Is nuclear fusion the future of clean energy?
Вставка
- Опубліковано 13 гру 2023
- Fusion is a kind of nuclear power, which could revolutionise how clean energy is produced. As a new wave of experiments heats up, can fusion live up to the hype?
00:33 The future of green energy
02:00 What is nuclear fusion and how does it work?
03:17 Is it achievable?
Sign up to The Economist’s daily newsletter: econ.st/3s9WjPB
Energy security gives climate-friendly nuclear-power plants a new appeal: econ.st/3QHgdd1
Listen to our podcast about the importance of private companies in advancing nuclear fusion econ.st/49n7aqa
Fusion power is coming back into fashion: econ.st/49jPwDu
Watch our film about the transition to green energy: econ.st/473WDNT
The race to build a commercial fusion reactor hots up: econ.st/47kpfDn
Watch more of our Now & Next series: econ.st/46TXWjv
Fund and build more fission plants, research fusion. While fusion is the future, it's not going to come fast enough to stop extensive environmental damage. Focus on building what we have now that can easily solve the issue, and continue looking into better alternatives in the meantime.
exactly
This is what im talking about
If the United States had not canceled their thorium reactor project in the 1950s, we'd be in great shape today.
We have no idea if fusion is the future. IMHO the future may be mostly with fission of both Uranium, thorium and Pu cycles and it is all fine. The future should be with much less fossil fuels used, and with cheap, affordable and plentiful electricity. If fusion fits these criterias - great, if not it will be engineering and scientific challenge, not a practical source of power.
It would be a waste of money and a waste of many years building the most expensive and longest to build energy source, when we can build out the cheapest and fastest to build energy sources (solar and wind). And that’s when factoring in the cost of needed battery storage.
This is an ad for investors right?
Yup
Indeed
Thanks I will not bother watching.
Interesting, but grid energy from fusion is far away, if it will ever come. We can hope, since hope is free, but we should plan the energy transition without taking into account nuclear fusion.
Seems like everyone I hear promoting fusion, makes their livelihood in Fusion research.
Why?
@@dugfunny7988 We only have prototypes and the efficiency is still far from overall breakeven. The scientific and technical challenges are enormous.
We just need a robust room temp superconductor, ez
Nice video. They been there since the 80's in the big building working on this. See you did use some Culham village and science center drone stuff of mine. Very nice.
There are 43 private fusion companies:
25 in US
6 in EU
3 in UK
3 in Japan
2 in China
1 in New Zealand
1 in Australia
1 in Canada
1 in Israel
What, none in ruzzia or Saudi Arabia?
And none are commercially viable
There's actually already an operating fusion power plant. It's called the sun.
And not one of them has yet been able to generate electricity at a utility scale! Come on, put up! Build a cost competitive fusion plant that can produce energy electricity for even ten homes!
If some of you guys were alive before Christopher Columbus set sail for the new world he would have never left Europe!
We actually need a more robust system to fuse these fuels together but right now tokamak will suffice in the future when we do use fusion for energy use we will use something like more raw in nature like comprehensive fusion it can be built by new material science.
Check out helion's approach. Appears most promising
Yes something like that but alot more powerful I suppose.
It's a waste of time when you can just invest that money into wind power, solar power, geothermal power, tidal power, wave power and storage, all of which work and don't require any scientific breakthroughs.
The only problem with green energy is the political will to move away from the lobbying (corruption) that goes with fossil fuels.
Look at the US the easiest place to turn to green energy is Hawaii, it's a series of volcanoes, so there is more than enough geothermal power, just like Greenland has done. But Hawaii also is in the middle of the ocean so it's got enough opportunities to run 100% on wind power. It's also very sunny, and you could have enough solar power for 100% of all the power.
As for storage you have mountains where you can build pumped hydro storage, or you could use hydrogen storage, or lithium batteries or sodium batteries. Probably the best long term storage would be the hydrogen, and the short term storage would be a mixture of the pumped hydro and the batteries.
The fact that Hawaii isn't running on 100% renewable power, has nothing to do with technology, there is more than enough technology that has been invented for Hawaii to be 100% renewable. It's a political problem. And if the US can't solve the easiest US State then the US will never bring down it's CO2 output for any US state.
Ultimately it will come down to cost. Solar & wind farms might just get the last laugh--IF stationary storage batteries get bigger and cheaper.
