Fusion Energy Documentary

[MrTimothytim]

the single most imporatant mission AND the world today ><

[danworthj]

Three hundred million degrees celcius. That sounds real fucking safe. Let me go to another planet before you fire that stupid idea up.

[rainbowsalads]

The multinationals that have spent quintillions of our money and our man power to create systems for delivering and using oil from (spark plugs to pump stations) are going to do their absolute best to make the public spend as much as possible till every last drop is burned , a long transisition phase. How can we get these oil companies/governments to give us fusion in 10 years? With enough funding and scientists working on this project ,it is achievable. They just want our money to control us.

[Georgeqaws]

Obama is no help. HE even delayed the moon base by year 2024

[deathscythekim729]

this is bad..

[kmarinas86]

Chart curvature... wtf.

[joshuaki3]

It was supposed to be a joke referring to a scene in Al Gore's "An Inconvenient Truth."

:)

[deltaalpha21074]

Only one way to get self sustaining Fusion energy and Scientist using that Laser at Lawrence Livermore or the Tokamak is equivalent to 1890s and first Internal combustion energy....Very very crude and they are missing KEY design...I know how it can be done.

[archdeaconj]

In the 1950s the newspapers and broadcast media sensationally declared that cheap, unlimited energy was just around the corner. This was fusion energy. It never happened. It is still just around the corner. It has been explained to us that developing fusion is trickier than we thought. Maybe. Specifically there is a problem with stability. But is it so intractable that it remains unsolved sixty years later? Or is fusion power being put on hold until the oil runs out?

[sagemaster]

well, should we suddenly switch over to fusion, there wll be a economic colapse in the oil market. alot of rich guys really don't want it to happen. however in france they're busy building one. and they estimate it being done around 2030

[joshuaki3]

Fusion history in a nutshell:H-Bomb gives over confidence to fusion energy. Countries secretly boast unlimited energy to newspapers. 1958 Geneva Conference removes cloak of classified work to reveal major stability/confinement problems. The 60's, Tokamak experiment shows breakthrough in confinement. Other countries confirm. The 70's macrostability is largely solved and reactor size for making energy is realized. 1980 Carter says lets build it. Regan says no. We've been waiting ITER ever since.

[joshuaki3]

For a thorough history of fusion here are a couple books:

"Fusion: the search for endless energy", Robin Herman.

"Fusion: Science, Politics, and the invention of a new energy source", Joan Lisa Bromberg.

[LandlessPeasantFuck]

@joshuaki3 I feel this paper could one day help the Landless Peasant Fucks like myself. Please watch it and tell me what you think./watch?v=F4I5mgBKPZY

[Brettah31]

pretty sloppy video overall, but i definitely agree with the message.

but by magnetic fusion, you're not referring to the tokamak, are you? that thing is a pipe dream.

go electric fusion. the polywell reactor looks much more promising.

[joshuaki3]

Hi Brettah,

Thanks for the comment. Sorry for the sloppiness. I'm a busy graduate student and had to shoot and edit the video over a free weekend.

To answer your question, there are many types of magnetically confined fusion (MCF) devices. The tokamak is the current centerpiece of MCF research worldwide, and has by far the greatest scientific development of all nuclear fusion configurations. Let me assure you that the tokamak is no pipe dream.

[joshuaki3]

As for Inertial Electrostatic Confinement (Polywell is an example of this), this is just one of many fusion configurations that haven't been thoroughly explored as a possible fusion energy device. My masters degree work was on another promising fusion configuration called a Spheromak (SSPX). This variation of MCF, if successful, would greatly reduce the engineering complexity of a reactor vs. the tokamak.

[joshuaki3]

Because the tokamak has the greatest body of scientific research, it will likely be the fastest path to the desired physics of a burning plasma (a self sustaining reaction from which energy can be extracted). As an analogue, consider fission energy. Modern nuclear reactors have few commonalities with Enrique Fermi's nuclear pile built on the squash court of the Univ. of Chicago. Never-the-less without this first crucial physics step it is unlikely that modern plants would have been realized.

