Chris Ashby 14 hours ago

    turbulent juice

  • C.C. Rider
    C.C. Rider 18 hours ago

    ok i'll be the first to admit, i'm pretty much dumb as dirt, but HOW is solar and wind energy harmful to the ecosystem?

  • Sean Haggard
    Sean Haggard 18 hours ago

    The real question is why isn't our grid powered 100 % by fission plants. We have harnessed the power of sun. We should use it.

  • Trevor Johnson
    Trevor Johnson 23 hours ago

    Hi there. Has current theory goes to get a finite amount of fusion energy in this day and age, we expend more energy then we received, as for it's always 30 years away, most physicists theorise you can take that to the bank. It's containing the little amounts that are generated even for a nanosecond.. What's that bloody thing called, the CERN super collider and they want to build a bigger one, they have produced other particles that have lasted longer. Whoop de doo. G . A small God. Goofus. Allegedly.

  • Charlie Lund
    Charlie Lund Day ago

    "We don't want radioactive waste hanging out on the planet for thousands of years, threatening peoples lives." Sigh... Nuclear Waste doesn't hurt anyone, and probably never will. It can sit in an underground repository until the end of time. Also the better fission reactors we get, the less time the waste needs to decay to background. A liquid fueled fast reactor will consume all the transuranics leaving only fission products as waste, and those decay relatively quickly. Don't be afraid of long lived waste, Uranium 238 has a 4.4 x 10^9 year half life, but that means it is very very weak at emitting radiation. Short half life = dangerous for short amount of time. Long half life = not dangerous at all for a very long time. Don't be spooked by long half lifes.

  • Snoov747
    Snoov747 Day ago

    haha charged gas

  • Simmi_
    Simmi_ Day ago

    Would this mean that a fission reactor would be a perpetual motion engine? I thought it was impossible to create energy, we can only change it's type? They said in the video they hope to get more energy out then they put in. Surely if we cannot create energy this isn't possible? Am I being dumb?

    • Simmi_
      Simmi_ 14 hours ago

      +Noah McCann I did mean mean fusion, I was slightly drunk when writing that comment. I have a basic understanding of general relativity but Im struggling to grasp how putting energy into a machine will net a sustained gain in energy for a long period. Does this not go against the conservation of energy law? I'm meaning you can only ever get back what you put in.

    • Noah McCann
      Noah McCann 19 hours ago

      Simmi_ I assume you meant “fusion reactor” rather than “fission reactor”- but in either case there is no perpetual motion. As you said, energy must change from one form to another. In the case of nuclear reactions the energy comes from the mass of the input. If you measure the mass of the output, it is less than the input - the difference was converted into energy. This is due to the equivalence of mass and energy, as the (simplified) equation from Einstein shows: e=mc^2, where ‘e’ is energy, ‘m’ is mass, and ‘c’ is the speed of light. You can get a lot of energy from a small amount of mass. But you must first overcome the bonds that hold the nucleus together.

  • William Johnson
    William Johnson Day ago

    Molten salt reactors using thorium are overlooked because is almost ready to go. The money spent on fast breeders should have been changing Thorium232 to Uradium233 instead of changing U radium238 into Plutonium239.

  • Stefan Schleps
    Stefan Schleps Day ago

    Like everything else our all-knowing scientists have done over the last hundred years. Fusion power seems environmentally sound. Until there is a breach of some kind within a *Tokamak. And we end up with a runaway fusion reaction spilling gigantic amount of highly radioactive material into the atmosphere for thirty or a hundred thousand years. Or until some genius just has
    to prove himself by developing a fusion bomb. And like the Castle Bravo test miscalculates the yield and the Earth ends up being fried and humanity ends up extinct. Another thirty years....*( but yeah, the magnetic field seems like a step forward.)
    Peace.

    • Stefan Schleps
      Stefan Schleps 15 hours ago

      +Noah McCann Yeah, you're right.

    • Noah McCann
      Noah McCann 19 hours ago

      Stefan Schleps fusion reactions cannot enter a runaway state largely due to the high temperatures needed to sustain them. While you are likely correct that this technology will have environmental impacts we have not fully considered, I think that is a very poor reason to avoid its study. Particularly given the known environmental impacts of our existing energy production methods. Also, to avoid something because “humanity ends up extinct” is pointless - humanity ends up extinct no matter what we do. Either it actually becomes extinct, or it morphs into something that cannot reasonably be called human in our modern sense. Neither are good reasons to let our technology stagnate.

