Is Nuclear Fusion The Answer To Clean Energy? 

The nuclear power plant operator was greeted when he begun his shift, "May the weak force be with you!" For those who didn't get the joke, I quote Wikipedia. "In particle physics, the weak interaction, which is also often called the weak force or weak nuclear force, is the mechanism of interaction between subatomic particles that is responsible for the radioactive decay of atoms"

Rofl xD, good one.

@@Night-Sight Fission is splitting and it's what we currently use. Fusion is combining.

@@Manalor6955 you are right I mixed the names accidently fusion/fission.

Might have to 'fuse' those public opinions together ;)

They should do more videos about the crimes and greedy behaviour of Amazon

@leicanoct It's technically not, although it is in fact considered the second worst sin of the Seven Deadly Sins (Only Pride is worse.). What's especially interesting is how Republican love to cling to a so-called "Christian Identity", when in fact the entire core of their being revolves around actively practicing and promoting the two worst Seven Deadly Sins.

Why this exact comment is everywhere on this channel..

@@Wasserkaktus Brazilians have every right to burn that dump for development all countries have destroyed their Forrests why Brazil should be only one forced to keep theirs

@@Wasserkaktus even it means death for all human being. Atleast death will fair it won't ask country, race place of birth,religion etc

They're not scientists. Journalists don't care much about details...

Shhh. Let the media fearmongering kill fusion after it has been made viable.

Definitely, I thought something was off. Maybe it's for simplicity's sake in the animation...

Nice videos

Are you saying that one of the neutrons shouldn't be there or that there should be only one neutron there?

But, sir, I'm not Tony Stark!

Lol not many ppl will understand my friend lmao

Dammit tony stark and his life hacks

Desperation meets innovation💪

Tony Stark is a fictional character.

That's entropy for you

You can accidentally make a baby, but you can’t accidentally make a pizza...😒

@@LadiesMan-bo2cc Accidentally have a baby?? Who are you? Virgin Mary??

Justice Warrior Virgin Mary?? Wow nice reference. I was referring to the condom breaking or failing birth control pill...they aren’t 100% preventative so yes...”Accidentally “

Entropy

Being for the environment and against nuclear is basically for the destruction of the modern world.

They don’t understand that the amount of pollution from nuclear energy is astronomically less than coal, and we still rely mainly on coal for energy

STOP fission now!!!! STOP gas now!!!!! Let's use candles and horses to save the planet!!!!!!

yet amazingly almost no one actually think there's an enormous nuclear reaction inside the Earth that has been burning more than 4 billion years, I doubt that even the most destructive volcano eruption that has the power to wipe the entire human race could make people realize how much energy in it

I am actually tempted to agree with this. I remember supporting environmental policies over ten years ago, but it astounded me how much a large portion of the environmentalist movement hates nuclear as much if not more than fossil fuels. I understand the risks with catastrophic meltdowns, and I also understand how nuclear waste is a very bad problem, but both of these risks are grossly outweighed by all of the pollution and greenhouse effects that fossil fuels have created. Nuclear also stands to become much more refined and cleaner with more research: Fossil fuels are pretty much at a dead end when it comes to research, apart from just increasing fuel efficiency.

Nuclear is not renewable

EyesOfTheLion 11 depends on the type, but some of it is. Fusion is renewable.

It is not renewable. Sorry.

It's not renewable, but neither does anything else if you look at it hard enough. It's practically renewable though, we won't ever run out of water (unless we become Venus).

@@PetrGladkikh Solar isn't either

@paul lennon Ummm...we've had fusion weapons for over half a century

Infinite growth on a finite planet was never a possibility. The only way to prolong humanity would be if everyone lived in mud huts and grew fruits and vegetables using hand tools and stopped making babies.

@Kargadan Not really. Hell, it's pretty natural, people are creative. Someone is always gonna wonder if they can put someone in the dirt with a new invention.

@@driftlesshermit yes thats true, this is why there is a need to diverify and extend our reach to the stars above

Maybe we should have taken better care of the most beautiful planet that we know and gives us life. Greedy humans don't deserve to trash anymore planets. We are the most invasive species in the universe.

must have come out of the fact department instead of the propaganda department

ru-vid.com/video/%D0%B2%D0%B8%D0%B4%D0%B5%D0%BE-pLDUIofn5KY.html

@@vsbrosis957 please don't spam the comments section with links to your video. It's not relevant to the topic being discussed, it's not informative, it's not accurate, it's badly made and you're not adding to the discussion by replying to everyone in the comments section of this video with a link to it.

bruhh solar panel destroys local climate and mass solar panel will destroy whole eco system wheather pattern nothing is safe when we need energy

@@coreymicallef365 Puke!

