Is nuclear fusion the future of clean energy?

Fusion is a kind of nuclear power, which could revolutionise how clean energy is produced. As a new wave of experiments heats up, can fusion live up to the hype?

00:33 The future of green energy
02:00 What is nuclear fusion and how does it work?
03:17 Is it achievable?

[mr.congeniality]

Fund and build more fission plants, research fusion. While fusion is the future, it's not going to come fast enough to stop extensive environmental damage. Focus on building what we have now that can easily solve the issue, and continue looking into better alternatives in the meantime.

[carlograncini]

Interesting, but grid energy from fusion is far away, if it will ever come. We can hope, since hope is free, but we should plan the energy transition without taking into account nuclear fusion.

[DanielGlover]

Nice video. They been there since the 80's in the big building working on this. See you did use some Culham village and science center drone stuff of mine. Very nice.

[lewisreiman]

Quantum mechanics allows for a small portions of fast neutrons are created. These neutrons would make the fusion chamber radioac😮tive. What are the precautions are 4:26 be formulated to 6:13 mitigate this?

[AKGZ]

We actually need a more robust system to fuse these fuels together but right now tokamak will suffice in the future when we do use fusion for energy use we will use something like more raw in nature like comprehensive fusion it can be built by new material science.

[JigilJigil]

There are 43 private fusion companies:
25 in US
6 in EU
3 in UK
3 in Japan
2 in China
1 in New Zealand
1 in Australia
1 in Canada
1 in Israel

[brianwilson]

I’m surprised at the negative comments around fusion energy. With the accelerated advancement in progress on this it is only a matter of time before it is solved. Fusion energy is a game changer. The amount of resource to build solar and wind farms with the relative low energy return, will never compare with the energy return of fusion energy.

[michelem.]

Ultimately it will come down to cost. Solar & wind farms might just get the last laugh--IF stationary storage batteries get bigger and cheaper.
Think about it: 'Overbuilding' solar & off shore windfarms will allow any excess power to be dumped into storage--far far cheaper than keeping a labor intensive nuclear/fusion/coal or even LNG powerplant on line. Plus, any extra (when storage is "full") could be used to make cheap H2 (and O2) as a side benefit.

[tibsyy]

One of the most exciting times to live in!

[alberthartl]

Some day this will be great. While we wait the best source for heat and electricity is 3rd generation geothermal. AGS from Canadian company Eavor is a fraction of the cost for any nuclear. Commercial project underway in Germany right now. Dozens more in the pipeline.

[RavingFan]

why not traditional clean sources - wind, solar panels eg. roofs, deserts? still dunno if fusion can get more energy out than in.

[Crooked_Clown]

Nuclear Fusion, the concept that it has always been 30 years into the future

[bernardonyango]

Reminds me of that movie "Man Who Fell on Earth" ..

[stanleytolle]

Before fusion can be even though of a reaction that produces more energy than what it takes needs to be proved. Once this is established it will take about thirty years to make anything that can produce useful power. In the mean time fission reactors to produce useful power can be improved and built now.

[jjeherrera]

The source of energy of the future which will always remain so.

[roncarlin]

This should become feasible 30 years into the future. And this will always be the case: 30 years into the future.

[crjceie]

Is nuclear fission the future of clean energy? Fixed it for you!

[leonardowolff]

If it is possible, it will change the world completely. It would be mastering the universe. We will have the power of stars in our hands.

[WilliamJablonsky]

I don't know how feasible this is, but please save us. The powerful are only interested in what preserves them, not the world.

[kimwelch]

Let's try a different argument. Climate change is only a symptom of a much larger issue called Ecological Overshoot. We used Oil to leverage our food supplies allowing our population to exceed the carrying capacity of the entire planet. Now we are facing a resource restriction in how fast the Earth can deal with our waste (e.g., CO2, ...). Our new plan here is to create a new power source which will allow us to leverage our population even higher by reducing the CO2 emissions, but it doesn't actually solve all the other waste problems nor the heating caused by our industrial output (these are only suggestions, I am sure there are a lot other things in our way.) Essentially, we are swapping out one drug for another that might be even worse, since it burns up our oceans. No matter where we go, assuming we ever really get off this particular rock, there will be resource constraints. If we cannot learn to live within constraints now, we will always be overshooting and risking extinction -- over and over again until we are all gone.