  • WOLTROX
    WOLTROX Day ago +1

    Simple Nuclear Power is a Hoax😂

  • Jack
    Jack Day ago

    Unless Hank Green is hosting, I don't watch the video.

  • Dennis Gillanders

    Amateur leftist double talk

  • SciFi Factory
    SciFi Factory Day ago

    This video feels like it was made 8 years ago ... there are so many new fusion projects.

  • Per Norrström
    Per Norrström Day ago

    Fusion does releas radioactive waste but not so mutch and it only stays radioactive for 100 years compared to 100 000

  • Blue Steel
    Blue Steel Day ago

    Sorry, distracting hand gestures. Couldn't finish.

  • Josh Wanuck
    Josh Wanuck Day ago

    Once we figure out fusion can’t we just split the atoms and then combine the atoms together again and over and over

    • Noah McCann
      Noah McCann 19 hours ago

      Josh Wanuck this is not possible, because when the atoms are split some of there mass is converted into energy. It is this energy which is collected by the reactor. One way to think of this is like cutting a chocolate bar - every time you make a cut, a small amount of the chocolate is being lost as small flakes of chocolate or chocolate dust. If you cut the chocolate 10 times and then put the (large) pieces back together, they wouldn’t have the same weight as the original bar. Note that this isn’t a perfect example - because you could collect all of the small chocolate shavings and restore the original weight. In the case of fusion/fission what you’ve converted to energy cannot be easily converted back to mass - and even if it could, that wouldn’t get you any usable energy because the energy you could have used was instead put back into the reactor.

  • Joe Eoj
    Joe Eoj Day ago

    we don't have fusion cause scientists are stupid................

  • tyler a
    tyler a Day ago

    the new reactor in France just seems like a larger JET remix.

    The remix to ignition.

  • JesseMoshe
    JesseMoshe 2 days ago

    I wonder whether there is a way that the particle effects from nuclear fission can be harnessed to assist in sustaining a fusion reaction.

  • Phone User
    Phone User 2 days ago

    Man made climate change is a scam.

  • nhzxboi
    nhzxboi 2 days ago

    Slow down! Allow some time for contemplation!

  • Axel Kusanagi
    Axel Kusanagi 2 days ago

    UGH! Just use Thorium MSRs until then! It's as plentiful as lead and uses 99% of the energy in its bonds, can be bred with radioactive waste to render it inert, and it's walk-away safe and makes no waste of its own.
    Seriously, why hasn't the science community put all its weight behind this technology before daydreaming about pie-in-the-sky crap that may never pan out? Because it's a stopgap? I just don't get it.

  • Doom And Gloom
    Doom And Gloom 2 days ago

    What we need is a Thorium Molten Salt Reactor.
    Thorium is the future.

  • Fun Trump-fact
    Fun Trump-fact 2 days ago

    Why Don't We Have Nuclear Fusion Power Yet? Good question, SciShow, but don't ask me. Watch your own video to find out.
    A better title would have been *'This Is Why We Don't Have Nuclear Fusion Power, Yet'.* You're welcome.

  • Hand Solo
    Hand Solo 2 days ago

    Imagine you are a physicist and you pull off a fusion scam once from the government, you are set for the next 30 years.

  • Hand Solo
    Hand Solo 2 days ago

    It's 30 years away from no longer 30 years away. Got it.

  • Silver Wyvern
    Silver Wyvern 2 days ago

    They're gonna set the atmosphere on fire in 2035, just wait lmao

  • Silver Wyvern
    Silver Wyvern 2 days ago

    #ThoriumEnergy is safer just costly to build, not to maintain however.

  • Silver Wyvern
    Silver Wyvern 2 days ago

    We could make Thorium reactors but they dont make weapons grade material so the energy dept wont fund it

  • David Hansen
    David Hansen 2 days ago

    thorium, LIFTR

  • Walter St
    Walter St 2 days ago

    Smh lets go fusion

  • Joel Reid
    Joel Reid 2 days ago

    Fission fuel can last tens of thousands of years if we allow refining of the waste and Fast breeder reactors. This is why Canada and Australia oppose Nuclear disarmament despite not having nuclear weapons... because nuclear disarmament would make these technologies banned.