Think about it: 'Overbuilding' solar & off shore windfarms will allow any excess power to be dumped into storage--far far cheaper than keeping a labor intensive nuclear/fusion/coal or even LNG powerplant on line. Plus, any extra (when storage is "full") could be used to make cheap H2 (and O2) as a side benefit.
Anymore than 20% wind & solar the grid becomes unstable due to weather conditions which self imposes a limit for wind & solar, but 20% is an achievable goal. What the world needs is a new fuel and Algae could become that fuel.
@@miken7629 You might need to re-read the comment several times. This is about STORAGE...not about the grid.
@@michelem.6104 "This is about STORAGE...not about the grid." But storage alone, doesnt actually solve all load volatility problems for intermittent generation. You will need all three components. For some reason in the US we are deciding to focus on just one of them (at least from political standpoint), which doesnt make any sense.
You'll dry your non-abundant resources in no time with solar and win as they can't be used for the steel manufacturing industry.
Nuclear fusion mass-producing hydrogen is the future.
Well, if the batteries become more and more accessible IMHO first place to use them would be transportation- to reduce its emissions. Even small battery (10kWh) should reduce gas consumption from cars tremendously if mass used in PHEVs(short trips). And if batteries are cheaper and scalable still it would be most efficient to use them with workhorse nuclear fission- least overbuild of both generation and storage for maximum decarbonisation. I don't see the appeal of fusion when not even one estimate can be made about timeline and cost of "potential" future reactor. I personaly don't see how Fusion could be on the same order of magnitude as Fission.
Nuclear fission first then fusion, don't bite off more than you can chew
go nuclear! We need more fission!
Quantum mechanics allows for a small portions of fast neutrons are created. These neutrons would make the fusion chamber radioac😮tive. What are the precautions are 4:26 be formulated to 6:13 mitigate this?
Pretty straightforward. It comes down to material selection. Some materials like aluminum are fairly neutron transparent and don't form long-lived activation products. In general, activation products tend to be short lived, low activity, and non bio-accumulating. It needs special handling and a decade or so of isolation, but it's not comparable to the fission products that come from a fission power plant
General Fusion's design contains the reaction in liquid metal. The "reaction chamber" is constantly cycled... it's how they extract the heat. Must admit, I'm biased towards their design... steam powered pistons compressing a bolt of plasma contained in a vortex of molten metal has to be the most steam-punk energy reactor ever :)
Not holding my breath but I do wish them success.
@@4Fixerdave thank you for the heat transfer method. Wish them luck too.
Excelent, superb article.
Great video thanks 😊
Awesome. Hope it will help us soon.
I don't know how feasible this is, but please save us. The powerful are only interested in what preserves them, not the world.
The energy resides in its simplicity
Very promising!
I’m surprised at the negative comments around fusion energy. With the accelerated advancement in progress on this it is only a matter of time before it is solved. Fusion energy is a game changer. The amount of resource to build solar and wind farms with the relative low energy return, will never compare with the energy return of fusion energy.
One of the most exciting times to live in!
Let's nope fusion succeed, or our children will say the exact opposite.
Some day this will be great. While we wait the best source for heat and electricity is 3rd generation geothermal. AGS from Canadian company Eavor is a fraction of the cost for any nuclear. Commercial project underway in Germany right now. Dozens more in the pipeline.
Fervo Energy is another next gen geothermal company. Great tech. They're producing power now.
Let's try a different argument. Climate change is only a symptom of a much larger issue called Ecological Overshoot. We used Oil to leverage our food supplies allowing our population to exceed the carrying capacity of the entire planet. Now we are facing a resource restriction in how fast the Earth can deal with our waste (e.g., CO2, ...). Our new plan here is to create a new power source which will allow us to leverage our population even higher by reducing the CO2 emissions, but it doesn't actually solve all the other waste problems nor the heating caused by our industrial output (these are only suggestions, I am sure there are a lot other things in our way.) Essentially, we are swapping out one drug for another that might be even worse, since it burns up our oceans. No matter where we go, assuming we ever really get off this particular rock, there will be resource constraints. If we cannot learn to live within constraints now, we will always be overshooting and risking extinction -- over and over again until we are all gone.
Or we just keep colonizing planets to make room, embracing our nature to dominate the galaxy. Constraints are for the birds.
The source of energy of the future which will always remain so.
why not traditional clean sources - wind, solar panels eg. roofs, deserts? still dunno if fusion can get more energy out than in.
Yea they proved that last December. But yes renewables untill we can reach the goal
@@Melanie____ fusion reaction 2mj in, 3 mj out, but took few 100 mj to power 192 lasers.
