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 • 2 415

  • Edward Gilmour
    Edward Gilmour 19 hours ago

    Fusion 30 years away? Wrong ! the nearest Fusion reactor is just 8+1/2 minutes away; Just 150,million Km away +/- just a few million km!
    I'd prefer to use that fusion reactor by just building more energy collect collectors
    plus we need some energy storage system too!
    hint: Gravity would help!

  • Simon Follett
    Simon Follett 4 days ago

    Can the minimum amount of constant energy imput needed to sustain a fusion reaction be measured by knowing the maximum mass of a white dwarf? If so, then could it not be mathematically proven whether a Q ratio bigger than one is ever achievable on earth? Does Einsteins' E=MC2 prove that clean or cleanish efficient fusion is impossible on earth? The space-time continuum is a mass dispersing gravity reduction process. Fission is reductive, fusion is not. Surely fusion would have to involve the impossibility of controlled destruction of space-time.

    • Simon Follett
      Simon Follett 4 days ago

      Maybe not a white dwarf but the lowest mass of any active star.

  • Honrarri 9K RPM
    Honrarri 9K RPM 7 days ago

    Huuurrry uuuupppp ! I want my fusion now !

  • Rau Kenneth
    Rau Kenneth 7 days ago

    Thorium fuel in a liquid salt enjoyment seems to best improvement. Forget fusion for now.

  • i420x Gaming
    i420x Gaming 9 days ago

    Goku and vegita did the impossible and gained fusion so why cant we o-O

  • Pup314
    Pup314 9 days ago

    Forget nuclear plants of either kind. Why can't we just use liquid nitrogen turbines? Use ambient planetary heat from the atmosphere , ground, and/or sea to heat it to gas to turn a turbine, and use some solar power electricity to cool it back down to start the process over again by cooling the nitrogen back down to liquid temps. Obviously this would be a closed system and nontoxic, non-radioactive, and non-combustable if the system breaks.

  • Pup314
    Pup314 9 days ago

    We've had fusion for 4.5 billion years all 93 million mile away from Earth. It is called the Sun. All you need to use it is a solar panel and some plants, and you can get electricity and food for energy.

  • Johnathan Hautz
    Johnathan Hautz 12 days ago

    maybe instead of trying to fuse Tritium and deuterium, we should replace Tritium with Lithium. My reasoning for this comes from brown dwarfs, which are sub-stellar bodies with an approximate minimum mas of 13 Jupiters. This is enough for brown dwarfs to being thermonuclear reactions that fuse Lithium and Deuterium. Granted this is nowhere nearly as powerful as stellar bodies with a minimum mass of about 80 Jupiters which is enough to begin a thermonuclear reaction to fuse Hydrogen to Helium.

  • I Created An Account For This

    React to my reactor.

  • cass c
    cass c 18 days ago

    Thorium!!

  • Les Grossman
    Les Grossman 23 days ago

    We do it's just not effective yet

  • ThunderTurtle
    ThunderTurtle 23 days ago

    There’s gotta be some way to use radioactive fission waste for energy. I wonder how much that’s been explored.

  • arturo0727
    arturo0727 25 days ago +1

    Fusion energy is 30 years away? Back in the 90's they said it was 20 years away, some one is not doing the math. 😂

  • Aske Laszkiewicz
    Aske Laszkiewicz 26 days ago +1

    Isn't the stellarator better than the tokamak? It creates more stability. And what is the reactor that fires tons of pins every second into the plasma? I think it's for stability but I'm not sure I think it's also to 'feed' the plasma. Please help...

  • Brian Coniguliaro
    Brian Coniguliaro 29 days ago

    Can the higs boson be used to “herd the kittens”?

  • Dom Joel
    Dom Joel Month ago

    For whatever reason, it is always 10 years away.

  • David Stinnett
    David Stinnett Month ago

    I honestly don't think energy producers will allow it to happen.
    Fossil fuel companies can transition to being producers of clean energy and act as gate leapers of solar and wind, but fusion messes up the supply and demand that governs the price of energy.
    Too much supply hurts profits, ie, short of some type of major change in the way decisions are made, we won't ever get fusion.

  • icebluscorpion
    icebluscorpion Month ago

    You didn't mentioned LFTR... Why?

