Is nuclear fusion the key to fighting climate change?

All over the planet, billions of euros are being poured into developing nuclear fusion technology. And recent "breakthroughs" in plasma physics experiments have stunned the scientific community. Are we on the brink of an era of limitless clean energy supply?

Reporter: Julian Claudi
Video Editor: Julian Claudi
Supervising Editor: Kiyo Dörrer & Joanna Gottschalk

We're destroying our environment at an alarming rate. But it doesn't need to be this way. Our new channel Planet A explores the shift towards an eco-friendly world — and challenges our ideas about what dealing with climate change means. We look at the big and the small: What we can do and how the system needs to change. Every Friday we'll take a truly global look at how to get us out of this mess.

#PlanetA #NuclearFusion #NuclearEnergy

Read more:





Chapters:
00:00 Introduction
00:53 How fusion works
03:06 The risks
04:24 What is happening now
06:13 Recent milestones
07:25 Challenges
10:00 Powering the grid
11:09 Investment dilemma

[DWPlanetA]

What do you think? Should we keep researching nuclear fusion – or rely on technologies that already work?

[SaveMoneySavethePlanet]

I’m currently working on a video about climate delay tactics and Nuclear Fusion is a topic often used to to get people to put off taking action.

Basically, it falls under the category of “technological optimism” which is when companies tell you “this great tech is right around the corner, and it will be so groundbreaking that we might as well wait for it before we start taking action!” This sounds good, but if we’re being honest, nuclear fusion has been “just around the corner” for some 20 years now.

So what do scientists recommend doing? They think that we should deploy current solar and wind tech like crazy immediately while keeping R&D on Fusion going. When many of those turbines and panels need replaced in 20-30 years then we can see if fusion is ready yet. If it is, maybe we shift to deploying fusion. If it isn’t ready, then we continue on with solar and wind energy.

Thanks for putting out a video which actually takes a balanced view to what fusion is and is not capable of!

[GTpower]

Never have I been so motivated for this technology but also demotivated simultaneously.

[asandax]

What everyone seems to forget about these projects is the biggest advantage of pursuing it which is the technology that comes out of it can be used for solving other problems. Like the magnets are getting more efficient and thus means other industries that use magnets (everything that moves using electricity uses them) will also benefit.

[NyasuNasu]

Adapting to changing climate is one thing. Reaching viable fusion is like ancestor obtaining fire but for second time. Why you wouldn't do both with delicate budgeting?

[Curiefeld]

It irritates me when people say fusion will save us from climate change or say that it's a waste of time and money.

Relying on it saving us probably isn't smart. However, funding it isn't harming anything and it could have a huge pay-off. It's worth investing in it, just not to excess.

Edit - clarity

[CMakr]

I believe in fusion. We should try, test, apply. Outcome for now is unknown, but we shouldn’t throw out the idea of sustainability of fusion power because some of experts are skeptical.

[jonas]

electricity from fusion is about 20 years in the future - and it has been 20 years in the future for over 80 years . it's called the nuclear fusion constant .

[Canucklug]

This video has the greatest variety and quality of video clips I've seen for a fusion video and many good quotes. One I particularly disagree with is Jassby's quip that every private company is a fantasy, and ironically with the pro-fusion side's statements about operating power plants coming out in 2060 - 70

Using the same tokamak power parameters that are used for ITER the private company CFS projects that they can build a >200MWe pilot plant before ITER reaches full power tests in 2035. They have demonstrated a superconductor magnet twice as powerful as ITER's. It's actually limited by the structural strength of steel and their full scale tokamak should be 10x more powerful than ITER for a given size. With a JET size tokamak they can match ITER's thermal output along with much lower input energy to run. For a pilot plant not necessarily optimized commercially they project $260 MWh - very high but also very close to commercially relevant with how quickly parameters can change fusion output