Wokis 😂😂

Some of my citizens became mutants because of it.

their actual predictions line up with fallout timeline

It was based on how many high-tech industries you had. Awesome game, too bad they messed up the series with that online bs

expertly planned with so many details, and yeah they sold out my favorite game series.

Because if push came to shove, Nuclear could go disastrously wrong. How do you actually handle nuclear waste

@@vasu6494 Nuclear waste can be recycled, but US refuse to do that.

Because even one disaster is enough to wipe out the surrounding area, on such a large scale that it is still known today(Like Japan's one). It may be safe, but not safe enough to be placed all over, because the more you place, the higher the chance of something going boom

@@kongwee1978 how can you recycle Nuclear Waste? I have never seen it happen anywhere. They just store it in a Faraway place and hope it doesn't get exposed anywhere

@@kongwee1978 don't forget something like Stuxnet can make this a soft target for cyber warfare

I bet he put is welder in reverse

lmao

LOL eagle eyes. I just noticed the sparks

It's a complicated way to create welding electrodes.

@@zvpunry1971 reverse, reuse, recycle

Do not enter gentle in that good night

By the time you get back from Gargantua… I’ll have solved the problem of Fusion

Nope windmills bigger than hover dams that reverse in tides to.with magnetic bearings geared to light speeds just ditch the rich virus makers in way.

ru-vid.com/video/%D0%B2%D0%B8%D0%B4%D0%B5%D0%BE-pLDUIofn5KY.html

@@andrerichardson the history of major great innovation was with rejection, ridiculed, and laughter..

Yes---I thought the same thing. It looks like one step up from using channel locks.

If it works, it works.

Could be there is not enough room for a socket. A ratchet wrench, 12" extension, and socket probably cost the same as those wrenches.

That's why most private ventures are successful, atleast in an economic sense, than most public ventures.

The first company to crack fusion will be raking in money for a long time. They will be in history books as one of the most profitable companies.

BEST COMMENT

Well.... these guys aren't Tony Stark.

hahahaha!

what is a "scap"?

@@CaryGlennDavisbasically metal that is junk that could be used to make something in the apocalypse

It's at least three. Anyway, even two would be too much. Take a look at Japan. Fukushima nuclear disaster happened in 2011, but they are still struggling to contain it. The total cost of the disaster will be more than the construction costs of all of Japan's nuclear reactors combined, according to current estimates at least 450 billion dollars. One disaster made Japan's nuclear energy extremely expensive. Because of the Chernobyl disaster large part of the forests and agricultural lands of Ukraine and Belarus are unusable. Again, intolerably expensive and damaging. There are other good reasons to give up nuclear power, but even these are enough. Nuclear power (fission based) is slowly dying anyway. Building of new reactors has practically stopped in developed countries, and by far the largest builder, China, has recently stripped down most of it's ambitious nuclear program, and is building renewables instead. In 2019 China made more than half of the global investments in renewable energy. I'd say the competition is already over. The future is renewable. Fusion might have been good, but has already missed it's time window (I originally wrote "fission might have been good..." by accident - sorry about that).

@@ademeionademo3703 the fact that renewables are most invested in isn't an argument that they are the best. Problem with renewables is that you need to rely on something that is unreliable. Nuclear power plants are hugely effective and incredibly green for their reliable output (even with kWh/co2 they go toe to toe with solar and wind and usually come out better). In my country (Czech Republic, around 10M people) there are only two nuclear power plants which are back bone of our power production still to this day (built in 80s). One thing you can also reconsider is that IF (and that is a big if) nuclear accident happen, it will probably ruin a lot of agricultural land. If you build solar panel field, you will ruin that field 100%. Because another great problem is kWh/km^2. I understand your worries about nuclear energy. From my point of view renewables have not convinced me that they are solutions to the problems they claimed to be

Ademeion Ademo Nuclear is the only way, nothing else can scale to our needs. We start with fission and then move to fusion once we figure out how to do that, fusion is certainly the only option looking hundreds of years into the future.

@@TheShadowBannedBandit You are quite correct about nuclear, except we don't need fusion. 1/ We won't get hundreds of years into the future without nuclear. 2/ Nuclear fusion is not nearly as free from residual radioactivity as in 1961 I thought it was. Helium is not radioactive, but the superfast neutrons that get nearly all of the energy have the capacity to transform any other nuclei into something radioactive. 3/ I have read that the brilliant Andrei Sakharov, one of the inventors of the Tokamak, pointed out that fission of massive nuclei produces more energy _per reaction_ than fusion. It's also IMHO easier to capture for civilian purposes. Given that one atom each of tritium and deuterium has a mass of 5, and that thorium, uranium and up have masses over 230, the energy per unit mass comes out better for fusion, but when you consider the apparatus, that's probably misleading.

albert rogers Well, considering the big ball of fire in the sky runs on fusion not fission... somewhere your logic is flawed.

incredible isnt it

problem is you have to build new reactors.