  • P Cochran
    P Cochran Month ago +4

    We will never run out of Thorium, or U238, for that matter.
    Fission is easy. Fusion is hard. Very hard.

  • James Scott
    James Scott Month ago

    While we're waiting around for fusion we should get busy building Thorium reactors.

  • Tsundere Child
    Tsundere Child Month ago

    Become muons are little distracted boyfriends that are expensive to produce and are here for a good time, not a long time.

  • Andrew Callaghan
    Andrew Callaghan Month ago

    -Why don't we have X technology?
    Because we're not at war or in some sort of race. If you want fusion now? start a war and you'll get it in a year or so.

  • Adam Churvis
    Adam Churvis Month ago

    Does ANYONE here remember the Baseball IHT fusion reactor? Not nearly as famous as the Tokamak, but it DID exist, and I was just wondering if anyone near the industry remembers it ever existing.

  • John Veneruso
    John Veneruso Month ago

    Solar Power plus onsite lithium battery storage (Tesla Powerwall). Or, Solar and Wind power with reservoir water energy storage. Or, solar and wind power with continent spanning high efficiency high voltage transmission lines. Or use the millions of EV cars spare battery capacity while they're plugged in to balance the load with zero cost to the utilities. Why mess with spent fusion containment vessels that are radioactive for over 100 years and the incredible cost of building those high-temperature, extremely high-pressure fusion containment vessels? Solar is already less expensive per kW than coal, oil, and natural gas and best yet, it's available right now!!! There are infinitely more homes powered by solar power than there are Earth-generated fusion power!!! So far over $23 billion has been spent on ITIR, an experimental fusion reactor that will produce by design zero output power to the grid. Currently commercial solar is 2 cents/kW (2019). If went spent that on commercial solar, we'd be happily generating 1,150 Gigawatts during the daytime for the next 25+ years.

  • Justin Beaird
    Justin Beaird Month ago

    I am convinced that I could live with 4-5 100w solar panels, but the batteries still suck and the ones that suck less are way too expensive.

  • TheLambo2
    TheLambo2 Month ago

    @UCbxdFa03xXcmkKucGX8IM9Q





    @UCbxdFa03xXcmkKucGX8IM9Q



    @








    I am now 60, I heard this load of tripe when I was 10 years old and was looking forward to endless clean energy, every 10 years someone comes out with this bollocks.
    Its just around the corner.
    Horseshit.
    Its just an excuse to throw money away and keep these so called boffins in work at our expense.
    Leave it to people like Elon Musk and geniuses like him and stop with the vocal bollocks and help starving people.
    What a load of hot-air

  • TheLambo2
    TheLambo2 Month ago

    @UCbxdFa03xXcmkKucGX8IM9Q





    @UCbxdFa03xXcmkKucGX8IM9Q



    @








    I am now 60, I heard this load of tripe when I was 10 years old and was looking forward to endless clean energy, every 10 years someone comes out with this bollocks.
    Its just around the corner.
    Horseshit.
    Its just an excuse to throw money away and keep these so called boffins in work at our expense.
    Leave it to people like Elon Musk and geniuses like him and stop with the vocal bollocks and help starving people.
    What a load of hot-air

  • Basil
    Basil Month ago

    Nuclear fusion reactors are not going to happen, ever. Just live with it and stop getting excited about something that will never happen.

  • Dee James
    Dee James Month ago

    Huhhh?... Hmmm? "Birkeland Current Generator" that can Burn up this Rediculous BullPuckey!

  • Sean Regehr
    Sean Regehr Month ago

    Those working on "Fusion energy" are lacking in knowledge clearly. They are more likely to destroy themselves and the earth than achieve success going down this road. Time will show and reveal the Truth.
    All I can do at this point is laugh real hard and enjoy the laugh. The situation is like watching primitive apes try to discern how to open a rock. lol
    Maybe you could do yourselves a favor and take a step back to re-evaluate all you do know. Based on what you do know, it should be obvious why these current approaches as well as everything tried and tested since you began have all failed and at a great cost of time, resources and capital that could have solved the world's problems many times over by now.

  • steve gale
    steve gale Month ago

    Did not understand any of what you said.