  • Blue Jay
    Blue Jay 3 days ago

    You see, it's not a thermal energy. It's electromagnetic.

  • SbotTV
    SbotTV 3 days ago

    Solar does cause climate change, though, right? Production of panels shoves a bunch of crap into the atmosphere and environment. Additionally, battery production for power storage is terrible for the environment.

  • juice8225
    juice8225 3 days ago

    I wonder if there are any black holes somewhere in space, made by past civilizations with uncontrolled fusion experiments..

  • kens97sto171
    kens97sto171 3 days ago

    One thing that always annoys me about these types of videos. Anytime they portray internal combustion or any use of fossil fuels. They show up car with smokey exhaust spewing out of the tailpipe. When is the last time you saw a modern car doing that? Not since the 1990s and fuel injection became commonplace.
    talking about fossil fuels has a finite source of energy that will run out is kind of it misleading also. Best guess is we've got at least a 100 years of fossil fuel if consumption stays consistent. possibly more because there are large fields in Lubbock Texas that have yet to be touched. Plus all of the offshore and deep water oil sources that are expensive but also a possibility.
    We should absolutely be working on cleaner Greener energy everybody wants to breathe clean air. But we should do things that make sense in the meantime rather than falling for pie-in-the-sky ideas that can't really generate enough energy efficiently enough or in a cost-effective way.

  • Skitches
    Skitches 3 days ago

    No mention of the amount of co2 and environment destroyed in the process of making, installing, and maintaining solar and wind power?

  • Brian Reiner
    Brian Reiner 4 days ago

    Doesn't the green new deal want to eliminate nuclear power plants?

  • Mike Mauck
    Mike Mauck 4 days ago

    Do you know the word endothermic? Yes, one fusion releases about 12x more energy than it takes to form the reaction, but it takes tens of millions of tries to get one reaction, thus the overall process is doomed to be endothermic.

  • SM96
    SM96 4 days ago +1

    yeah no, passwords shouldn't be stored on a remote service's storage even if it's encrypted.

  • Samuel Westknee
    Samuel Westknee 4 days ago

    previously I tought: from +10 years and ITER is done, then project build first commercial = 30 years, but now there is a DEMO in middle ? so 30 + anoter 10-20 ?

  • briansgenius
    briansgenius 4 days ago

    Nice instant haircut :P

  • Warren
    Warren 4 days ago

    What if we used thorium in nuclear fission for now? As it’s so much more efficient and effective not to mention more safe than uranium

  • Ziess1
    Ziess1 4 days ago

    As for fission, it is currently the safest mode of energy production by far. Any wastes that are produced are not only handled properly and quarantined from the rest of the environment, but that said wastes can be also reused due to recent technological developments, actually up to 80% is reusable, thereby shrinking a 3000 year period of radioactivity down to about 600. Nuclear wastes are also the only kinds of waste that get less hazardous as time progresses, unlike, say mercury which is spewed like mad from coal reactors.

  • LordOfNihil
    LordOfNihil 4 days ago

    videos like this it usually goes:
    several minute greeny preach speech about why we need fusion (most normal people get bored here and move along)
    several minute primer on the theory of operation (nerds usually get bored here and move along)
    talk about one of many high budget big fusion projects (the ones that fuse cash into broken dreams)
    end of video
    i want to see more polywell love in fusion videos.
    i want those infinite range naval vessels bristling with railguns ive been promised.

  • CG Account
    CG Account 4 days ago

    Solar power will also be everywhere soon too lol. Next year. Right when the flying cars and moonbases appear.

  • David barnes stuff 2

    We're trying to make an automatic banana peeler that's powered by a combustion engine. Sure it can be done, but why would you want to do that when there are simpler ways?

  • sence11
    sence11 4 days ago

    "It barely releases any CO2"...
    Sorry, why is NUCLEAR fusion producing ANY CO2 at all?

