Why Don't We Have Nuclear Fusion Power Yet?

  • Опубликовано: 6 фев 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


Комментарии • 2 117

  • Mondranux Anvilux
    Mondranux Anvilux 19 часов назад

    Good job for ignoring the existence of biofuels

  • Jacob Collins
    Jacob Collins 19 часов назад

    We're not going to run out of nuclear fission fuels sources for thousands of years... So good one 😉

  • Soulkeeper
    Soulkeeper 20 часов назад +1

    co 2 is good the other pollution not talkt about C02 is air for plants make them grow larger, better, more fruit, more, co2 to h20 conversion, making the ground fertile we add extra co2 to grow house, to get a hie yield
    this is why we want no Fusion power, we need More Co2 giving plants the time evolve to eat plastics

  • Melinda Green
    Melinda Green 23 часа назад

    If we had essentially unlimited cheap energy, we would find new ways to use it extravagantly until we drive global warming directly from all the waste heat at end end of all uses of energy. Let's not fall in love with fusion like we did with fission. The Earth must live within its heat budget, and the only way to do that is through renewables which don't create a positive net energy difference in the biosphere.

  • Nathan Frey
    Nathan Frey День назад

    America is actually an excellent energy producer. What is this guy talking about? Moreover, we pollute far less per capita than the majority of developed countries. We’re good..we’re damn good. The question is how can we be even better and lead the world on yet another front?

  • Rob Karmic
    Rob Karmic День назад

    Have you tried turning it off and on again? I hear that duplication glitch is pretty effective.

  • Rob Karmic
    Rob Karmic День назад

    My biggest question is why people are so scared of nuclear fusion?
    Nuclear Fusion is clearly a great idea.

    • Rob Karmic
      Rob Karmic День назад

      Most importantly, always consider the fact that you need all the information. Sometimes you need information, simply to know you don't have all of it.
      If you don't think you're wrong, then try throwing out some of your more favorable techniques that relied on sloppy functions when you swap them both out for a new technique entirely. Maybe one combination doesn't pick the lock, but an inverted step will?

    • Rob Karmic
      Rob Karmic День назад

      Can you use all three at once, with partial compensation as a stepping stone for the full process? In other words, use maximum effort. Also, try skipping the next step, and assuming you did it. Usually that breaks things, but it may be more efficient to work around a problem AREA, as opposed to fixing the acute problem.

    • Rob Karmic
      Rob Karmic День назад

      Maybe you could try and get it to suddenly collapse all at once? Probably dangerous, but it would give it a sort of short range momentum kick, right?

  • TeoTull
    TeoTull День назад

    @scishow how come you do not mention the Stellarator as an alternative to the Tokamak for MCF, especially given the interesting and promising results that came out of the Wendelstein 7-X in 2018?

  • TIBOR Purzsas
    TIBOR Purzsas День назад

    You got a funy nose!

  • Shade
    Shade День назад

    9:48 that was a quick haircut

  • Stephen Goodfellow
    Stephen Goodfellow День назад

    The reason we have not achieved controlled nuclear fusion, is because the research is carried out by nuclear physicists. These are hobbled by an insular communal group-think that stifles any meaningful possibility of achieving a breakthrough.
    So controlled nuclear fusion? Don't hold your breath.

  • Emily Rowland-Rawson
    Emily Rowland-Rawson День назад

    6:11 that voice crack

  • Xurre
    Xurre 2 дня назад

    Nucular, it's spelled nucular

  • Conservative Minuteman
    Conservative Minuteman 2 дня назад

    What ever happened to Cold Fusion?

  • hardware4200
    hardware4200 2 дня назад

    How about considering Thorium and Molten Salt Reactors? Thorium is everywhere.

  • trik
    trik 2 дня назад

    stop telling wind power is inconsistent. 99% of wind miles is turned off because is to much electricity in grid not because no wind. 30m above ground is constant wind

  • JK 06667
    JK 06667 2 дня назад

    The NIF approach seems like a dead end. How do you capture the produced energy? In practical engineering terms it seems a waste of time and resources

    • Andy Davies
      Andy Davies День назад

      You collect energy the same way MCF does. It heats up the chamber walls.

  • Drizzt
    Drizzt 2 дня назад

    So we are still 30yrs away from having it.