  • Hey Paulman
    Hey Paulman Month ago

    because fossil fuel companies dont want us to go green

  • Zack Yezek
    Zack Yezek Month ago +6

    ITER's unlikely to ever lead to energy producing fusion reactors. It's taking forever to go anywhere because it's run by a classic example of a dysfunctional, international government bureaucracy, and has no pressure to actually deliver anything. They're not even committed to START building a real net-power plant there until the 2040s! And whenever they miss deadlines they just move them back; there's no penalty for delay or nonperformance.
    My guess is that it'll be some sort of university-corporate partnership that produces the first useful fusion reactors. People who have all sorts of incentives to get a working prototype in more like 5 years than 50, and whose management structure isn't a crappy knockoff of the UN or EU. The MIT group is a decent bet, as are a few others. Somebody will be demonstrating real reactors while 'ITER' is still under construction.

    • X's Blog
      X's Blog 28 days ago

      This. Companies like General Fusion are the real game-changers and deserve more attention and support.

  • Ananya Sahoo
    Ananya Sahoo Month ago

    What is DEMO?

  • Andre P
    Andre P Month ago

    If tomorrow “”scientists” said they cracked fusion power. It was 100% safe. Needed no substrate. Generated no waste. It needed no maintenance. What’s more, they also developed a distribution network that was safe, efficient, was already in place, needed no maintenance and could be accessed throughout the world. Oh and yes, it was free to build...THE ONLY CATCH... is you could only turn on the reactor on for 12 hours a day... would you BUY stock in this company???
    Now consider that everything said above is true. It’s the SUN... and we already have it in place.

  • Joseph Priolo
    Joseph Priolo Month ago

    a pellet inside a gold cylinder? Fusion cores are coming!

  • worbucks777
    worbucks777 Month ago

    Turbulent Juice...here come the muscular Mannys!

  • Leisa Irwin
    Leisa Irwin Month ago

    How much nuclear waste is there already and where is it stored?

    • Leisa Irwin
      Leisa Irwin Month ago

      👋 Those aren't the droids you're looking for.

  • Maxwell Vandenberg
    Maxwell Vandenberg Month ago

    MIT designed a reactor with active cooling channels running through it and a design that allows the vacuum chamber to to more easily be replaced. Should make it easier to test different alloys quickly when they get it up and running in the next decade and a half or so. They got funding from a big energy company to get it off the ground. Maybe they can make a hybrid fusion/fission system and dissolve the radioactive materials in the liquid blanket after separating them out chemically? Then get them to decay to something stable faster by hitting them with more neutrons. Or just have a separate reactor that does that specifically.

  • Ty Farr
    Ty Farr Month ago

    promote truth thorium heavy water salt reactors check that out smart guy

    • steve gale
      steve gale Month ago

      Why? They are a total dead end.

  • Corrine Tsang
    Corrine Tsang Month ago +3

    China is going to the far side of the moon to mine Helium-3 for nuclear fusion.

    • Bandit Leader
      Bandit Leader 28 days ago

      But deuterium produces helium-3

    • Aeturnalis
      Aeturnalis 29 days ago

      hopefully... if anyone is going to get it right, it'll be China.

  • Didivs Ivlianvs
    Didivs Ivlianvs Month ago

    Simple. Climate "scientists" want to push the world into socialism before anything is done that solves peak oil/AGW.

  • dr.chapook dlzar orthopedic surgeon

    I have brilliant idea.
    1- use hydrogen from petroleum or melatonin hormone or other biological sources.
    2- put laser machines inside the reactor that uses photons from the explosion to form laser and direct the beam outside the reactor

  • Joseph McCarthy
    Joseph McCarthy Month ago +1

    The solution comes in the form of the squared cubed law.

  • OriginalTharios
    OriginalTharios Month ago

    Until we crack gravity, or the production of antimatter, we'll never have fusion. We might be able to one day build a facility at the Jovian moons to take all their water and convert it into fuel for a planet-sized reactor...but that's it. They'll never be smaller than that without at least one of the two techs mentioned above.