@@RavingFan oh okay so you changed your mind to the first comment.
Yes net reached and steps taken toward the end goal.. they are in progress of developing it - and yes it’s not commercially available yet.
@@Melanie____ perhaps thorium reactors, also nuclear w/o nuclear waste (consumes most radioactive byproduct). fusion wip since elementary school, still wip n nearly retired. fusion a forever science project.
@@RavingFan I doubt that. history is full of people who said it’s impossible until that thing has been invented. that’s human nature they invent things never done before.
Before fusion can be even though of a reaction that produces more energy than what it takes needs to be proved. Once this is established it will take about thirty years to make anything that can produce useful power. In the mean time fission reactors to produce useful power can be improved and built now.
Great Mission for Future
It is most disappointing that the Economist did not take a more critical look into the claims of commercial fusion power on the grid in the coming decade or so. It’s not credible. None of the latest concepts extrapolate to a plant with sufficiently robust reliability to be practical for grid operations.
We need urgent help for the climate challenges. Fusion won’t come in time. We’d be better off pushing harder on fission plants.
Fusion is worthy of research funding support. Just please stop this nonsense about fusion power on the grid coming soon. Fantasy for the venture capitalists.
I expected better from the Economist.
You shouldn't have expected better from The Economist.
Economists are not STEM.
@@SolaceEasy 🤣 10/10
I searched "Nuclear Fusion" hoping to see some updates. Just another video saying the same for the last cant even remember how many years. By this time, we all know that NF is always 30 years away.
Its definitely a pipe dream. The time horizons for reactor builds & at incredible costs are just too significant to see it helping in time.
Reminds me of that movie "Man Who Fell on Earth" ..
I don't know whether it is cleaner, but it is certainly going to be expensive...
Great...❤❤❤❤❤......
We'll have it before 2030, commercially. The economist didn't do a broad tour about the different approaches worked on. Some are much simpler, require less resources and have full investment.
If only we actually taxed the rich. Then the world could spend trillions on nuclear fusion research without breaking a sweat.
😂 yeaaaa if only someone had tried that before.... oh wait...
The rich do a much better job at managing money and doing research with it than most governments.
3:25 I stopped here for a second, if the sun's core is an estimated 15 Million C, then perhaps a cooking analogy will help me explain something: a cookie baked at 350F has a different structure than a cookie baked at 411.76F (I believe that was an 85% increase in magnitude from 15 to 100Million C, not super important, just fiddling with a calculator), anyhow, perhaps you cannot bake a fusion cookie with astronomical recipes (mainly because your on earth), but it might offer a guide to how it could be accomplished. I am also wondering if the way we classically understand gravitational attractive forces and how light behaves differently when "observed" particle vs wave theories could also improve the way we approach this paradigm.
Complicated, high maintenance, will be hard to maintain because of radiation
The problem of nuclear fusion is not technology. It is economy. Maybe we can make viable fusion technolgy and reactor by 2050, but its cost to build and operate will far exceed that of nuclear fission reactor, let alone conventional fossil fuel powerplant. So, it will not replace conventional power plants in the foreseeable future. We need interim solutions before transition to nuclear fusion. 4-th generation nuclear fission reactors like molten salt reactor or pebble bed reactor seems to be promising.
So it is the technology, because we no cost efficient technology ready by 2050.
You need to build the 4th generation nuclear plants yesterday, for 2050. But they won't be build until the end of the decade and won't come online at least 5 years later. SMRs too, no commercial reactor before the 2030. How is nuclear the solution to a climate crisis we spend 50 years on waiting it to happen? It is like catching the train that already went out of the station. Nuclear will never be ready to play a major role in energy transition. Even in China is no plan for more than 15% nuclear electricity.
There are enough mineable thorium on the earth to satisfy humankind for 1000 years, combined with wind，solar, hydroelectric may extend for another 1000 years. These are mature technologies, while fusion is always twenty years in the future. So leave it to the future generations to do the fusion.
This is speculation. There are no operational fusion reactors with net positive output, let alone as part of a power plant. To say how much a potential products might cost based on current experiments is just conjecture.
"The problem of nuclear fusion is not technology. It is economy." Uh thats not even remotely accurate...... Honestly what do you think they are testing for ITER?
Or do you think they got 38 countries to build the most complicated piece of energy infrastructure in the history of humanity for craps and giggles?