[Brettah31]

Ah, well then I'll withdraw my sloppy criticism (although I'd have phrased some of the statements differently, but thats just me). I understand too well the time restraints of tertiary education.

I'm doing my Honors year in Electrical engineering at the moment (majoring in power and machines). I'm pretty familiar with the fission process as I'm a pretty hard activist in promoting it in my country (yet I work in a coal fire plant... go figure!)

[Brettah31]

It probably is a bit harsh of me to call tokamak's a pipe dream, as I can't really say that it definitely won't happen, but I think the design is over complex and highly wasteful.

Regardless, I'm not a fan of burning plasma for energy, because ultimately its still a heat engine and won't be getting past ~40% efficiency. That, and most MCF devices (correct me if I'm wrong) are already demonstrating that they will cost huge amounts for O&M.

[Brettah31]

The advantage that I see in the Polywell is that there is the potential to engineer its efficiency past the 40% limitation of anything involving a heat engine.

Sorry, but I'll have to disagree with your premise that we should lock ourselves into one tech because we've done the most research on it. Polywell has already demonstrated that it can be built and run much cheaper than MCF.

Also, no neutron radiation :)

[joshuaki3]

It is important to realize that no fusion device has yet to achieve the desired physics/political result of generating net energy, this includes Polywell. That said MCF, and specifically the tokamak, is by far the closest to this goal. Once the political goal of fusion energy gain is achieved, vital R&D funding for the least expensive path to a power plant is much more likely. It is important to realize that physicists in the field are not married to the idea of the tokamak as a power plant...

[joshuaki3]

... instead they are rallying around the most likely proof of principle machine.

Polywell is part of a very long list of barely explored confinement options for fusion, which could be far simpler then the tokamak. Physicists are rarely short on ideas.

As for efficiency, fusion reactions are nearly the most efficient form of energy conversion in the cosmos. They are orders of magnitude more efficient then any present form of power generation. So 40% vs. 80% is minutia.

[joshuaki3]

Sorry for the late response. As for "burning plasma", it is the intention of Polywell, and any other fusion energy device, to achieve a burning plasma. Burning plasma simply refers to a plasma which releases more energy then is required to confine and heat it. As for cost speculations, it would not be fair to say that all MCF devices would cost huge amounts. There are a wide array if MCF devices, with some about as simple as Polywell.

[JonThm]

Oxford University UK, have done nuclear fusion usimng an H plasma. At onyl moderate tempertures and pressures.

[johnnylifeson]

They have never produced a single watt of excess energy..

[JonThm]

25% of the heat europe gets is from nuclear fusion going off in the deep seas, from water

[joshuaki3]

Thanks. I don't know the exact politics of Big Oils lobbying Congress to get the precious few dollars available for energy research to subsidize their explorations in place of real solutions like fusion, but I do know that when asked how long until fusion could be a real power source, my answer is -9 years. 9 years ago is when the goal was initially set for fusion by the year 2000, but politics has gotten in the way ever since. If you feel so inclined, please write your congressman.

[cruthybabie]

the fusion people on planet green's "the search for ultimate energy" say they'll have it in 30 years

[joshuaki3]

The present timeline for ITER, aka the first attempt at a machine large enough for fusion gain sufficient for commercial power production, is scheduled to generate it's first plasma at around 2018. Deuterium Tritium operation is scheduled to start about a decade or so from that point. At this time net energy gain should be possible. The issue is continued budget snafus that put this timeline in jeopardy. The timeline for ITER has been extended numerous times before.

[pat52007]

I read about fusion energy for the first time back in 1980. Scientist at that time had proclamed that it would be feasible within aprox. 10 years but alas the petroleum industry quashed any hope of that happening...Greed overcame the common good one more time!!!