  • Daniel Foster
    Daniel Foster 4 days ago

    There's a lot missing here. You're talking about magnetic confinement, but don't mention the stellarator. Also no mention of Tri-alpha energy (colliding beams, california), general fusion's magnetized target fusion (BC), or the spinoff fusion startup from MIT.

  • Dragrath1
    Dragrath1 4 days ago

    One issue with the whole thing both with Fusion and Fission is the idea of waste The dutch have a saying that there is no such thing as waste only misappropriated resources and this will have to be part of our solution given that the Earth is practically a closed system with finite resources. Ultimately Fission will likely be needed as a stop gap and whether or not we can ever achieve net gain fusion reducing "waste" will have to be a part of the solution.

  • Lord Samich
    Lord Samich 4 days ago

    I hold you personally responsible!

  • undo.kat
    undo.kat 5 days ago

    I can confine plasma in my microwave, I've seen it on youtube

  • Rom
    Rom 5 days ago

    Fusion is just a cheap trick to make weak energy sources stronger

  • macsnafu
    macsnafu 5 days ago

    This is SciShow, not EconShow, but a big part of the energy problem is the government intervention into the energy industry. If we allow the market to work with less interference, the trade-offs between the different energy sources would be more apparent and reflected in the prices consumers would have to pay. Running out of fossil fuels? We would know when the market price of fossil fuels started increasing, which would a) encourage people to use less fossil fuels, b) encourage people to use more alternative, non-fossil fuels, and c) stimulate more energy research, which would help to lead to the breakthrough that fusion (or perhaps even some other energy alternative) needs to become a reality.

  • Zantor Zenodex
    Zantor Zenodex 5 days ago

    If a previous presidential administration over 40 years ago hadn't signed a treaty banning the US from reprocessing uranium waste, we would be reprocessing our own fuel and our supply would last much longer (decades) without producing near as much waste. Nuclear fuel reprocessing for fission is the best way to mitigate dangerous radioactive waste.
    Tokamaks are incredibly outdated and not considered to be a viable method of producing fusion energy. There are other reactor designs that show far more promise which are worth covering for the MCF method, such as the polywell. The polywell is one design that doesn't depend exclusively on hydrogen isotopes for producing viable quantities of energy.

  • CowboyCree63
    CowboyCree63 5 days ago

    Maybe you guys should look past the old technology of nuclear fission, and start looking at technologies like Molten Salt Reactors, and one of the most abundant elements on earth, Thorium, that can be used in the MSR, along with all that radioactive waste you talked about.

  • James Wayne
    James Wayne 5 days ago

    It's always 20 years away.

  • Shannae Darkehart
    Shannae Darkehart 5 days ago

    I don't often downvote on a SciShow video, but this really needed a lot more research to be done before the script was written.

  • Jedadiah Tucker
    Jedadiah Tucker 5 days ago

    i saw a doc on 2nd and 3rd generation fission reactors that can use the waste products of the reactors we currently use. the one guy they kept talking to said the reason we havent built them is the public opinion of anything nuclear is poor so no one wants to pay for it. that seams like a really stupid reason to leave a bunch of toxic stuff laying around when we could be using some portion of it up to make more energy.

  • Mora Fermi
    Mora Fermi 5 days ago

    No mention of MIT's ARC? That's a bummer...

  • Peter Chan
    Peter Chan 5 days ago

    Nuclear power 'clean' . . . provided ONLY that nothing ever goes astray.
    Fukushima, anybody?
    And Chernobyl, even if almost everybody has completely forgotten about the catastrophe 32 years ago, the vicinity is yet uninhabitable most likely for some tens of thousands of years to come.
    The people who had been living near Chernobyl - and their offspring - sure know much more painfully than any scientist by far.

  • Daniel Dulu
    Daniel Dulu 5 days ago

    I read about fusion back in the 70's and it was supposed to be attached to our houses producing what we need. I am not a physicist but when I figured out what was needed and the actual process I very quickly realized the issue is scale. The sun works because it is huge. It's very size controls and contains fusion. The fact that we have to use proportionally more energy than it produces just to keep it in check should be a sign that this is not going to work, EVER.

  • Tha Hatter
    Tha Hatter 5 days ago

    How y'all gonna know how something is gonna work that y'all ain't ever made yet? Seems more like a hypothesis and don't get me wrong y'all probably right about it would work but those statements should be stated as hypothesis and nothing more then that until proven don't you think?

