The fundamental currency of our universe is energy. It lights our homes, grows our food,
powers our computers. We can get it lots of ways: Burning fossil fuels, splitting atoms, or sunlight striking photovoltaics. But there's a downside to everything Fossil fuels are extremely toxic, Nuclear waste is... well, nuclear waste, And, there are not enough batteries to store sunlight for cloudy days yet. And yet the sun seems to have virtually limitless free energy. Is there a way we could build a sun on Earth? Can we bottle a star? [Intro Jingle] The sun shines because of nuclear fusion. In a nutshell, fusion is a thermonuclear process. Meaning that the ingredients have to be incredibly hot. So hot, that the atoms are stripped of their electrons Making a plasma where nuclei and electrons bounce around freely. Since nuclei are all positively charged, They repel each other. In order to overcome this repulsion, The particles have to be going very, very fast In this context, very fast means "very hot" Millions of degrees Stars cheat to reach these temperatures. They are so massive, that the pressure in their cores Generates the heat to squeeze the nuclei together Until they merge and fuse Creating heavier nuclei and releasing energy in the process. It is this energy release that scientists hope to harness In a new generation of power plant, The fusion reactor. On earth it's not feasible to use this brute force method to create fusion. So if we wanted to build a reactor that generates energy from fusion, We have to get clever. To date, scientists have invented two ways of making plasmas hot enough to fuse: The first type of reactor uses a magnetic field to Squeeze a plasma in a doughnut shaped chamber Where the reactions take place. These magnetic confinement reactors Such as the I.T.E.R. reactor in France, Use superconducting electromagnets cooled with liquid helium To within a few degrees of absolute zero. Meaning that they host some of the biggest temperature gradients in the known universe. The second type called "Inertial confinement" Uses pulses from super-powered lasers To heat the surface of a pellet of fuel Imploding it, briefly making the fuel hot and dense enough to fuse. In fact, one of the of the most powerful lasers in the world Is used for fusion experiments At the National Ignition Facility in the U.S. These experiments and others like them around the world are today, just experiments. Scientists are still developing the technology, And although they can achieve fusion, Right now, it costs more energy to do the experiment Then they produce in fusion. The technology has a long way to go before it's commercially viable, and maybe it never will be. It might just be impossible to make a viable fusion reactor on earth, But if it gets there, it will be so efficient That a single glass of sea water, could be used to produce as much energy as burning a barrel of oil, with no waste to speak of. This is because fusion reactors
would use hydrogen or helium as fuel And sea water is loaded with hydrogen But not just any hydrogen will do. Specific isotopes with extra neutrons called Deuterium and Tritium Are needed to make the right reactions. Deuterium is stable and can be found in abundance in sea water, Though Tritium is a bit trickier. It's radioactive And there may only be 20 kilograms of it in the world Mostly in nuclear warheads Which makes it incredibly expensive. So we made need another fusion buddy for Deuterium instead of Tritium. Helium-3, an isotope of Helium,
might be a great substitute. Unfortunately, it's also incredibly rare on earth. But here, the moon might have the answer. Over billions of years, the solar wind may have built up huge deposits Of Helium-3 on the moon. Instead of making Helium-3, we can mine it. If we could sift the lunar dust for helium, We'd have enough fuel to power the entire world for thousands of years. One more argument for establishing a moon base, if you weren't convinced already. Ok, maybe you think building a mini sun Still sound kind of dangerous But they'd actually be much safer
than most other types of powerplants A fusion reactor is not like a nuclear plant, Which can melt down catastrophically. If the confinement failed, then the plasma would expand and cool, And the reaction would stop. Put simply, it's not a bomb. The release of radioactive fuel, like Tritium, Could pose a threat to the environment. Tritium could bond with oxygen making radioactive water, Which could be dangerous as it seeps into the environment. Fortunately, there's no more than a few grams in use at a given time, So a leak would be quickly diluted. So we've just told you that theres nearly unlimited energy to be had At no expense to the environment In something as simple as water. So, whats the catch? Cost. We simply don't know if fusion power will ever be commercially viable. Even if they work, they might be too expensive to ever build. The main drawback, is that it's unproven technology Its a 10 billion dollar gamble And that money might be better
spent on other clean energy That's already proven itself. Maybe we should cut out losses Or maybe, when the payoff is unlimited
clean energy for everyone, It might be worth the risk. Videos like this one take hundreds of hours to make and are made possible by your contributions on patreon.com If you want to learn more about global energy, Here's a playlist about nuclear energy, fracking and solar power. Let us know in the comments if there are other technologies you want us to explain.
Interesting as always.
I would like to know your sources on deaths per mega watt, though.
Shout out to the National Ignition Facility a the Lawrence Livermore National Laboratory in my home town. Many a friend and family member has worked on this project.
Cool video. Nuclear Tritium Removal Technical engineer here, and also wishing to have a part of fusion work in the future. This is a nice high-level overview of fusion. I would like to note that tritium is readily removed in heavy water reactors. The reason is such that its much probabilistic for deuterium (the stuff we use in our moderator & primary side in CANDU reactors) to absorb a neutron and form tritium.
A second fuel, Helium-3, is scavenged from tritium that has been immobilised for such a time at which it decays from its matrix and builds pressure. There are also other ways to get T-3, such a lithium bed, boron activation or nuclear weaponry, but I have no idea what's the process :/
It is very true that the scarcity of fuel is a concern.
I highly suggest this video which underlines the issues with our current status with fusion projects.
did this get removed from /videos?? Why the hell isn't it posted there
Cool, now do one on Zero Point Energy.
I don't like their vision of a nuclear plant melting down as if it catastrophically exploded.
They dont blow up like that. The fuel doesn't combust like that. It's not a nuclear bomb. And even when they do melt down, there are multiple level that should prevent them from ever reaching the environment. The ones that failed to do that were known to be bad and were still used anyway.
You're more likely to get an explosive type of reaction somewhere like a coal power plant with coal dust in storage than a nuclear plant and the nuclear plant releases less harmfull radiation into the environment than the coal plant as well
I don't like their vision of a nuclear plant melting down as if it catastrophically exploded.
They dont blow up like that. The fuel doesn't combust like that. It's not a nuclear bomb. And even when they do melt down, there are multiple level that should prevent them from ever reaching the environment. The ones that failed to do that were known to be bad and were still used anyway.
You're more likely to get an explosive type of reaction somewhere like a coal power plant with coal dust in storage than a nuclear plant and the nuclear plant releases less harmfull radiation into the environment than the coal plant as well
I don't like their vision of a nuclear plant melting down as if it catastrophically exploded.
They dont blow up like that. The fuel doesn't combust like that. It's not a nuclear bomb. And even when they do melt down, there are multiple level that should prevent them from ever reaching the environment. The ones that failed to do that were known to be bad and were still used anyway.
You're more likely to get an explosive type of reaction somewhere like a coal power plant with coal dust in storage than a nuclear plant and the nuclear plant releases less harmfull radiation into the environment than the coal plant as well