  • dinoxtra
    dinoxtra 3 дня назад

    Safety measures? None, please build supernova and crack this planet in two parts, we had enough

  • GANTZ100pts
    GANTZ100pts 3 дня назад

    Don't worry it's just ten years away. 😅

  • Manny Nanez
    Manny Nanez 3 дня назад

    Sci show has some competition in the comment section XP

  • TheOv3rlordK1ng
    TheOv3rlordK1ng 3 дня назад

    Dumb ass

  • TheOv3rlordK1ng
    TheOv3rlordK1ng 3 дня назад

    Oh god is this another google reading

  • Gabriel M.
    Gabriel M. 3 дня назад

    bye mr green

  • Bjørnar Iversen
    Bjørnar Iversen 3 дня назад

    Three lies within 30sec.. that must be a new record!

  • rosselur
    rosselur 3 дня назад

    "it's still at least 30 years away. but maybe it won't be for long." that did not make sense to me.

  • Henry Woodward
    Henry Woodward 3 дня назад

    Thank you. Because of this video, for the first time, I’m starting to understand all the problems with fusion. I knew it had to be serious issues but I couldn’t understand the inherent problems. Now I’m beginning to understand.

  • Nic Hunter
    Nic Hunter 3 дня назад

    God damnit!! Where is Hank? I won't watch these unless it's Hank. He is actually entertaining.

  • TheRumpus
    TheRumpus 3 дня назад

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

  • JS Wong
    JS Wong 3 дня назад

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

  • Chris Ashby
    Chris Ashby 4 дня назад

    turbulent juice

  • C.C. Rider
    C.C. Rider 4 дня назад

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

  • Sean Haggard
    Sean Haggard 4 дня назад

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

  • Trevor Johnson
    Trevor Johnson 4 дня назад

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

  • Charlie Lund
    Charlie Lund 4 дня назад

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

  • Snoov747
    Snoov747 4 дня назад

    haha charged gas

  • Simmi_
    Simmi_ 4 дня назад

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

    • Simmi_
      Simmi_ 3 дня назад +1

      Thank you, that was a very good explination. +Noah McCann

    • Noah McCann
      Noah McCann 3 дня назад

      Simmi_ you are correct that you can only get back how much energy was put in. But it doesn’t have to be “you” who put the energy in. This is true with more conventional fuels like oil as well - it is essentially solar energy concentrated over long periods of time. We burn it and get that energy back over short periods of time. Nuclear energy (either fission or fusion) works in a similar way, the energy was put there during the creation of the universe and we are extracting it. The energy necessary to release energy isn’t always the same as the energy being released. Imagine you came upon a 1kg mass balanced atop a tall tower of blocks. That mass has gravitational potential energy. You could release that energy by simply tipping over the tower of blocks. Tipping the blocks likely won’t take as much energy as will be released from the 1kg mass because you don’t have to move the whole tower, you just need to move it enough that it becomes unstable and gravity handles the rest. Now, if you were the one who put the 1kg mass on top of the tower, there would be no net gain of energy (from your perspective), there may even be a net loss if you also had to set up the tower. But if someone else were to set up the tower and 1kg mass, then you would be gaining energy while they would have lost energy.

    • Simmi_
      Simmi_ 4 дня назад

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

    • Noah McCann
      Noah McCann 4 дня назад

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

  • William Johnson
    William Johnson 4 дня назад

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

  • Stefan Schleps
    Stefan Schleps 4 дня назад

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

    • Stefan Schleps
      Stefan Schleps 4 дня назад

      +Noah McCann Yeah, you're right.

    • Noah McCann
      Noah McCann 4 дня назад

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

    WOLTROX 4 дня назад +1

    Simple Nuclear Power is a Hoax😂

  • Jack
    Jack 4 дня назад

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

    • Wei Zhao
      Wei Zhao 3 дня назад

      I want what I want

  • Dennis Gillanders
    Dennis Gillanders 4 дня назад

    Amateur leftist double talk

  • SciFi Factory
    SciFi Factory 5 дней назад

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

  • Per Norrström
    Per Norrström 5 дней назад

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

  • Blue Steel
    Blue Steel 5 дней назад

    Sorry, distracting hand gestures. Couldn't finish.