[Hansolo60]

Scince their energy source is ether, they don't.

[Hansolo60]

Anyone heared about the Searl Effect Generator? It converts the earth's gravitational energy into useful electric energy. Why nobody speaks about it?

[joshuaki3]

Perpetual Motion machines violate the most fundamental physical laws.

[cauda123]

amen jj, when they give it 2 us

[JJC1984]

I cant understand the people who believe the solar & wind energy are the future, i think is a waste of time and money having the posibility of building a sucessfuly nuclear fusion reactor. Energy crisis will be finished with fusion, the standard people cant understand all the things we will able to do with fusion.

(sorry for my english)

[joshuaki3]

I agree, advocating solar and wind as the ultimate source of energy is foolish. Renewables have environmental drawbacks that are scarcely acknowledged, covering hundreds of sq miles of desert habitat for solar, and obstructing formerly pristine landscapes for wind. This is one reason nature photographer, preservationist, and former member of the Sierra Club, Ansel Adams was a staunch advocate for magnetic fusion research. He even harangued Ronald Reagan for not funding fusion enough.

[samann95014]

I absolutely agree with your point - fusion is the ultimate solution source of energy & clean environment. I hope the new administration will encourage the research in this area. May be private companies/research org will come up with feasible solutions. World will be soooo different when we use this safe, abundant & clean source of energy.

[SeverEnergia]

God they need to buckle down and get ITER done. Then I hope its not twenty years to get DEMO done...

[joshuaki3]

It is maddening to think that this technology has been scientifically possible for 30 year and yet world governments have failed to take prudent steps to realize it. Just so you know the "Magnetic Fusion Energy Engineering Act of 1980" mentioned in the video set out to reach DEMO by the year 2000! I am actually a nuclear engineering graduate student at the University of California, Berkeley doing PhD thesis research at a fusion experiment in San Diego, CA called DIII-D.

[joshuaki3]

Currently I'm working on an instrument for measuring internal magnetic fields of the plasma inside a nuclear fusion reactor, which is intended to be used on ITER.

Please, if you can, take some time and write your government officials and insist that they fund and advocate for the rapid development of magnetic fusion energy. It is so good to hear from someone who is anxious to see this technology become a reality.

[SeverEnergia]

Caanda dropped out in 2003. I don't even think we have a active program anymore. :(

[SeverEnergia]

Oh and uh, did JET reach break even in 1997? I 'm under the impression that its just a matter of getting the K values right...buutt I could be wrong.

[joshuaki3]

As for JET, it has achieved its goal of approaching breakeven. Specifically, it has acheived a Q value (power out/power in) of 0.7. This was exactly what it was designed to do. A comparable sized experiment called JT-60 in Japan has acheived a Q equivalent of 1.2.

[joshuaki3]

This means that they acheived the temperatures and pressures needed to produce fusion energy, but they were using only deutrium fuel as apposed to deuterium and tritium, so the actually power output was far less then JET. Previous smaller experiments only achieved Q of about 0.001, so the results from JET are extremely encouraging.

[joshuaki3]

As for your question about the thermal conductivity of the plasma, or k-value, you are correct. Much work is being done to try to improve energy confinement for existing experiments in support of designing ITER plasmas. However a more important fact that has been known since the early 70's is that the larger the plasma volume, the better the energy confinement. This argument is not only shown through complicated plasma physics but it's also a geometrical fact.

[joshuaki3]

Because surface area increases as a square of radius, and because volume increases as the cube of radius, and heat loss occurs at the surface of the confined plasma, it is a fact that if you make the plasma bigger you will be able to contain more of its energy and allow for the higher temperatures needed to make energy. Once you get over the hump of getting the plasma that hot, then the fusion reactions, it is believe, will take over heating the plasma and allow for a sustained nuclear fire.