For instance a much cheaper or much stronger structural material to reduce their cost or increase their allowable magnetic power would launch them into commercial territory. There has also been a simulation prediction that high power tokamaks will be more tolerant of higher plasma density, potentially quadrupling the power of an ARC or ITER power tokamak

For other private companies the rubber is hitting the road quickly and we'll soon see if it's a launch or spinning tires. Zap is finishing a reactor that could produce Q = 1 this year that is far more scalable and engineering friendly than laser or tokamak designs. They say their power scaling is to the 11th power of the current applied to the plasma. I believe this means that they could run into physics problems and simply overcome it with a more powerful machine without sacrificing much in commercial competitiveness. Helion is building a machine for 2024 intended to produce bursts of net electricity that is one step before a full scale generator, as is General Fusion with a 70% scale test reactor in 2025. I don't know about Helion but it appears General Fusion has the same ability to scale up to overcome physics problems, as has happened with both lasers and tokamaks who suffer from far more instabilities than predicted requiring far larger and more powerful machines than thought the last time fusion was said to be 20 years away. With General Fusion their 70% size reactor is aiming for Q = .1 while their full size is intended to produce Q = 50. If they hit an instability problem there may be an option to build something like a 120% size reactor that costs somewhat more per MWh but potentially overcomes stability problems with rapid power scaling

Overall I have a feeling energy storage will beat out fusion but I think both are real possibilities. Fusion also has the feature of directly producing heat which could be applied to decarbonizing industrial processes using a lot of heat with a relatively higher efficiency than converting wind to electric to heat for the same purpose (though not necessarily an absolutely higher efficiency). It would also have advantages for powering container ships which don't have a grid they can draw from if their onboard wind power source is offline on a quiet day

[karinalopezhuitron]

Always a delight to watch your videos!

[jeanenry]

Orano SA produces Tritium thankfully & its available from other sources. My view is that an intermediate energy production phase is required before/if Fusion becomes available. This would involve Thorium reactors to reduce problem waste and to consolidate Uranium. Due to plasma instabilities I don't see fusion available within the next 50-70 years unless some new ideas come forward. Maybe night billboard lighting should be shut down.

[glike]

Why not show some of the alternative fusion projects? HB11 aneutronic fusion, General Fusion, Commonwealth Fusion Systems (CFS), and Helion Energy are a few promising examples. Solar and wind are quite obviously making a huge impact and will continue to do so for at least the next few decades. Perhaps small modular reactors have a better chance than fusion in the short term. I'm glad to see the skeptics framing fusion power realistically being potentially impossible.

[SergeyYakimenko]

Dunno if it was filmed so intentionally, but the Greenpeace guy sounded the most unconvincing among the others lol.
I bet on fusion, because it is a bold idea, and because it sounds like really something from the future.
The question of should we keep researching vs rely on what we have sound silly if we apply it for instance to horse power and steam engines, or anything else from our past. So yes, please keep researching, this is what humans do naturally and should keep doing.

[rudijohnsen]

I think we will be eating potatos in the dark

[albertoguarda]

Unlimited energy would be the last mistake of humanity. With unlimited energy we would just do unlimited damage. It is not only the CO2 emissions that are a problem, the abundance of energy is a problem by itself.

[granadakimj]

Why not all solutions?
One does not rule out the other...

[joeshen]

Output energy divided by input energy plus energy for maintain power.

If equal to 1 which means we got hope.
If equal to 100, next generation kids will ask“what is climate challenge?”

[giacintoboccia]

Investments in this field have been dramatically low, when you look at what we spend for space missions, for example. Only now is this starting to see some real money.

[amitsonawane]

Even the idea is so tantalizing! Who knows research in this field - nuclear fusion, could lead us to an improved kind of reactors which might even need different raw material and eventually lead us to perfect fusion process which will indeed power our planet and satisfy our ever-growing energy needs. WE SHOULD GO FOR IT!

[amitsonawane]

Having a Fission reactor in the backyard sound scary but having a Fusion rector seems manageable and I not even talking about terrorist.