With the pace we're moving. I wouldn't be surprised if mankind begins the construction and tests of humanity's first antimatter generator no more than 100 years from now.
Is nuclear fission the future of clean energy? Fixed it for you!
yeahhhh, we desperately need more fission
Nuclear Fusion, the concept that it has always been 30 years into the future
Yessss
Getting off fossil fuels is vital for the survival of the earth and humanity. If we took the money spent on finding fossil fuels and spent it on fusion research. We would be further ahead in this new energy technology.
It's ok to spend money on nuclear fusion research but we much more need fission now (because it exists and it's the only viable option against fossil fuels)
additional investment should be made
Not necessarily. At this point until you run the ITER tests nobody will be ahead.
why didn't they mention ITER?
even if it happens, there is still issue of setting up high power trans towers. with so much trouble getting solar farms connected, be decades before can be used
It's always 20 years away
Distributed solar is not so much trouble. Any given house or business is limited by the existing connection, as are the local trunks and feeders. However, for any grid, these add up to match the full capacity in any case. Expect to see more.
If it is possible, it will change the world completely. It would be mastering the universe. We will have the power of stars in our hands.
Dreamer u know u r a dreamer/ greed doesn’t allow for loud progress/ threats demands for money/ no one threatens to bomb wind mills or under ground heat capture which doesn’t come with a threat to humans or buildings just heat & energy…
It is possible, I'm just not convinced such technology is in our reach.
Bruh
we have the power of the atom in our hands but no one seems to understand it
Hope it succeeds as it will spare the planet much pollution and nuclear waste. Unfortunately it is not likely to improve the human condition itself. Our "elites" will still find a way to hold it hostage so that we all pay enormously to access it.
With nuclear as base load still need something else for load following. Can’t make the wind blow harder when we need more power, can’t switch the sun on at night.
Now until we stop increasing oil consumption.
I think it is the long-term future as needs increase. Before knowing how to harness thermonuclear weapons, it was thought impossible to make something like it but to then make thousands is entirely unconscionable, as was done in 70s and 80s. So it's technology that's going to eventually make fusion power harness-able. But without impetus like world war/human destruction, resources and energy needed to achieve the goal, i think won't happen without it, but I'm sure it can be done.
I'm 72. Been hearing my whole life, fusion is just 20 years away. I think under the best case scenario, it is still 20 years away from commercialization.
Archer and Jacobson (*) estimated that 20% of the global total wind power potential could account for as much as 123 petawatt-hours (PWh) of electricity annually [corresponding to annually averaged power production of 14 terawatts (TW)] equal to around 7 times the total current global consumption of electricity (comparable to present global use of energy in all forms). Their study was based on an analysis of data for the year 2000 from 7,753 surface meteorological stations complemented by data from 446 stations for which vertical soundings were available. They restricted their attention to power that could be generated by using a network of 1.5-megawatt (MW) turbines tapping wind resources from regions with annually averaged wind speeds in excess of 6.9 m/s (wind class 3 or better) at an elevation of 80 m.
* CL Archer, MZ Jacobson, Evaluation of global wind power. J Geophys Res 110, D12110 (2005).
The future!
0:08 steel smelter
How is the heat going to be transferred to the turbine generator side? If the heat is not properly transferred the machine melts down.
in this type of reactor fast neutrons generate heat in some kind of liquid lithium (producing more tritium fuel as it does so) which is heat-exchanged with water, which generates steam for the turbines.
@@MattNolanCustom it's been awhile for me to do those energy equations. The energy from fusion is the excess mater of the proton converted to energy. Orderly the is no fast neutrons but when there is many many reactions once and awhile one will happen... using a deuterium base material there is probably going to have tridium. The energy has to transfer from the fusion reaction to a themo cycle. How is going is happen is what I am curious
@@lewisreiman8124 sounds like your knowledge is based on how fusion works in the Sun. Here it is different. Deuterium and Tritium are fused into Helium and a neutron. The mass deficit manifests as kinetic energy and is split in inverse proportion of mass ratio, so the neutron gets 4/5 of the energy, which comes out around 14MeV, IIRC. The Helium nucleus gets 1/5 and if you arrange things right, it will give a bunch of that back to the D-T plasma via collisions so that you have a self-sustaining heating, requiring little or no external heat once you get up and running - which helps the Q factor massively, of course.