@@donmargareto i've heard that it should be as simple as retrofitting old powerplants to suit moltensalt reactor

Not to mention it’s nearly impossible to create weapons with, cannot have a meltdown in a reactor, and is more common than uranium

problem is it's rare and cannot be used to supply even 2 percent of the world

The main obstacle is that weapons grade Uranium is needed to start the process. That would give more nations an excuse to produce or procure weapons grade Uranium. Most rouge states already possess weapons grad Uranium...so I think this is a dumb reason to hold back Thorium reactors.

No sane person should argue for the currently existing nuclear power generation as a "safe" option. The true cost of this technology is insane compared to almost every other means, not only renewable.

Nuclear fusion is environmental friendly it’s the only way forward

@@nitishkannan2919 "and the world is flat". Sorry, but you have no argument but only ideology. Specially the this is the "only way" means that your belief is based upon a very limited worldview. So what is wrong with the alternatives? And just for fun: how do you plan to handle the actual risk of nuclear fusion as well as the impact in terms of waste? How do you protect a nuclear plant against a terrorist group? And are you willing to act on your belief and start a career as a nuclear waste worker?

@@BernhardWelzel How many terrorist extracurricular activities has oil managed to fund it's time?

@@BernhardWelzel ... i'm sane. Nuclear power is safe. It's clean and it's efficient. It is the future.

The bad word is fission, everyone is on board with nuclear fusion

@@billsgui Everyone who knows what they are talking about. But when you consider the general public... Yeah, you'd better not use the word " Nuclear "

It needs to use the word “nuclear” because both fission and fusion energy are generated altering substance’s nucleus

@@billsgui 95% of the humans on this planet are fearful of the word nuclear. Most don't know the difference between fusion and fusion. Not only are the terms similar but the explanation sounds the same to many. One doesnt call his boss a 'schmuck'. One shouldn't be advocating 'nuclear' solutions.

@@OscarDiaz-nn9ch @fhd fah 95% of the humans on this planet are fearful of the word nuclear. Most don't know the difference between fusion and fusion. Not only are the terms similar but the explanation sounds the same to many. One doesnt call his boss a 'schmuck'. One shouldn't be advocating 'nuclear' solutions.

I got it to work in my basement lab one time and I recorded it, but the file got corrupted. :(

@@peppersaltman1805 🧢

@@peppersaltman1805 sure bud.

You're not wrong lol 😂

They do good at high tech then fall off the wagon and use 200 year old technology to make electricity. Time to rethink the machine.

@@offgridwanabe don't need to fix what isn't broke... please propose a superior method of energy conversion.

@@fearthemerciful hydrogen fuel cell direct production of electricity from hydrogen

@@offgridwanabe good luck getting enough hydrogen

hahahah true that

Or plans for it.

did not watch the video. but, nuclear fusion hasnt been done yet. If it does work, it will be a great source of energy. Until then, stick to nuclear fission, which is actually a great replacement for oil!

@@gags730 For the US we only use oil in Hawaii (there are some plants in reserve for emergencies though mostly in the eastern US). The reason we got in the first oil crisis in the 1970's was that we had moved a huge amount of power production to oil. This greatly increased the consumption of oil and made us highly reliant on the Middle East. These mistakes were made by Johnson and Nixon especially and to lesser a degree Kennedy. The crisis is worse than most people realize. It caused a rush on US gold reserves and has lead to the inflation from that time to today. We moved away from oil after that mostly building coal power plants and some nuclear, but with fracking, natural gas became very plentiful and cheap in the US and most new plants became natural gas. There are two kinds of natural gas plants: simple cycle and combined cycle. Combined cycle is much more efficient. Simple cycle is cheaper to build and the old oil plants that were not demolished were converted into these inefficient natural gas plants. Nuclear became hard after 3 mile island. But this was due to lies put forth by the anti-nukes (who were actually bankrolled initially by oil tycoons because oil was being used for power generation at the time). They said tens to hundreds of thousands of people would die prematurely from cancer as a result of the radiation cloud release. That of course did not happen. Lots of studies...no increase. We have mechanisms in our cells that repair DNA provided the damage rate is slow. The media ate up the lies and continue to spout them because fearmongering brings in viewers which sells advertising. They said in this piece that long term exposure to low level radiation creates new worries...hogwash! We are designed to live in a radioactive environment and always have. It is called background radiation. Stick a Geiger counter next to a banana it will go bonkers. Also the background radiation levels have fallen off dramatically since they stopped above ground nuclear testing. Fukushima is a drop in the bucket compared to that previous level. In fact, it did not even stop the falling levels due to half life reduction of background radiation from the 1950's and 1960's. Not one person died due to radiation in Fukushima, but the news never says: "Big news nobody died" The guy mentioned that nuclear cost the least amount of lives per year on average. That number is 90 lives (mostly industrial in nature not radiation) per trillionkWhr (including the disasters). Sounds terrible doesn't it? Coal is over 100,000 lives! Oil is 36,000 lives. Even biomass is 24,000 lives. Natural gas is 4,000 lives. Even solar is 440 lives. And the US number for nuclear is 0.1 lives. We use oil in the US obviously but it is used for transportation. All other uses are peanuts.