[joshuaki3]

This is called Ignition. At this stage every experiment has followed the geometrical confinement trend perfectly. In fact, this was the basis for building JET. The intention was to build a machine that could achieve just about break even, and it did. This is the reason that myself and other fusion scientists are so frustrated that despite these incredibly promising breakthroughs more isn't being done.

[joshuaki3]

Sorry to nag, but Canada not being involved in ITER is a good reason to write your government representatives and state your support of fusion.

[SeverEnergia]

I'm actually considering doing that now. I'm pretty sure that they don't have any energy policy relating to this - the opposition might be interested too..

[SymAmineC8H11N]

fusion reactors exist?

[joshuaki3]

Yes. On November 9, 1991 the first Fusion Reactions where produced in the Joint European Torus(JET) Culham, UK. This was followed by the creation of 10.7 Megawatts of fusion reactions produced on the Tokamak Fusion Test Reactor(TFTR) in Princeton in 1994. These devices were designed to show that power production levels of fusion reactions could be achieved. However they were designed to be small enough that more energy was used to heat the fuel, then the energy the fusion reactions gave off.

[joshuaki3]

The International Thermonuclear Experimental Reactor (ITER) is currently under construction in Cadarache, France. This fusion reactor is the first reactor being built large enough to produce nearly 500 MW of fusion energy in excess of the energy used to heat the fuel. Current nuclear fission power plants generate around 1000 MW of power. At present levels of funding it is planned that this first energy producing "Star on Earth" will be producing energy by around July of 2018.

[joshuaki3]

It should be said that the 2018 date, is not for scientific reasons, rather it is because of political ones. This reactor could be built much faster if a greater amount of US funding were provided. Please write your senator's, and congressman and tell them that you support fusion energy, and that greater funding of ITER should be provided.

[SymAmineC8H11N]

uhmm... w/in reactor what is the very 1st interior layer of material that makes contact w/ the plasma composed of? cause like w/ fission reactor you got water but w/ fusion the water is much more likely in my mind to vaporize & loose surface area...

[joshuaki3]

For the most part, the plasma doesn't make contact with any of the walls of the vessel. Instead it is suspended away from the walls by applied magnetic force fields. The reason is the exact one you mentioned, which is that if the plasma makes contact with any solid, or liquid it will vaporize it. This currently happens experiments when we loose control of the plasma and it hits the walls of the vessel.

[SymAmineC8H11N]

so theoretically long are these deuterium & tritium isotopes useful after conception from the main fusion device?

[joshuaki3]

That is an excellent question. The basic idea is that deuterium and tritium are being put into the reactor. Once they fuse they become a single Helium-4 nucleus and a neutron. Once the Helium-4 slows down in the background plasma it must be exhausted from the reactor or it will pollute the plasma. The helium ash actually migrates out to a cold region of plasma near the edge of the vessel, and is recombined with it's electrons and exhausted from the reactor as helium gas through a vacuum pump.

[SymAmineC8H11N]

yeah but where are the neutrons supposed to come from? it takes like 2 additional neutron particles to convert the nuclei's into helium. but i guess its already been sorted out; i say we put a smaller scale version of this reactor on a los angelos class submarine... safest & best way to test this kind of technology, water barrier from radiation while submerged 2,000 leagues under the sea. we'll have to wait 4yrs for a new president & speaker of the house to do it though

[joshuaki3]

Tritium has 2 neutrons and 1 proton. Deuterium has 1 neutron and 1 proton. This gives 3 neutrons total, 2 for the Helium-4 and one to shoot into the blanket material and generate heat.

As for the submarine idea, there really is no need. Magnetically confined fusion is inherently safe. Anything done to the reactor terminates the fusion reactions. There is no need to worry about a Spiderman 2, or an Iron Man event happening :)

[SymAmineC8H11N]

so its not possible to fit the whole process in a submarine? 'cause (hypothetically) i am going ot buld a nuclear submarine & was wondering is a fusion reactor was feasible for such a confined amount of space.