Going back to the neutron that every fusion event creates, the idea is to have it slam into a neutron multiplier such as beryllium or lead and then have those secondary neutrons hit lithium to fission it into helium and tritium. That fission is also exothermic. So, we have a hot mess of metals and helium which drives the heat exchangers, provides tritium for future fusion reactions. If the neutron multiplier to neutron thermal loss and other absorption losses ratio is sufficiently over 1.0 you have a closed loop tritium fuel cycle and don't have to make it in heavy water fission reactors. Deuterium is 1 in 6000 or something in all hydrogen, water, on Earth so is abundant and is relatively easily separated.
There are other approaches and fuel cycles but they are significantly harder to make work.
What? How can a fusion reactor meltdown?
If the reactor doas not cool probably a meltdown could happen or just a big explosion.
but where does the energy required to even carry out fusion come from?
Two things. First, it is still far in the future until it is ready. Everyone hopes it will be soon. Second, the plasma has to be heated to 100 million, and more, degrees Celsius. What happens to all the heat?
The heat dissipates into the environment. All of the fusion startups try to wow people by saying their fuel is heated to hundreds of millions of degrees, but what they don't mention is that their fuel is a rarified gas.
Fuel in a 1 liter reactor vessel at a few microns of pressure heated to 100 million degrees wouldn't even cause a gallon of water to boil.
Obviously full size reactors would make more heat than this, but it wouldn't be any more heat than what a coal power plant deals with.
3:10 deuterium is fairly easy to come by in nature, but tritium is very rare, and there isn't enough on this planet to supply fusion reactors. On the other hand, there is so much fuel for fission reactors to last us 1000 years.
Tritium is produced in every watercooled nuclear reaktor. To seperate it out is a minor problem compared to get fusion reactors working.
Also tritium is radioactive :/
@krautergarten4529 True, you need fission reactors to fuel your fusion reactors, so it's not really the perfect energy source to solve all our problems.
So what are they thinking then? Surely there is a solution?
@musicalintuition it's just one of the many hurdles to nuclear fusion. There are other fuels, but I believe D-T fusion produces the most heat with the lowest fusion activation temp. So it's the place to start.
Before creation comes destruction. Do fission then fusion.
Is that Mass Effect music?
Yet another video talking about the challenges of fusion reactors to produce energy. Nothing about the industrial side of it: how to produce sufficient fuel (in most cases deuterium and tritium) to feed the reactors. A large reactor like ITER in southern France is estimated to be using 250 kg of fuel per year to sustain a fusing reaction powerful enough to generate 1000MW of energy.
At the moment, the only tritium available comes from heavy water produced in fission reactors. It is not commonly available in nature and though scientists hope that the fusion reaction itself will transform some of the deuterium introduced in the reactor into tritium to continue the reaction, it is only a theory that would render the technology pointless if not proven true, given the alternative would be through using lithium, which is not an infinite resource like they claim.
its going to be at least another 100 years before this is up and running solely by itself without fossil fuels if it works at all
The Economist jumping on the hype train.
There will be no commercial fusion reactor in 2030, 2040 nor 2050.
Would be nice if we had some niche market for fusion power in twenty years though. But not probable.
Really fusion fanboys running hot on fusion power comes next year/years. Twenty Years Later.... Fusion fanboys running hot on fusion power comes next year/years. Twenty Years Later...
Comment section cringes me out. No viable prototype or demo plant in sight for at least a decade. Delays on top. No solution for energy conversion, no solution for providing continous flow of fuel without breaking down the plasma, and many more nos, which are there for 70 years now. Realistic, fusion power comes after 205.
Comparable to the steam engine. 100+ years development before the first practical use. Another hundred years for widespread use in industrializing countries.
Will you be interested in giving your best to see fusion power plants operational within 3 years? Yeah, I am talking about supporting research that has immense promise.
Man its almost like major players in fusion already said this 20 years ago, but that wasnt exciting enough for news cycles, so journos decided to put their own spin on it and now we are claiming nuclear physicists are somehow dumb people...... ya know instead of the people who made up completely inaccurate bs than what was ever actually published.....
@@henryeze70740% chance of that happening. Absolutely none
you are the cringe one
@@henryeze7074 zero percent chance of that happening, not even remotely possible
Next they are gonna talk about graphene and solid state batteries and how they are around the corner and backed by some rich people.