@Usze 'Taham that is not strictly true we had electric cars before we had petrol and if we had not gone the oil route bettered would have advanced singifincalt and we would have used coal I'm jot saying coal is good I'm simply saying oil was not the reason why technology went forward it was simply one option to fuel that push forward there was and still is many others

Isaac Newton didn't "discover" gravity he simply formulated a way of explaining it.

Nah but Hahn could explained it, which Tayadoshi wasn't able to(He couldn't proof it).

Blaze I was looking for a comment similar to this.

what career, WHAT CAREER

(in thirty years, thirty years from now)

No suprise. They are spin machines... They hate Tesla for the same reason.

Nuclear is much safer using salt as a containment. It's the Heavy & light water reactors that are used for making weapons fuel & polute the environment.

Nuclear is promising but I think we also need to be honest about its shortcomings. As the video pointed out the economics aren't great even after decades of experience with nuclear tech. Its also not going to solve climate change all by itself, since we can't build nuclear power plants in every country due to a) proliferation risks (just think Iran) and b) lack of energy infrastructure to operate a massive nuclear power plant (think 3rd world countries). The 5-10 year built time is also an issue. We need to reduce CO2 emissions right now so relying on nuclear alone will cost to much time to get it done and there is a limit on how many reactors a country can build at the same time, since there just aren't that many nuclear engineers around. Just pointing this out since some people seem to think that nuclear is the silver bullet that solves all problems when it isn't. Its just an important piece of the solution.

I come from 2050 we aren't there yet but expect to be in another 10years.

we are all dead already in 12 years according to AOC!!!!

What's the point, no nuclear reaction is free from radiation and nuclear decay, they are all messy processes. People will still complain when 2 radioactive nuclei exit the core accidentally and the whole project will be canceled.

@@kronek88 nothing better than NUCLEAR!! that can offer more energy at lower price!

Ha, I see what you did there.

@just another human 'Farnsworth' never built a nuclear reactor you nitwit, fusion, fission or otherwise.

@just another human ru-vid.com/video/%D0%B2%D0%B8%D0%B4%D0%B5%D0%BE-zIk5sIaYIQA.html A Farnsworth Fusor is an early design for a nuclear fusion reactor. The design is ultimately impractical for fusion power generation, because the amount of power generated with such a design has never come close to even equaling the amount of power that must be put in to sustain the reaction. PRODUCING A NET ENERGY DEFICIT IS WORSE THAN POINTLESS. BTW, have you heard of Professor Stephen Hawking ? Went to the same school as me. Founded in 948, not 1948 btw, not a typo.

@@grahamstevenson1740 ru-vid.com/video/%D0%B2%D0%B8%D0%B4%D0%B5%D0%BE-dOD6gm_krmQ.html

great analogy

I oppose it because of costs. It's simply waaaay too expensive. I don't want my electricity bill to double.

That's a Nikola Tesla quote, sir. Not Thomas Edison. Check better, sorry I did not mean to be a smart ass.

@@levisalvini4110 It was, indeed, Edison. However, Tesla did have a snappy comeback to that quote: "If Edison had a needle to find in a haystack, he would proceed at once with the diligence of the bee to examine straw after straw until he found the object of his search. I was a sorry witness of such doing that a little theory and calculation would have saved him ninety percent of his labor.”

@@DesertTripper Or yknow, using magnet ...

Tesla also said "Do the math right the first time and then you don't have 1000 mistakes."

He's prolly right. Like his vibe makes me sad, but looking at how things are headed :D... :(

“If the human race is still around in the year 2500” What the ... is the human race? Why does everything in America always have to be assigned to a race?

It's entirely possible that we won't and that's not being pessimistic. It's obvious that instead of trying to understand the way people who might live peaceful but different lives than our own are subject to fear and hatred when they shouldn't be. The divisions we see in government, religion, race and gender have fueled murder and genocide for as long as there have been humans. At this point, it looks like we're heading in the wrong direction. The only way we get to 2500 is with peace and understanding. The outstanding and more pressing reason are the people who don't believe in climate change. Belief cannot change stop rising sea levels and melting polar ice caps. Aboriginal peoples are being displaced. Whether you believe it or not, it's happening.