    • Tall Troll
      Tall Troll Month ago

      Except we have already achieved fusion. The issues remaining are about getting it out of the experimental stage and making it a commercial source of energy, able to compete in the market with existing power generation techs. I don't understand what gravity or antimatter have to do with fusion, since neither is necessary or even particularly closely related to fusion energy. Also, FWIW, we do currently produce and store antimatter (in tiny quantities. Like 19 atoms tiny, but once it has been done, all that's left is engineering. Lots and lots of engineering)

  • Khelthrai Hellbane
    Khelthrai Hellbane Month ago +4

    Easy steps to get a very strong password:
    1-Type a "shape" on your keyboard.
    2-Substitute the actual letters for leet
    3-Roll a joint or something, you were basically done at step 1.5

    • Robin Gilliver
      Robin Gilliver Month ago

      No.

    • Rusty Shakleford
      Rusty Shakleford Month ago

      add the first and last letter from the website at the beginning and end of the password and you have a unique and rememorable password for every website, further insulating you from a hacking event.

      also, hit the joint again

  • Jan Sitkowski
    Jan Sitkowski Month ago

    Emm... As have been brought up by some people... Why use something as inefficient as water-turbines to collect energy from heat?
    Because it's pretty inefficient.

    • Tall Troll
      Tall Troll Month ago

      Mostly because it's a mature technology, with existing infrastructure and supply chain. Various research groups and companies are looking at alternative ways of generating useful energy in other ways, but so far as I am aware there isn't a currently available, commercially useful device that can do the job

  • JavierCR25
    JavierCR25 Month ago

    Why don’t we just improve rocket tech so we can send all the nuclear waste to outer space. Or to the sun!

  • Diana Gibbs
    Diana Gibbs Month ago

    In other words, it's complicated. *sigh*

  • Grungepuppy 99
    Grungepuppy 99 Month ago

    I can never forgive you for the cat joke

  • Seniorfungi
    Seniorfungi Month ago

    Not one Word about the German Stellarator Testreactor Wendelstein 7-X? Sad.

    • brayden
      brayden Month ago

      Seniorfungi lol ok nerd

  • ุ ุ
    ุ ุ Month ago +1

    Humanity won't be here for longer to succeed in fusion because of Alzheimer, Parkinson, Cancers, Heart diseases and immense amounts of self-righteousness and ignorance. Good luck.

  • Life Is Short
    Life Is Short Month ago

    Maybe we won’t need fusion if this new engine the Wall Street journal just reported on, that’s run by magnets, turns out to work. Not perpetual motion. But close!

  • ginger nut
    ginger nut Month ago +3

    Litteraly every video about fusion:
    "Fusion will probabily be good but we haven't invented yet"

    • Jan Sitkowski
      Jan Sitkowski Month ago

      We already have invented it actualy.
      We just have problems containing it in such a way that would make the energy production safe.

    • FGV Cosmic
      FGV Cosmic Month ago

      Not really “probably”. If we can get it to work, it WILL be good.

  • ken smith
    ken smith Month ago

    wouldnt that just make life on earth alot simper and cleaner

    • ken smith
      ken smith Month ago

      He3

    • ken smith
      ken smith Month ago

      you what amazing most people see this video and scifi doesnt seem as many people working on it as should be and alot of igornce on the subject about it by the genral public thank
      heluim topamak fusion? saw a doumentry on it seemed more efficent as they where able to start at lower working temp.....

  • Travis Smith
    Travis Smith Month ago

    Would it not make more sense to redesign a fission reactor that would.
    1. Burn its own waste as fuel and reduce or completely eliminate waste.
    2. Be designed in a way that a meltdown is impossible.
    3. Be designed to NOT produce nuclear weapon materials.
    I know we can do these things for sure.

    • rationalmartian
      rationalmartian Month ago

      You DO???
      That is remarkable. Pity you eschewed the option of educating us all in respect to how they are actually achievable in reality.
      I'm sure I won't be on my own in being intrigued to understand how these can be done. Number one especially.
      You are aware that a Fission rector doesn't actually burn fuel, as such? It is not a chemical combustion process. It is an indirect nuclear process. As the the massive nucleus of such heavy elements is unstable, due to the sheer size. The string nuclear force holding the nucleus together is very strong, but acts over a short distance, as the nucleus of an atom increases in size the outer protons and neutrons are held less securely making them much more likely to split and turn into different elements. There is however a mismatch in the masses of the two products left over and the original mass. This small amount of mass is liberated as energy. As in Einstein's famous equation.
      This is where the energy comes from in a fission reactor.