Controlled nuclear fusion has NOT solved all scientific issues and it’s deeply misleading to pretend it’s only a matter of engineering challenges. I wish scientists still persisting in this research the best of luck, but clearly this is not the route to address the urgency of the climate crisis. Besides timing, also the cost per kWh produced will be uncompetitive, all factors considered for such complex systems. This is also the reason why nuclear fission, though technically mature, is no solution either. The total life cycle cost, from design to decommissioning and storage of active materials for many centuries, raises the cost per kWh way above any other green technology. Time to stop the hype and get real.
@@Betweoxwiteganthey have been trying for 70 years, and it is not working yet. It may never work. If it does ever work it might be 10, 20, 30, 40 or more years away. The timescales just don’t work. And this ignores cost issues of complex new technology if they do make it work.
Imagine you had cancer, and you kept betting on a treatment that had been under development for 70 years, still did not work, and may never work - instead of using an existing treatment that is known to work (but does need more complex organisation to use.) It would be foolish to do that.
@@glennjgroves Give it time. After all, wind and solar have been around for millions of years before we figured out how to harness them ;)
@@Betweoxwitegan nuclear fission was developed and working relatively quickly. Nuclear fusion is the exact opposite.
I am fine with people researching fusion. It is the lie that we “must” have fusion to have clean energy that is repeated along with it that is the issue.
@@silversolver7809 fusion has also been around for millions (actually billions) of years. None of that changes the point. Everything in my comment is still relevant.
@@Betweoxwitegan the lie was in the video. Someone interviewed in the video stated we need fusion to generate clean energy (or something to that effect). If I remember correctly, near the start.
Overall we agree. I think any disagreements between you and I would be minor/small.
Its 20 years away
Fission first for decades then also fusion.
Build fission out as fast as possible.
This should become feasible 30 years into the future. And this will always be the case: 30 years into the future.
Yea, I remember them saying 20 years when I was in high school 😂
I'd say at least a century, probably much longer.
@@aaroncosier735 Eternity is a very long time, especially towards the end.
I think it was Isaac Asimov who said we need the Einstein of fusion to prove its unattainable.
What about the helium?
What will we do with it all?
Give the entire world squeaky voices of course! Ask a silly question...
@@MattNolanCustom 😅 HeHeHe
Fusion is the energy source of the future..and always will be. In the meantime use fission.
When I was a kid of 10 in 1956, , the Zeta project was announced, largely, I think, looking back, to divert attention from the disastrous Suez campaign. This project originally based at Harwell, was claimed to have the potential to produce unlimited power using fusion. And now here I am 67 years later, and whats happened so far ? Well, fusion power is still a long way off.
Except it isn't, if you think about it. The heat from the sun is generated by fusion and we collect that power as so called "renewable power" using wind turbines. Getting power out of a future fusion reactor will also require turbines, steam turbines. So not much difference. It seems to me that it's better to concentrate on what we can use now, and leave fusion potential to clever scientists to see if they can see any possible "leap" that would make fusion power stations cheap enough to use. Lets face it, unless the sun stops shining, the wind will continue to blow so lets use this free energ y !
Every time I see a propellor on a stick I grit my teeth. Bad design grates on my engineering nerves. Allow competition to innovate solutions and we'll be fine. But you'll never get that with big government married to big corporations.
I would argue its far more likely generative fusion reactors would utilize gas capture systems with brayton cycles than use a steam turbine.
@@MattBuild4 Sure. Sunshine and lollipops. Although, to advocate for the devil, one team plans to use coils around the plasma as pickup devices since the plasma induces a current.
I pray to the makers of stars!
No its, not, cause fusion is always 30 years ahead in tech and has been claimed to be 30 years in for over 50 years now, let that sink in, people thought nuclear fusion will be replicated in 2000s during 1970s....
Using a gravity generator is one of the cleanest ways to produce energy.
Hydro? Not that clean, if you consider the consequences of flooding huge territories.
Fusion has one immutable flaw beyond it is always 30 years away. It is a big ticket item, therefore owned and centralized as a new treasure trove of the rich. This is the death of us all. Our rich and the economic paradigm have proved to not understand the cooperative nature of life itself, and have instead demonstrated an egomaniacal 'can do' obsession with growth and power acquisition. As an engineering concentration of these factors of big money and power obsession, this flaw overshadows the technical hurdles.
The answer : Yes. It's been the case for decades
You forgot to mention that we already have thousands of Fusion reactors, they are also known as nuclear weapons.
Thats not what a reactor is
Plasma ❤
We should be dumping massive amounts of money into fusion research as there is no doubt of its promise. Unfortunately it will be close to a century before fusion is deployed at scales needed to supply a majority of the world’s power… shorter term solutions will be needed to bridge the gap and realize the emission reductions needed to stave off the worst of climate change.