Schmorfi Torfi we are all literally humans, what are you talking about

@@wat3r-243 I am talking about human 'race' and I ask what it could be and why only US-People obviously know what it could be, because they talking a lot about it. Even scientist. What is ist and why they always talk about? Can we are all literally humans and simultaneously a human race? At school in US, children must indicate which race they belong to? True or false?

But he knows more about the subject than you ever will.

@@squatch545 Unlikely.

@@zachcarmichael699 Very likely.

@Ben Vail No, he is just talking about that specific method. The video is misleading here. Laser ignited fusion technology was never meant to work as a power plant. It was designed to study fusion. In contrast, reactors like ITER are designed with the long term goal of energy production.

@@aheinstein291 it's just bad editing on cnbc's part.

Sounds like he was a great guy.

Howard Stark in Iron Man 2 (2010)?

Watch the intro part of the fallout 4 game it's inspiring

tepco2011

And fissions the only thing that can save us and the earth

its a funding mainly same problem with space advancement stalled due to funding. But something like this is going to take 200 years to develop if not more its a synthetic sun in a cage

Fast forward to today when multiple times already fusion has achieved a net positive energy production

YESS, I'm not even american but I've been following him and I know he's the only candidate who would understand the energy problem the world has rn

@@daarksideyt Not only the internet but just average Americans... Make big tech companies pay more taxes and give money directly to the people

this is not.. fusion

What does the scouter say about Nuclear Fusion’s power level?

@@billoddy5637 Only that it's over 9000

Of course there HAD to be this joke... and I love it! XD

just as long as we get those dragon balls...

Molten salt nuclear reactors running on thorium is the safe way to do nuclear fission. They cannot meltdown, and they don't explode like today's reactors. The radioactive waste they produce is safe after three hundreds compared to today's radioactive waste taking tens of thousands of years to become safe. ru-vid.com/video/%D0%B2%D0%B8%D0%B4%D0%B5%D0%BE-uK367T7h6ZY.html

🤣🤣🤣

@@Les_S537 yes and advancements to make reactors safer are being worked on all the time. Unfortunate that so many people have such a negative stigma surrounding nuclear power, they won't even open their minds to accept research or new developments.

@Jason Tempel What does that mean?

@Jason Tempel are you talking about what happened to the funds for the cleaning up programmes?

.

RIGHT!!! Like really needed it 50 years ago.

Yang Gang 2020!!!!

Thorium reactors might be a dead end looking at all the research around

can't make a bomb out of it.

Adromedox until then they are the best option

Alen Zhang and cheaper that’s why the fossil fuel lobby and the wind/solar lobby are fighting it.

Fun fact. I HAVE NEVER SEEN PEOPLE WEARING PROTECTIVE SUITS WHILE INSTALLING #SOLAR SYSTEM. TRY THAT WITH #CLEAN #NUCLEAR.

@@texasdude1 your statement is 100% #FAKENEWS. IT'S NOT IN ANY WAY CHEAPER THEN #WIND AND #SOLAR.

@@mexicanracer03 LOL you're the fake news....

C Angel they sure were protective suits and respirators making solar panels that’s toxic, you don’t think nuclear is cheaper 😂

volker engels thats what research and investment is

Andrew Yang running for president will change this!

don't forget geothermal, which is great where it is available.

@@jsmariani4180 Agreed. :-)

Hydropower can affect local tectonic and cause e.g. localized earthquakes. Wind power plants can affect weather conditions - e.g. prevent humid air from reaching inland. Neither source of energy is without cons.

I think electricity in general is amazing in our everyday lives. It’s easy to forget that and take it for granted. As for side effects, I suppose weighing pros and cons is the best we can do.

@@NetZeroTech Yes, that is true. Considering impact on environment, on all stages (including production of required components of power plant), I think nuclear energy is slightly better, causing less environmental impact.

triggered

You'd be much happier letting things go that dont affect you.

@@BoogerDeluxe22 It's still very odd and sounds wrong to me

Probably just trying to make it easier to understand for more people, as actual smart people do

He has to dumb it down. You cannot assume that the vast mass of people is sufficiently educated. He did a good job

It depends a lot on the type of fusion reactor, but often it's done by basically microwaving the gas in a way if I recall correctly (definitely not a nuclear scientist, do not take any of my word as fact). The reason it works is because the gas is kept away from the walls by electromagnets, and thus there isn't really anything to give heat off to. Second reason is because the amount of gas is tiny, just a few grams, if even that, so relatively little energy is necessary to get it to those temperatures (Still needs an incredible amount of energy however). Linus Tech Tips has an entire video about this specific reactor design, as they visited it.