  • radzewicz
    radzewicz 2 months ago +1

    Nonsense. Fusion, if it ever is somehow made to work, produces radioactive by-products such as radioactive tritium. You still are left with a huge radioactive disposal problem. This business about "no radioactive disposal" is total nonsense. But after almost 100 years of working on it, we are still no closer to making it work, and we probably never will get it to work. Consider that the sun, halfway to the core, only produces about 270 watts per cubic meter, a very pathetic power output, and that's with half of the mass of the sun driving it. I don't think controlled fusion will ever work.

    • radzewicz
      radzewicz Month ago +1

      It most definitely is! Listen to the video dumbass, even he says so towards the end of the video, if you bothered to listen: tvclip.biz/video/riOvBEEs9WY/video.html You mouth the same crap that idiots used to mouth about breeder reactors, lol. Additionally radiation contamination from the by-products of fusion will also be a disposal and environmental problem. Fusion, if it ever does manage to work (and after almost 100 years no one has gotten it to work!), will have its own disposal and contamination problems, plus probably a few others that no one has thought of yet. There is no such thing as "perfect" and there are no free lunches dumbass.

    • Zane Shute
      Zane Shute Month ago

      It is most definitely not a "huge radioactive disposal problem." Tritium is not especially radioactive and quite small amounts of it would be used in fusion reactors equating to insignificant radiation release.

  • SteveVi0lence
    SteveVi0lence 2 months ago

    All I need are the six infinity stones

  • Alex Mitchell
    Alex Mitchell 2 months ago

    That's a pretty shallow analysis of wind, solar and nuclear fission. Fusion is a pipe dream.

  • I C
    I C 2 months ago

    Pretty sure AOC would want fusion banned. She already wanted fission banned from green new deal

  • Brett Mccluske
    Brett Mccluske 2 months ago

    The cosmic synthesys and rarety of lithium byrilium and boron.

  • Ivica Koren
    Ivica Koren 2 months ago

    2035??? Hire chinese

  • Matthew Dick
    Matthew Dick 2 months ago

    Short answer; the worst way to try fusion (Tokamak) gets almost all the money and the more promising ways to do it get peanuts

  • fanOmry
    fanOmry 2 months ago +1

    Wouldn't it be better to accelerate charged deuterium streams to each other?
    Wouldn't that be cheaper?

  • Lander Mike
    Lander Mike 2 months ago

    How would renewable resource be a problem? I call bullsh!t!!

  • Jfreek5050
    Jfreek5050 2 months ago +1

    For the record, nuclear fission doesn't pollute the environment. All waste is buried on site of the plant.

  • corbett coburn
    corbett coburn 2 months ago

    You can produce fusion in your own home -- it's been done by high school students. You can build a Farnsworth Fusor. This is much easier to achieve fusion using a Fusor, but they don't require HUGE budgets, so they are not popular with fusion researchers. However, some promising work has been done in this field recently.

  • T H I C C S A L A M I B O I

    or just use KeePass. it free and open source

  • paper burn
    paper burn 2 months ago +2

    And not one word about polywell fusion which beats them all in number of ions fused. US navy project,

  • Caligulas Incarnation
    Caligulas Incarnation 2 months ago

    Wait couldn't this heat create steam???????which could create energy from.a steam.engine????

  • Luke Hodder
    Luke Hodder 2 months ago

    Nice haircut at the end 😊

  • USA Citizen
    USA Citizen 2 months ago

    Where is the havoc on the climate?

  • Nightshade Kelly
    Nightshade Kelly 2 months ago

    Theres an abandoned nucular power plant in the woods near where i live. It was actually one of the first ones built but it only ran for a couple of years before it had to be shut down because it wasn't safe. The legit just abandoned it

  • Lord Fezerellii
    Lord Fezerellii 2 months ago

    The oil and gas industry is mote profitable thats why

  • Pilot Namealreadytaken
    Pilot Namealreadytaken 2 months ago

    thorium >.

  • Robert Hambrook
    Robert Hambrook 2 months ago

    I think fusion is a pipe dream.

  • Suman Saini
    Suman Saini 2 months ago

    No hank no fun

  • classiclarry88
    classiclarry88 2 months ago

    2035, just to start experimenting!?!? Until then, keep the oil flowing and uranium sizzling. Going to have to read into thorium.