[joshuaki3]

Unfortunately, it is currently not possible to have a magnetic fusion reactor small enough to fit in a sub. ITER is going to stand about 6 stories high. Hopefully someday in the future a much smaller reactor will be possible. As for building a submarine, are you working with the Navy right now?

[SymAmineC8H11N]

yes a navy for my new country i am considering to colonize in antarctica. i will use the vessel to transpoart myself & all my crap to penguin land where i can establish a new way of life for myself... if your sick of all the nazi liberals like me, then i can see if theres room for another person. do you have any experience in heliarc welding?

[joshuaki3]

I appreciate the invitation, but I plan to battle the nazi liberals on the homeland. I will never surrender to them. Now that I know your plans, I completely understand your interest in nuclear fusion. You are moving to a land with no sun, so naturally your going to have to build yourself one. Makes sense. Good luck with your journey.

[SymAmineC8H11N]

actually, supposedly in some parts it gets too much sundue to a lack of ozone layer that one of nasa's orbiting satellites discovered. & apparently the UV/UVA rays has caused dna of a certain species of whale to mutate...

[dsmpowerr]

0:45 wtff??????????

[joshuaki3]

The comment above is supposed to follow the comment ending in "...of the vessel." Sorry.

[Owens867]

LOL, the graph in the beginning curves in on itself.

The rise in gas prices has something to do with time travel I guess.

[joshuaki3]

I'm glad you liked that touch. Did you get the "Inconvenient Truth" reference being on the scissor lift like Gore? For some reason nobody notices it.

[fireofenergy]

Wow, I hope i'm wrong about the "always 20 years away" slogan. I think that we should spend 200 billion. What's that, $3 per day for a year. I would gladly gamble that even though I like the solar mirrors concept. Such a large array would actually reduce negative albedo. But, what the hell, if you great minds out there can develop fusion, then probably, people could figure a better solution for the negative albedo too (to make up for melting glaciers)!

[joshuaki3]

I really appreciate this comment because it is something that dogs the fusion energy effort and is completely misrepresenting. The cost of building ITER, a reactor scale experiment, is $13 billion dollars over the next 8 years. With additional budget this could be further expedited. This same experiment was planned to be built by the year 2000. However, changes in the budget caused such an experiment to be postponed until now.

[joshuaki3]

The trouble with the expression, "fusion is 20 years in the future and always will be" is that it implies that scientists have been unsuccessfully trying to make a fusion energy source. This is not the case. There has never been a point where the fusion community has ever attempted to build an experiment large enough to make fusion power. Instead the intention of existing smaller experiments has been to learn more about the plasma physics going on inside a smaller, cheaper experiments.

[joshuaki3]

Some numbers of merit regarding budget expenses. The entire US federal tax revenue is about $2,730 Billion a year. The US defense budget is about $549 Billion a year. Both of these numbers do NOT include war spending on Iraq. Bill Gates net worth $58 Billion. Fusion Energy experiment large enough to produce power $13 Billion (over 8 years). Truely infinite, non-polluting, perfect energy source...priceless. :)

[acidburns911]

when will we see a working fusion reator

[joshuaki3]

My best estimate is that fusion is between $50 to $100 billion of Research and Development away. How quickly taxpayers are willing to provide those funds with determine how quickly fusion can be developed. For perspective, according to the Washington Post, as of March of this year the US has spent $11.2 Billion in designing and building a single helicopter whose sole purpose is flying the president. This new helicopter will simply replace the old US101 currently being used.

[andresfusion]

Great video, already the United States, Japan, South Korea, Russia, China and the European Union, have chosen France as the site for a $13 billion experimental nuclear fusion know as the "ITER". However, we need more time, for now we should expand fission to make sure we have enough baseload power without further damaging the environment. I recommend you read Dr.Max Carbon's book " Nuclear power:villain or victim".