Yo are heating only two hydrogen atoms.even at few million degrees,the heat i unlikely to be dangerous

As SlayerOfTheBad said, there are many approaches. But the typical tokamak reactor design uses lasers to heat a very small space, confined by an intense electromagnetic field (so it doesn't directly contact the other materials in the reactor). This is also why it is so difficult to get more energy out than in, because both those lasers and strong electromagnetic fields take lots of energy. But, as with most things, these things tend to get more optimized and efficient over time.

David pretty sure a tokamak doesnt use lasers just regular old microwaves Lasers though are used in a different design where they shoot lasers from all sides and that way compressing and heating a tiny peelt containing hydrogen But im no nuclear scientist

You know you could just search some educational videos or Google for the wiki article

Lol

I feel like they should use a torque wrench

Cherokee93 ehh it’ll be fine

Ha ha, plumbers have better tools. Not enough investment?

he was just depressing to listen to

Yeah, how dare he be skeptical of the pipe dream that scamming "experts" have been selling people for 100 years and try to deny them their well-earned tax money subsidies? He should obviously just fall in line with everyone else and pretend that fusion power is now definitely just around the corner despite the fact that these glorious visionaries still have yet to even produce a proof of concept. And just in case you are going to say "the Sun": Don't make me laugh.

@@ole555 What? Why would I mention the sun?😂 Your sarcasm is kinda cute

@@moisesmontecillo7570 Because that is the only "proof" of fusion power which is ever cited by anyone.

@@ole555 well theres the hydron collider but yeah not really contained energy

Turning heat into electricity is always inefficient. There are solid state electrical devices called Thermoelectric generators, that generate electricity straight from temperature differences. This is probably the most high-tech way to generate electricity directly from a heat source. That means one side has to be heated while the other side is cooled...to create the temperature differential. (Most likely, water would be used to cool the cold side...so back to square one😅🤣) Anyway, efficiency is determined by the temperature difference and how well the hot side and cold side is insulated.

Thermodynamics.

Like PV generation all across the world.!!!.!.!. STOP the govt and corporate selfishness on energy.!.!.!. Individual and community solar constructs are much more efficient.and secure.!.!.!.

why? Just because steam turbines were invented a while ago doesn't mean you should throw them away. Do you still use wood, fire, hammers nails, spades and indoor plumbing. They aren't new.

@@michaeldavison9808 yes but we use those because there cheap strong and hold up well with time. But thats luck. we still use those because they've always been amazing at there job but energy is different. Its harder and expensive and when we are literally using the power of the stars for a spinning rod with wings that carries barely any energy compared to what we could get. Well can you see the problem, all the effort all that power for a spinny wheel to waste most of it. Its not only inefficient but wasteful and optimization is key in generating electricity. Even those good ole materials we still use may eventually be replaced. Heck in space travel alot if not most are and nuclear fusion could be key to space stations or moon colonys.

Thorium is no magic solution it has a bad scattering cross section. so to slow the newtons down to get a chain reaction you need a graphite medium. Which is hard to replace. Uranium reactors are already a well developed technology we could deploy today.

@@the0dued we are deploying it today. your argument sounds like the arguments they used against EV cars... outdated

@@janousekjakob6408 I was trying to say that thorium is no magic solution not that it dose not work there are reactors today that use the thorium cycles in use for example CANDU reactors. But there just are not a lot of big advantages to use thorium. I'v just seen a lot of people act like thorium is some magic thing that will solve all the worlds problems. Its a usable fuel with a large abundance but its not like we would run out of U238 to run in breeder reactors.

We won't and I guarantee the next 10 years are going to be terrible.

@@the0dued Hi, could you pls tell me the names of the thorium reactors. And what are the main disadvantages? Thanks!

this.

That dude is so annoying

We were already working on that vaccine though. It was a different stead of COVID which we made a vaccine before and some modifications were all it needed. The issue was producing and distributing.

It's not a 'vaccine'.

@@krystal5887 sure, I guess you also believe the erth is flat? Always funny when some random dude believe to be more intelligent the our best scientists that we have on earth.

@@krystal5887 How does nuclear fusion defy the laws of physics?

Good analogy!!

So it's a good thing both are being researched :)

Rikkerd Harderz One political party is trying to shut fission plants down. Biden tried to shut my father's plant in NJ down since the goddamn 90's. We would have plants and procedures on par with France and India by now if they weren't busy fear-mongering and setting up roadblocks.