Fission energy is the future. Fusion is always 30 years away
I like Fission power plants (preferably Thorium though), but have to agree with 'michelem'--it will always come down to $$$. Once built, a huge wind farm/solar farm + stationary storage will probably cost a lot less...AND use a fraction of the employee's to operate it.
@@JuniperTrekkerWhile true, we don't have the storage capacity to run the world on renewables. Fission plants will be needed until a cheap, reliable, and energy dense storage option becomes available, such as solid state sodium ion batteries. Until this happens, some form of base load supply will be required.
Fission is only costly because pf the extreme regulation and the fact that we use tecnology from de cold war. 4 generation nuclear power plant are easy and cheap.
@@Brunoscaramuzzi because if theres something that we need, its less regulation on nuclear reactors
"4 generation nuclear power plant are easy and cheap" citation needed
@@jb76489 There is more if you google it a little. And Nuclear Fusion has problems with nuclear weapon ploriferation and nuclear waste as well. Where there is neutrons flying around Uranium can be turned into Plutonium and Weapons can be build.
The Economist is not produced by engineers but by people presumably paid to promote well funded hype. Otherwise they would be promoting the British Moltex flex reactor, which benefits from the engineering advantage of using liquid nuclear fuel held in static pipes. I.e. no pumping of highly radioactive fuel around a system of pipes that will probably spring a leak one day. That makes the flex reactor so simple and cheap that they will compete with fossil fuelled electricity. Moltex energy in Canada are also pioneering the recycling of high-level nuclear waste for their stable salt fuel. Capital cost is a little over $1 per WATT. Dispatchable power is available from heat stored in a system bought off the shelf from the solar thermal people. Selling electricity at peak demand will make the reactor highly profitable. They recently signed an MOU with Emirates nuclear energy Corporation.
But all of this is a distraction, because the energy transition is not going to happen soon enough to avoid cascading climate tipping points. Respected climate scientist Jim Hansen now says probably the safest way to cool the Earth pending net zero is by marine cloud brightening. That works by adding benign aerosols over the ocean, replacing the cooling effect recently lost because of new shipping legislation that has removed sulphur dioxide emissions.
This video is just a commercial for Tokamak Energy and the Nuclear Fusion industry. There is no critical reflection on anything these CEOs have said. The Economist just blindly accepts their optimism and presents it as journalism. Any child knows better not to trust a person with a profit motive too much
we need fission
So far any test facility has ever achieved a self-sustainable fusion for longer than milliseconds. How will we ever get GW from self-sustainable fusions which endures for years (or do you want a power plant which upon providing 1GW suddenly stops because the self-sustainable fusion has broken down)? It is supposed to be achieved in the next 10 years. I can't believe that although I'd like to believe. To make short: fusion comes too late at least for 100years (or may be 200years ...)?
I understand your concerns about the timeline for achieving self-sustainable fusion. While it may still take some time to develop, it's important to explore a variety of clean energy options. In the meantime, it's great to have backup power solutions like the Segway Portable PowerStation Cube Series, which offers massive capacity and versatile functionality for outdoor enthusiasts and home backup needs.
Yeah we're far from commercial fusion, but it's more like 30-50 years away, not 100. 100 years ago the most basic cars were just being invented, and since then weve made supersonic planes, spacecraft, Mars rovers, and smart phones that can open "portals" across continents with video calling. Innovation is increasing exponentially, image what another 100 years will create, more than just fusion.
Because no current test facilities are designed to create self-sustainable fusion. They are purposedly designed for research into techniques that _will_ enable self-sustained fusion in future reactors (e.g. ITER). Fusion is not something you could Tony Stark out of in a cave.
We need fusion, but I don't think we will have a commercial fusion reactor before 2050
If they're doing it with pure hydrogen, yes.
If they need Deuterium and / or Tritium... No.
❤
Nuclear fusion is the best bet for clean energy.....................IF........
you disregard the energy required to start it
Yepp, hopefully this will be the disruptor of the energy market. Renewable is great and can be used as an interim solution, but long-term fusion is the way to go....🤞
Nuclear fission + renewables is the solution that me must adopt now. Grid-scale fusion will probably come at the end of the century (if it will come). For now it's just research
It is hopeless to rely on fusion power for climate change. There isn't even enough tritium on the planet to run the reactors.