[joshuaki3]

You are preaching to the choir my friend. I am a graduate student studying Nuclear Engineering and I couldn't agree with your comment more. Unfortunately my video had to be limited to 5 minutes. Otherwise, I would have addressed what I think should be done right away, and that is nuclear fission in a big way. Right now I work on a tokamak DIII D at General Atomics Lab in San Diego, and am working on an diagnostic to be used by ITER, once it comes online.

[andresfusion]

WOW that sounds like a lot of fun! I'm actually doing a double major in electrical and nuclear engineering. In the electrical side I'm concentrating on power generation. I also plan to do a masters in nuclear in about a year when a graduate. How is it to work on the tokamak?

[joshuaki3]

Cool to hear you are planning a Nuc.E. Masters, there is a huge need. As for tokamak work, so far it has been really exciting. I have only been here for about a month so far. Before that I worked on a smaller spheromak experiment SSPX at Livermore Nat. Lab. DIII D is really cool and complicated. Its about three stories tall. So far I haven't had to do much work in the pit, but in about a month I am going to be going inside the vacuum vessel to help calibrate an instrument I am working on.

[lee0slayer]

yeah i agree with you it is not self sustaining, to many people get paranoid, even this will get confused with radioactive substances and nuclear bombs which is theoretically impossible for this, any the way i was suppose to say that i was studying this kind of stuff, although i am still young i will like to do something like this, cause like i am the smartest in my year, probably ever, and i love science and maths, especially physics, i have to wait till i Am old enough till i can though

[lee0slayer]

lol, how do you get temperatures in excess of 300 million degrees wtf how the hell do you get it that hot

[joshuaki3]

Hi,

I am so glad to hear that your interested in fusion. We definitely need lots of smart people to try to figure it out. As for the temperatures the reason that were are able to achieve such high ones is because we are suspending the plasma in a magnetic force field. This field allows the plasma to be confined in the experiment without letting it touch the walls, which are usually at much smaller temperatures of around 200 degrees.

[lee0slayer]

i really do hope you success because the reality of it is that you and all the others who are working on this will save the world, hopefully i can grow old enough to graduate and be part of it, i mean, i think this technology should be the way forward for the future, i know how much energy you can get out of it and how ultimately reliable in the long run it is. one day the governments of all MEDC's will realize the benefits and we will be able to use this instead of polluting this planet

[fireofenergy]

At least with large solar mirrors (power towers covering about a tenth of the deserts), and ocean wind, we can't blow ourselves up...

[joshuaki3]

Magnetic Fusion can not blow up. It is not a self-sustained chain reaction. If you put too much fuel, or too little, or something breaks the reaction automatically terminates because you loose the plasma conditions needed. As a fusion scientist I would love it if the problem with fusion was keeping a reactor from blowing up. That would be a heck of a lot easier to figure out.

[fireofenergy]

I agree that fusion probably wouldn't blow up (but don't know cause I'm not a fusion scientist). However, fusion has always been 20 years away, and now is considered even longer for widespread use!

Solar, on the otherhand, can be done up with late '80's tech, and would cost almost noth'n to provide 3x USA electrical demand!

here's the math... Oh charactor count..., will have to post again...

[fireofenergy]

Consider that 50,000 sq mi will be only

10,000 square miles

actual collection after space for shadow, cleaning, habitat, beautiful rock formations, ect are accounted for. Further assume a 25% capacity factor = 2,500 sq mi, and 25% efficiency = 625 sq mi of pure 80 watts per sq ft electricity (constant production equivalent). = 5280 x 5280 x 625 * .08 (kWh per foot) * 8760 (hrs in year) = just over 12 Trillion kWh's! (Way more than 4,000 billion we use now).