JerseySlayer Not necessarily, is it not a good thing to not accept things as is, you may not agree with their ideas or anything they stand for but when others challenge us to do better its human nature to go above and beyond what we ever thought was possible, rejection is the if not one of the best tools for growth because it allows for reflection and us to question ourselves and what’s possible, we must strive for excellence. “We are what we repeatedly do. Excellence, then, is not an act, but a habit.” Aristotle. So never accept things as good enough. Simply look at how long it took for electric cars to become competitive and even considered plausible that wasn’t possible until we looked past short term economic gains and employment disruptions to push towards a greater objective, (I think automation is another great idea that’s not being nearly as embraced as it should be because of the short term economic disruptions) or go back to the origin of nuclear energy, you must understand. It was crisis that pushed mankind hard enough to accomplish those things and build the frame work and institutions of world governments that still exists today which would have not been possible unless for the great crisis’s of the era the Great Depression and WW2, namely. It takes people challenging the status quo even when it’s not convenient and great crisis’s like harsh rejections to spark the thirst for knowledge that gives us the greatest of innovations. “The Chinese use two brush strokes to write the word 'crisis.' One brush stroke stands for danger; the other for opportunity. In a crisis, be aware of the danger--but recognize the opportunity.” “Institutionalized rejection of difference is an absolute necessity in a profit economy which needs outsiders as surplus people.” Audre Lorde

people over reaction nuclear waste but it isnt that bad. All forms of energy make waste. Coal has killed millions by bad air and dozens by failed coal slug collapses

Because we need "normal" nuclear reactors to hide the true cost of building nuclear bombs (which is why, for example, in the US, nuclear weapon grade material creation comes under the Department of Energy, rather than being part of the defence budget) so there's a lot of money and power behind giving people a false impression of thorium not actually having any benefits, including some very official reports that can easily convince gullible reporters (who think they are journalists) who are left with the impression that it's just some quackery that people on the internet believe.

@@annoloki you know that in normal nuclear reactors low enriched uranium is used, while nuclear weapons need highly enriched uranium. Also this would only explain the reason why it's not used in the USA, while most countries don't even have nukes anymore.

ru-vid.com/video/%D0%B2%D0%B8%D0%B4%D0%B5%D0%BE-GQ9Ll5EX1jc.html

annoloki no

@@flipsmith5426 click the link. It makes sense because the government wanted uranium for bombs more than clean nuclear power

Yes thes different ideas led into a perfectly success or a worst experience. ONLY FEW COUNTRIES HAVE DONE SUCCESSFUL EXPERIMENTS CAREFULLY .

@@ramsesrameez5430 they finally did it

Precisely. 💯💯

Exactly

Wholeheartedly agree, development and improvement of fission plants as well as further research and investment into eventual fusion power are both imperitive

Assuming we will find a way to NOT fry our planet before then with too much CO2 being dumped in to the atmosphere and heating up the permafrost CO2 storage bank.

ru-vid.com/video/%D0%B2%D0%B8%D0%B4%D0%B5%D0%BE-pLDUIofn5KY.html

Hackbrett Schorsch - I'm pretty sure I heard the SAME THING about 20 years ago!

And we've all heard that "joke" ad nauseam now for about 50 years. Does it make you feel smart to repeat it?

Vote for Andrew Yang for president. He is the only democratic candidate to mention thorium.

noob noob sadly the only candidates to apply modern solutions to modern times and the only one addressing how technology is changing our lives

@@NoobNoobNews i would not call it a gamble. I call it a first step solution to solving our problems. UBI won't raise our debt and it cost around $1.5 to $3 trillion. Three major factors to pay for it are: 1) Putting money into people hands...when people get more money they spend more money and it circulates into the economy. the money doesnt go away and it would pay back around $600 billion 2) Welfare overlap...america typically spends around $1 trillion on it. If everyone who is on welfare and wants to keep it then the cost for UBI will go down. If people who want to switch from their welfare to UBI then the cost would go up and the money typically spent on welware will go towards UBI. 3) VAT (Value added tax)...this is the most complicated. tech corporations dont pay their taxes. Amazon paid 0 in taxes in 2018. VAT has been already implemented in developed countries like Europe and Australia. VAT make sure big tech corporations like google,facebook,apple,etc. pay their taxes. So VAT at 10% half the European level will pay back around. $800 billion There are also small factors like the carbon fee tax where you charge companies every time they pollute a certain amount of pollution. Small factors should add up to paying back around a few hundred billion bucks. Also UBI is supposed to combat against job loss due to automation displacing half of common american jobs as we are entering the fourth industrial revolution. Elon Musk agrees and supports Yang.

Vote for Andrew Yang for president. He is the only democratic candidate to mention thorium.

Thorium is a possible fuel for fast breeder reactors, but currently it is more hype than anything else. There is enough already mined uranium out there, even enriched one. Just disassemble those terrible nuclear weapons and use them as fuel. And use the light water reactor waste as fuel too. When we get low on these resources, then we could start mining Thorium. But until then so much time has passed, that there is the possibility that fusion is also an option. Currently existing technology are Gen III and Gen III+ reactors. These are the reactor types that are inherently secure (don't need active cooling, won't self destruct when let alone) and can be built right now. There are even designs for Gen IV reactors like the GE Hitachi Prism. Unfortunately we live in a time where people are scared to death by one the safest forms of energy production ( www.nextbigfuture.com/2011/03/deaths-per-twh-by-energy-source.html ).