It's true that fusion plants can make their own tritium, but developing a system around this will at least delay things to the end of the century. Fission power plants are what the world needs now.
❤❤❤❤
Short answer for the Title: Yes.
👍
I personally don't see how Fusion could be on the same order of magnitude in price as Fission and supposedly Fission is expensive(it is not, or there are no technological reasons for it be as expensive as currently in EU/US- there are improvements to be made). Fission works since 1950s, while there is not even prototype for Fusion, so how come it can become reasonable future? Unless we accept that in the future electricity must be very expensive(which means failure of decarbonisation and condemning billions to eternal poverty).
Nuclear fission is the most expensive form of energy, while solar and wind are the cheapest. If cheap energy is what you’re after, solar and wind are it.
@@AnonymousOmniscience what is the price of MWh of reliable solar electricity during hours of 6pm-6am? Without natgas "backup"?
@@msxcytb A solar farm with the the needed battery storage is still cheaper than anything else.
@@AnonymousOmniscience according to propaganda, not real world experience...
@@msxcytb The economic realities will show the truth of the matter over time. Look at the “Growth of photovoltaics” on Wikipedia. Solar has been on an exponential rise for decades, while nuclear fission is a sad, risky, slow to build technology that keeps getting more expensive.
The answer to the question is, of course, yes.
No alternative given?
yes, it's called nuclear FISSION and it actually exists
Agreed
Alright cool, so we figured out fission, fusion, now it's time for
...
*ANTIMATTER*
fusion is always just 10-20 years out
The main issue with nuclear is not safety, the physics, or even waste disposal but cost. It's just really expensive to build nuclear energy facilities, expensive to employ the engineers to run the said facilities, and expensive to repair and maintain them in the long term. Nuclear would require heavy subsidies from the government to be economically viable and that means more taxes and people would still end up paying more for their electricity. Nuclear only makes sense when the alternatives are prohibitively expensive due to geography, for example.
Short answer: No. Solar and wind are the future of clean energy.
Why leave out hydro and geothermal?
Did he say hotter than the sun?? 😮. Sunman
Is it the future? Probably not. It won't be working in time. Wind, solar and batteries are scaling right now and give 24x7 grid power.
Yes but they are not perfect either. Have you ever thought of where we get the metals for this type of energy and batteries? They are getting extracted from poor countries in the Global South, where poor people are getting exploited and the areas around these extraction sites are getting toxic and damaged.
Fission is the way to go
@@beback_Agreed, and from the looks of it the only way forward until we can get Fusion energy working as intended or close to it. Or we find a new source of energy.
HAHJASHASJASASHAH
@@chiari-next2202 lets all just ignore the cost and time issue with fission, or the need with putting nuclear reactors in countries like syria or afghanistan or north korea
Nuclear fusion has been "15 years away" since the 60s
Yet the economist blindly accepts the opitimism of a bunch of the CEOs of the industry. It's like believing Elon Musk, that his cars will have a fully functioning auto pilot by the end of this year
"20 years from 20 years from now."
Nuclear fusion has been vastly underfunded since the 60s.
yeah, we need fission
An exceptionally lightweight fluff piece. No ECONOMIC analysis. Maybe you should change the channel name.
FISSION, a bird in the hand is worth two in the bush (FUSION). LOL. ❤❤❤
Thorium is NOW not 40 years away Amigos. ❤❤❤
Yes it's the best hope. But that's all it will ever be. Always has been, always will be.
How does the saying go "Nuclear fusion is always just 30 years away"
I would be super happy if we managed to get nuclear fusion going as it would solve a lot of issues that our world faces. BUT, and this is definitely a big but, it's not a short- or medium term solution to the climate crisis. If we are lucky we might see working fusion reactors by the end of this century but this is way too long to solve the climate crisis.
I'm pretty sure we'll still be dealing with the climate crisis by the end of this century. Working fusion will be really helpful then.
@@MattNolanCustom At the moment the world is aiming for a 3 degree Celsius warming till the end of the century. If that's the case we won't need fusion anymore as we will be fighting the collapse of human civilization.
I sure hope this guy doesn't go mad with power after he holds a sun in his metal hands
I wonder how are you going to sustain more than 1 000 000 degrees.
They already did it for 5 seconds
@@RicoHelms they need to sustain it for 24/7. Hooefully they car make it...
@@admirnisic I’m holding out hope. Remember Edison and that? They failed hundreds of times over but it worked.