  • Jwad
    Jwad 5 days ago

    Iter is a stall tactic to do nothing. The brilliant engineers are quickly hired away. Piss on the people. Starve them out.

  • Dávid Kertész
    Dávid Kertész 5 days ago

    I guess they should say it's at least 30 years away.

  • Connor Stinnett
    Connor Stinnett 5 days ago

    After reading up on the German made: "Wendelstein 7-X" stellarotor...
    How could you guys at scishow *not* mention -let alone make a video about it?
    I mean, the bounds of engineering are getting redefined; with strides I thought never would be reached anytime soon!

  • Dávid Kertész
    Dávid Kertész 5 days ago

    Now I'm imagining a huge internal combustion engine, which burns hidrogen bombs in each cycle.

  • Eric Delaune
    Eric Delaune 5 days ago

    I'm starting to think Thorium is the future, not Hydrogen Fusion.

  • Daniel Bickford
    Daniel Bickford 5 days ago

    Tldr, it's complicated

  • Tristan Band
    Tristan Band 5 days ago

    Honestly, at some point we might have to admit that sustainable fusion reactions MIGHT be only possible with large masses and gravity? My pessimism may very well be unfounded, but it's not a possibility that can be dismissed. It doesn't mean years of research has been fruitless; we learned a lot about physics in the process that we might not have otherwise learned, and new knowledge always justifies investment. But it does mean that, in trying to achieve fusion as a source of electricity, we could be chasing the impossible.
    Fission has a place, but not long term. Like it or not, we may end up relying on solar panels and wind turbines combined with batteries for power long term.

  • Matthew Hammond
    Matthew Hammond 6 days ago

    Wind and solar are “inconsistent?”
    He does not mention that coal power plants are required to make up for the difference in power or the added expense.

  • Koppa Dasao
    Koppa Dasao 6 days ago

    Well, build nuclear fission plants, if you think about the environment!

  • rosario lake
    rosario lake 6 days ago

    the answer is zero gravity to stabilize all of it

  • PrivateSi
    PrivateSi 6 days ago

    You need the gravity of a star to contain the reaction. You'll always use more electricity than you get out using artificial magnetic fields... Fact, proven time and time again by 10 of 1000s of fusion experiments.

  • Tomi
    Tomi 6 days ago

    Warm wind from Minikoi should be enough ( hint: DS9 )

  • Mister A
    Mister A 6 days ago

    His face shape is between circle and square .

  • Xenogene Gray
    Xenogene Gray 6 days ago

    Fusion is the power source of the future ... and always will be :P

  • Michelle Mills
    Michelle Mills 6 days ago

    Where would we store the stuff made from fusion?

  • Charles Anderson
    Charles Anderson 6 days ago

    Doesn’t matter! China and Russia are going to give us some free nukes courtesy by air delivery!!!!!!🤬🔥🙏🏻🙏🏻🙏🏻

  • Chris Corley
    Chris Corley 6 days ago

    Nuclear Fusion is a dead toxic science. ☕

  • Macario Patrick
    Macario Patrick 6 days ago

    We can create a time machine, but we can’t create a fusion reactor?

  • Henry Henry
    Henry Henry 6 days ago

    I thought that was the Sun

  • JohnnyWonton
    JohnnyWonton 6 days ago

    maybe i could finally power my rice cooker

  • Razorback73
    Razorback73 6 days ago

    Man made climate change isn't real. Stop pushing the lie.
    Should we reduce pollution? Yes. Are renewables environmentally friendly? No. They produce mountains of pollution in their production and processing of the raw materials required to make them.
    Look deeper than just the surface.

  • Ken Konard
    Ken Konard 6 days ago

    The reason many people ignore nuclear power is because of the inclusion of the word ‘nuclear’. When I discuss it with more liberal friends, they recoil in horror because it sounds like nuclear weapons which is evil. I know I know. The academy has gone bonkers.
    The solution would be to change the name to something like ‘warm puppies’ and the country would demand it.

  • Harmonic
    Harmonic 6 days ago

    Fusion technology has been 30 years away since the the 1950s. Fission right now is the most plausible contrary to popular belief among the anti nuclear people

  • Beefheart Vandercrease

    So how come fission produces radioactive waste but fusion does not?
    Or did I misunderstand the bit at 1:38?