    • Wei Zhao
      Wei Zhao 3 дня назад

      tries to conglomerate all masculinity issues without fixing the cause

  • Josh Wanuck
    Josh Wanuck 5 дней назад

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

    • Noah McCann
      Noah McCann 4 дня назад

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

  • Joe Eoj
    Joe Eoj 5 дней назад

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

  • tyler a
    tyler a 5 дней назад

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

    The remix to ignition.

  • JesseMoshe
    JesseMoshe 5 дней назад

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

  • Phone User
    Phone User 5 дней назад

    Man made climate change is a scam.

    • Wei Zhao
      Wei Zhao 3 дня назад

      if it all fits like clockwork then why did the guy screw it up in the first place.

  • nhzxboi
    nhzxboi 5 дней назад

    Slow down! Allow some time for contemplation!

    • Wei Zhao
      Wei Zhao 3 дня назад

      triple reverse psychology won't change my mind

  • Axel Kusanagi
    Axel Kusanagi 5 дней назад

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

  • Doom And Gloom
    Doom And Gloom 5 дней назад

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

  • Fun Trump-fact
    Fun Trump-fact 6 дней назад

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

  • Hand Solo
    Hand Solo 6 дней назад

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

  • Hand Solo
    Hand Solo 6 дней назад

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

  • Silver Wyvern
    Silver Wyvern 6 дней назад

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

  • Silver Wyvern
    Silver Wyvern 6 дней назад

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

  • Silver Wyvern
    Silver Wyvern 6 дней назад

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

  • David Hansen
    David Hansen 6 дней назад

    thorium, LIFTR

  • Walter St
    Walter St 6 дней назад

    Smh lets go fusion

  • Joel Reid
    Joel Reid 6 дней назад

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

  • Blue Jay
    Blue Jay 6 дней назад

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

  • SbotTV
    SbotTV 6 дней назад

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

  • juice8225
    juice8225 6 дней назад

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

  • kens97sto171
    kens97sto171 7 дней назад

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

  • Skitches
    Skitches 7 дней назад

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

  • Brian Reiner
    Brian Reiner 7 дней назад

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

  • Mike Mauck
    Mike Mauck 7 дней назад

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

  • SM96
    SM96 7 дней назад +1

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

  • Samuel Westknee
    Samuel Westknee 7 дней назад

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

  • briansgenius
    briansgenius 7 дней назад

    Nice instant haircut :P

  • Warren
    Warren 7 дней назад

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

  • Ziess1
    Ziess1 7 дней назад

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

  • LordOfNihil
    LordOfNihil 7 дней назад

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

  • CG Account
    CG Account 7 дней назад

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

  • David barnes stuff 2
    David barnes stuff 2 8 дней назад

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

  • sence11
    sence11 8 дней назад

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

  • Daniel Foster
    Daniel Foster 8 дней назад

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

  • Dragrath1
    Dragrath1 8 дней назад

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

  • Lord Samich
    Lord Samich 8 дней назад

    I hold you personally responsible!

  • undo.kat
    undo.kat 8 дней назад

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

  • Rom
    Rom 8 дней назад

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

  • macsnafu
    macsnafu 8 дней назад

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

  • Zantor Zenodex
    Zantor Zenodex 8 дней назад

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

  • CowboyCree63
    CowboyCree63 8 дней назад

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

  • James Wayne
    James Wayne 8 дней назад

    It's always 20 years away.

  • Shannae Darkehart
    Shannae Darkehart 8 дней назад

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

  • Jedadiah Tucker
    Jedadiah Tucker 8 дней назад

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

  • Mora Fermi
    Mora Fermi 8 дней назад

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

  • Peter Chan
    Peter Chan 8 дней назад

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

  • Daniel Dulu
    Daniel Dulu 8 дней назад

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

  • Tha Hatter
    Tha Hatter 8 дней назад

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

  • Jwad
    Jwad 8 дней назад

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

  • Dávid Kertész
    Dávid Kertész 9 дней назад

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

  • Connor Stinnett
    Connor Stinnett 9 дней назад

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

  • Dávid Kertész
    Dávid Kertész 9 дней назад

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

  • Eric Delaune
    Eric Delaune 9 дней назад

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

  • Daniel Bickford
    Daniel Bickford 9 дней назад

    Tldr, it's complicated

  • Tristan Band
    Tristan Band 9 дней назад

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