  • moosefactory133
    moosefactory133 2 months ago

    I would like to see this technology actually become a reality but if it does, I will not be around to see it.

  • Travis Negrete
    Travis Negrete 2 months ago

    My neighbor Mick says that the government already has access to cold fusion but they are keeping it a secret from the innocent masses.

  • Daniel Brown
    Daniel Brown 2 months ago

    Thumbs down for fission bashing.. Every nuclear accident revolves around crazy outdated engineering and tech.. And there is tech in the making to turn todays waste into future fuel.. You claim to care about the planet and throw away the easiest way to make energy.. All you care about is your image and power. Informed people take note of this.

  • John Terpack
    John Terpack 2 months ago

    I turn 50 this year. I've been hearing my entire life that we're "almost out" of oil. The claim no longer has any credibility.

  • Desmond Bagley
    Desmond Bagley 2 months ago

    ...........I still haven't worked out if LENR is real. It sounds very plausible from the videos here on the toob.

  • gamer bähm
    gamer bähm 2 months ago +1

    LastPass is crap! You guys should use bitwarden it's open source and free.

  • Mileek Bell
    Mileek Bell 2 months ago

    Don't know if the scientist on these Fusion reactors watch videos like this but a quick slightly uneducated suggestion but how about taking the pellets less use for the laser Fusion and creating a shaped like a dodecahedron and giving it a massive rotation while also heating it up at the same time with the lasers will help to get a even distribution of heat and pressure to help it undergo a fusion because it seems that rotation plays a huge roll in something like the Sun where fusion occurs often or it's just me that thinks that rotation please roll and evenly Distributing heat and pressure to an object but anyways hope this helps on the quest to better energy for all of us

  • Lance Heaps
    Lance Heaps 3 months ago +1

    Damn disappointed we don’t have Mr. Fusion from Back to the Future yet. Science needs to get on that.

  • João Roberto
    João Roberto 3 months ago

    5:40 goku and vegeta trained there

  • Eric
    Eric 3 months ago

    Sad that this won't happen in our lifetime

  • Spook Man
    Spook Man 3 months ago

    What about tidal currents? 24-7 free energy (except for the generators themselves ofc.)

  • Spook Man
    Spook Man 3 months ago

    Because why use Thorium, which is abundantly available (like in sand), does not require insane temperatures, whose waste materials don’t fuel the the military industrial complex,
    If you can make billions doing the opposite?

  • Karl Jensen
    Karl Jensen 3 months ago

    Unfortunately, fusion is a pipe dream and a great way it keeps physicists employed, at least for the next several hundred years. The “machine” would have to be huge, miles across to be viable. The second problem is extracting the energy. So much of chambers surface area is dedicated to containing the event that there is inadequate area left for energy absorption. Our efforts are better spent on LFTR reactors.

  • GodlikeVallenrod
    GodlikeVallenrod 3 months ago

    Since when carbon dioxide is bad for the environment? It naturally exists within our atmosphere. What's bad are NOx

  • Hrishikesh Apte
    Hrishikesh Apte 3 months ago

    never expected cat

  • Dylan Hughes
    Dylan Hughes 3 months ago

    Can't we just use magnets to levitate the small ball right in the center of the reactor?

  • Dylan Hughes
    Dylan Hughes 3 months ago

    Uranium is now a renewable resource, search it up. We've got unlimited supplies now and it's even commercially viable. How's that for a plot twist!
    "Nuclear waste" is still 99% uranium which can be used in special reactors to generate even more energy until the fuel effectively disappears.

  • kad gamer
    kad gamer 3 months ago

    2019? anyone

  • Ty Gerrr
    Ty Gerrr 3 months ago

    It's actually very easy. Stop making babies. Less people means more energy, more food, more space, no need for wars, and a lot less strain on the environment.

  • Hexo_Typhoon Oethou
    Hexo_Typhoon Oethou 3 months ago

    always 30 years away......emm......don't think i can see it.

  • caav56
    caav56 3 months ago

    Because we are too cowardly to build the PACER fusion energy powerplant - en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Project_PACER

  • Gurren813
    Gurren813 3 months ago

    Not even gunna mention the MIT breakthrough of a fuel mix that was producing 10x the amount of energy than every other fuel mix?