[fireofenergy]

As for costs, at $2.50 per installed watt, (which would be 12,000 trillion / 8760) is 1.369 trillion x 2.5 = about 3.4 trillion. Now, since we "must allow conventionals" to play out, we should just pay as we go, thus no finaince charges (only inflation). If just every household (105,000,000) was to pay over 30 years, then that cost would be... just $3 per day (32,400 per household) which is way less than what we paid even yesterday for fuel costs!

I believe in mirrors erected by posts, ecowise

[joshuaki3]

One of the distinct advantages to solar that I am aware of is the ease with which it can be deployed. It doesn't take a long time to erect hundreds of sq mi of solar (mirror or PV). While I, and most Americans completely agree with your sentiment regarding a willingness to spend $3.4 trillion to supply our energy, that $3 a day is not something that China is willing to do when it has tons of really cheap coal to exploit.

[joshuaki3]

For this reason, it is essential that we, the developed world, create a power source that is cheaper then coal and far more abundant. The U.S. reducing it's CO2 emissions at any expense is not going to protect the planet, while developing an inexpensive, non-polluting energy source will.

[fireofenergy]

Hi, I believe in desert mirrors. Not only will that create unlimited clean energy, it will create some sort of positive albedo needed to curb GW (manmade, natural, whatever, it true!) as we learn how to put CO2 back into the ground in the form of "excess" soil and vegitation. Why can't we cultivate the desert spaces next to all those millions of would be solar power towers? (southwest cities)!

Also, more jobs, (eco)nomic growth, electric vehicles, LESS OPEC!

And the ability to stop GW !

[joshuaki3]

Technically solar of any kind is not an infinite source of energy. The earth has a limited about of surface area, and solar is limited by the amount of that surface we are willing to dedicate to it.

This is somewhat semantics, but also the sun is 'only' going to last for 5 billion more years. At which point we better have fusion figured out so we can head off to a new solar system. :)

[joshuaki3]

You may already know that there is already a plan underway to install a large solar thermal plant in the Mojave Desert. The power output of will be 550 MegaWatts (MW) and requires about 9 sq miles. For reference the US currently uses about 500,000 MW of electrical power. My personal philosophy is that we should work to preserve the environment, including desert ecosystems, and other open spaces.

[richiespicks]

Amory Lovins: Fusion is nothing but a very clever way to do something that we don't really want to do. That is, it's just another complex, costly, slow-todeploy, centralized, high-technology way to make electricity. And that's not what we need.

[joshuaki3]

Forgive my optimism, but I am a firm believer that there is no limit to human innovation. 50 ears ago, it was thought that a computer could never fit into a single room and that their cost would be so great that they would only be available to governments. Now, after significant government subsides supporting the initial efforts of the semiconductor industry, we are both enjoying extremely inexpensive computing that is far more powerful than those who preceded us would have ever dared to dream.

[richiespicks]

Amory Lovins: fusion produces a lot of fast neutrons that could—and probably would —be used to make bomb materials. The kind of fusion research that involves compressing pellets by means of high-energy lasers is a technology that I think should be abandoned immediately because of its very worrisome military implications.

[richiespicks]

Physicist Amory Lovins is cofounder, Chair, & Chief Scientist of Rocky Mountain Institute & Chair of Fiberforge. Published in 29 books & hundreds of papers, his work has been recognized by the "Alternative Nobel," Onassis, Nissan, Shingo, and Mitchell Prizes, a MacArthur Fellowship, the Benjamin Franklin & Happold Medals, 9 honorary doctorates, honorary membership of the American Institute of Architects, & the Heinz, Lindbergh, Jean Meyer, World Technology, & Time "Hero for the Planet" Awards.

[richiespicks]

You say that most of Amory Lovins's claims are baseless. If you really believe this, then please speak to the specifics of The Nuclear Illusion. Be specific and quote from it in your criticism of what is said.

[joshuaki3]

"...the political obstacles related to safety, waste, proliferation, etc., can be and in many countries have been bypassed by fiat." Nuclear energy is one of the most scrutinized industries in the world. This is clear from the 26 active nuclear regulatory agencies. That means there is nearly 1 regulatory agency for every 16 operating power plants.