  • Elmo L
    Elmo L 6 days ago

    Everything you just said is trying to accomplished over unity. This has been said by scientist to be impossible.
    Ohhh. Wait, does that mean that we have been fooled and that the first law of the conservation of energy if BS?

  • Monika Cult
    Monika Cult 6 days ago +2

    *"Fusion is just a cheap tactic to make weak gems stronger."*

  • Mr. Goat
    Mr. Goat 6 days ago +1

    War... war never changes.

  • Damien Tonkin
    Damien Tonkin 6 days ago

    How do they keep the magnets working at such high temperatures?

    • John DC
      John DC 6 days ago

      Ironically, the magnets actually need to be supercooled to near absolute zero for them to work.
      So yea, they use a supercooling liquid to keep the magnets working.

  • Galantis Aquatico Productions

    This is how mafia works...

  • Galantis Aquatico Productions

    Sooo anyone thing of fallout4 when clicking on the video???

  • Alcatrazz xd
    Alcatrazz xd 6 days ago

    The true question is why is this trending?


    Why not Pewdiepie's USclip rewind.

  • Terry Ambrogio
    Terry Ambrogio 6 days ago

    cuz we haven't figured out how to heat the plasma and then keep the reaction going without putting more in than what we get out

    • John DC
      John DC 6 days ago

      We already have. The only problem we have with it is that it just takes too much energy to actually start. It's like taking 100 batteries to power something that produces the power equivalent to 101 batteries. Sure, you can gain energy from it, but it just takes a lot of power to start in the first place.

  • Google+ SUCKS BALLS - the worst forced social network

    7:04 - "the neutrons make surrounding materials radio active" - thought there is no "radio active waste" in fusion

  • Steven
    Steven 6 days ago +3

    Wow, I'm surprised by all of the "nuclear fission is safe and gud!!1" comments. Ok, then move to Chernobyl and tell me how it goes. Be sure to touch the elephant's foot and breath in the irradiated dust fumes for good measure. I'm sure nothing bad will happen to you...

    • JS Wong
      JS Wong 13 hours ago

      LOL.. Chernobyl is what happens when there's faulty control systems and incorrect procedures implemented by the personnel. If a bus is going out of control and the driver steps on the gas instead of the brakes, sending the bus careening off a cliff, would you call it a dangerous vehicle technology that should be banned and eliminated thereafter? Or would you call it a correctly-engineered technology that screwed up that one instance due to human error? The answer is pretty clear, isn't it?
      As for Fukushima, don't forget that what happened was that the power plant was DAMAGED BY AN EARTHQUAKE and FLOODED BY A TSUNAMI. All its battery backups got flooded. The electricals got knocked out. The structure got compromised. It was chugging along fine until a natural disaster knocked it out. And still, it was an old reactor with 2nd-generation technology. If the same combination of circumstances happen to a Generation-4 reactor, absolutely no "disaster" would occur.
      Speak of Fukushima, have you ever put the radioisotope release in context? Do you know that every single day, the "radioactivity" that is leaked into the Pacific is comparable to the radioactivity of a 20-foot container worth of bananas? Or that it's just a fraction of the radioactivity of a pin-head of radioisotope that is used to kill cancer tumors?
      This miniscule amount of radioactivity is then distributed into a volume of water that far exceeds the volume of atmospheric air over the entire continent of Asia. So.... how dangerous would that be?

    • Steven
      Steven 2 days ago

      +BubbleRum What about the accident in Fukushima? Also, how come nuclear fission proponents want Plutonium and not Thorium (which is safer!)? And is there a way to recycle spent fuel rods? It's been 65 years, just like you said, and yet people still haven't figured out how to recycle irradiated waste. Perhaps nothing has changed.

    • BubbleRum
      BubbleRum 5 days ago

      why would you be surprised that 65 year old tech has advanced in the last 40 of those years?

  • Benjamin Agaoglu
    Benjamin Agaoglu 6 days ago

    The radioactive "waste" you refer to aka high level waste can be reprocessed and placed back into a reactor just like France and the UK do now so it would be nice if that was mentioned instead of misinformation by omission.