In what ways are thorium cheaper? The logistics alone will be expensive, not to mention the ongoing trade war with all thorium rich countries.

@@wyw201 its like far more abundant in the earths crust by alot go check it out if u dont believe me

Patheir Brown that doesn’t make it cheaper

@@iain3713 it also produces significantly less secondary radioactive left overs as they are safer than the current bread of uranium reactors.

He + He --> S +H + Am + O + U + Na

Check out George tsoukalos from ancient aliens. His hairdo is a meme.

Yessir!!🤑

International pancake order?

You will lose all your money if you go long

Dont buy any. Dead end. What they propose is no doubt possible and simple but economically its not viable. Producing energy is one thing, producing CHEAP energy is another completely... makes tokamaks seens like a good idea in comparison. In fact, tokamaks ARE a very good idea, the problem right now is more a engineering problem than a physics problem.. Its the sun in a bottle problem: we know how to create the sun but its not easy to build a bottle that can stand insane levels of all kinds of radiation for prolonged periods of time... and thats only the small fraction of radiation which escapes the (insanely strong) magnetic field. And the general fusion vessel must handle ALL of that radiation!!! I hope they have a unobitanium or vibranium mine secretly somewhere...

@@MrThepinkeagle who says I'm going long? I just want to see their cash flows. I can do my own fundamental analysis beyond that.

uran fission is not really a good way of generating energy.

@@donmargareto What's your reasoning behind that? Have you any idea of the energy potential a tiny amount of fissile material contains?

Tony Stark was able to build this in a cave, with a box of scraps!

@Asunda Speed time for you to step up.

+1 hope CFS would demonstrate SPARC asap

He's still busy setting Wal-Mart on 🔥

I mean, it is. "Converted" may be the wrong word seeing as mass *is* energy, but in context, we are converting one form of energy (mass), to another (heat/radiation), sooo.....

Mass already _ARE_ energy... tied up energy that is...

Genesis You keep using that word; I don’t think it means what you think it means

😂

You should quit reading fiction books and get a life, loser

haid weng you should learn to understand jokes...

Sorry to have to tell you this, but nuclear fusion is NOT like the solar fusion process. The sun takes four protons and with inordinately high densities and temperatures (1000 times that of the photosphere) in a remarkably long time makes a helium nucleus. The Bikini bomb fused together a tritium and a deuterium nucleus. That's two protons and three neutrons, and it makes a helium nucleus and a fiendishly high powered neutron. The problem is that the nuclear strong force needs neutrons to make it work. The other options --we have three or even four versions of the nuclear fission option quite well proven. But the biggest or "most successful" of the popularly defined "renewable energy" quite clearly are an expensive environmental blunder or abomination.

Dude! He meant commercial plant is not possible in next 20-30 years

@@SR-bm7vv Cool, in that case I meant the commercial reactor called DEMO. My point stands journalist are supposed to report the opinions of field experts or document events. Journalists are not supposed to interview their friends to create an alternative perspective.

Me too

and its the safest no lie Kodak had one as their main power plant , thorium it was too

Thats just good marketing, because no matter when they figure it out, it will be 30 years ahead of schedule^^

Now it is 30 years away

The problem is that scientists are groping along fusion, at that scale matter and energy behave in a very strange way and they find a lot of engineering issues that cannot be forseen. ITER is the replacement for JET, that was tobe the final reactor, however scientists found unsolvable problems once JET was build and they projected ITER to solve them and nobody knows if the situation will happen again with ITER and we will need an ITER 2.0.

he said they got 10000 times for fusion outa prototypes now than 40 years ago so they are obviously making good progress.

We used to say that in grad school -- called it the Fusion Constant. 30 years.

@Simon Tide bruh

Hold onto your butts: more GW of nuclear power set to close in 2021 than coal in the US. The 5 reactors due to shut down produced more electricity in 2019 than all of California’s wind and solar combined ! All because gas isn’t paying for its pollution and of people’s overblown fears of one of our better energy sources.

You mean the inbred vested interest CLOWNS that would claim as @2:00 in video, "nuclear fusion is the same process that powers our Sun and every other star..." *W R O N G !!!*

@@aguilar5501 it's true. The idea of fusion is essential for a star. The sun is a gargantuan fusion reactor

@@aguilar5501 uhhhh... Fusion does power stars

He wouldn't survive that.

@@cueball6969 Yes, but not any fusion process that can be accomplished on a planet.

Yes. Preach.

I saw that too. I had to rewatch it several times to be sure I wasn’t seeing things.