[richiespicks]

Your response is a non sequitur. Why is it such a scrutinized industry? It's true -- only government edicts have kept this stinking corpse twitching. Why is it that the nuclear plants in the U.S. only operate because the government has exempted the industry from liability in case of an accident? Are you fine with any country in the world having nuclear plants? Why do you advocate for yet another complex, costly, slow-to-deploy, centralized, high-technology way to make electricity?

[joshuaki3]

I am not, nor did I ever advocate for "a complex, costly, slow-to-deploy, centralized, high-technology way to make electricity" I advocate the R&D required to make a safe, infinitely abundant, inexpensive, quick-to-deploy, centralized, high-technology way to make electricity. What is being missed here is that fusion power has not yet been developed into a power source. Classifying it now as being something that shouldn't be explored because of prejudice over Fission plants is a miss-step.

[joshuaki3]

However, a distinction must be made between Fusion energy and conventional Fission. Nowhere in Lovins "The Nuclear Illusion" does he speak of fusion energy. This is an entirely different form of energy. In this video I am simply advocating that we expedite vital R&D to bring Fusion power to the fore, and am not saying anything about existing Fission.

[richiespicks]

It is selfish and short-sighted to head in this direction. The United States is not the only country needing a long term energy solution. Becoming leaders in enhanced efficiency standards, solar -- both domestic hot water and voltaic -- plus wind, and cogeneration will permit American workers to lead the way and the world to buy from and benefit from us. Read the work of Amory Lovins -- go to the RMI website and read the PDF of The Nuclear Illusion

[joshuaki3]

It is shortsighted to head in a direction relying purely on efficiency increases and renewables. I am well aware of Mr. Lovins mostly non-peer-reviewed popular writing and while some of his concerns are of merit, most of his claims are baseless. It is important to realize that energy permeates through our lives in ways we don't realize. It is not simply what comes out to the plug.

[joshuaki3]

About half of all energy use in the country comes from the "Built World" meaning the roads, bridges, buildings and other infrastructure we tend to ignore. If we are to truly make a power source for the rest of the world, we have to consider the real need for energy. Developing nations are hungry for the luxuries that we Americans have enjoyed for years, and asking them to forgo such pursuits, as Mr. Lovin's does, is as selfish as it gets.

[joshuaki3]

What I am advocating is R&D to make a Fusion Power Plant with capital requirements that are not cost prohibitive for developing nations. In so doing the US would be giving the world literally oceans of energy for all to use. I can't think of anything less self-serving.

[joshuaki3]

How did everybody like my Ode to Al Gore and "An Inconvenient Truth"?

[msimon6808]

Polywell - $200 million

IEC Fusion Technology

BTW Star Wars Works - see Missle, Patriot

[joshuaki3]

I thought IEC fusion was limited to proton generators, for production of radiopharmaceuticals, but I could be wrong. The intention of Regan's Strategic Defense Initiative was to deploy numerous defense systems to protect against nuclear ballistic missiles. At present no such system exists. According to the NYtimes "The United States Army has said that its Patriots intercepted about 40 percent of the Scud missiles that Iraq fired at Israel during the war in 1991."

[yingwu2]

Polywell has not shown any evidence that it can work, until they have any real data, its just another crack pot fusion idea to me

[msimon6808]

What about the coming little ice age predicted by solar scientists. Global warming is piffle by comparison.

[yingwu2]

I'm kidding of course, I love it, especially the last 30 seconds

[joshuaki3]

I was going for the Micromachines guy.

[yingwu2]

Worst video ever!!

[chasejw321]

I've always been a big fan of fusion, but I could never put into words my abundant love for it. This video is my answer. It single handedly summarized my true feelings for those crazy atoms and what they do in their private time. By private time, of course, I mean nuclear fusion. Bravo.