So that's my fusion reactor in the background there.

Well I built a fusion reactor when I was 14 years old.

This whole station is basically a big fusion reactor. Right?

I mean, it's really indirect fusion, is what it is.

Its volume increases roughly by a factor of 1000.

I've developed a device that, on a very small scale, can produce these isotopes.

I can allow the electron to come in and get absorbed.

But that's not really fusion power. That's just making some fusion happen.

Now most of you are probably saying, well there's no such thing as nuclear fusion.

A star is the most simple object.

And this probably is not what you're expecting.

I had the good fortune to learn about a different form of nuclear power.

Sure, we can alter elements by nuclear fusion or nuclear fission.

But there is a catch. Of course there is always a catch in these cases.

That thing could melt down when he tries to fire the core.

Is it cost competitive?

Nuclear energy is produced by splitting atoms or by bringing them together.

What is molten salt reactor in relation to LFTR and vice versa?

And just down the road, this is JET.

It gets very expensive to do this research.

We can do fusion.

I really only see five that can achieve the big numbers.

Ninetytwo hundred thermonuclear reactors in tandem.

If you go to the liquid form, force yourself to make that technology commitment, 50 years from now, people will go, Of course that's the answer!

(Laughter)

Due to the catastrophe caused by the huge tsunami, damage was sustained by the nuclear reactor as well as explosions at the nuclear power plant.

like eradicating polio from the world, or taking an image of every single street across the globe, or building the first real universal translator, or building a fusion factory in your garage.

I think about World War II some of our great technologists then, some of our great physicists, studying nuclear fission and fusion just nuclear stuff.

I say, Yeah, but we've actually done it. Right?

We'll come to this.

So I really think that in the, say, 20 years it's going to take us to get fusion and make fusion a reality, this could be the source of energy that provides carbon free electricity.

The key question is, When are we going to get fusion?

It boils away in the middle at 150 million degrees.

So 2030 looks like an infinity away.

And I would like to make the case that nuclear fusion will be that point, that the bridge that T. Boone Pickens talked about will get us to.

And in 2013 we're going to fire it up again and break all those records.

Babcock amp Wilcox that make nuclear reactors, here's an integral fast reactor.

You're saying the business case isn't there. That's what you're saying.

If we could do that, we'd automatically have an energy supply, because this transmutation would be a fusion reactor.

Experiments with plutonium based fast breeder reactors in France and Japan have been expensive failures.

No refueling means you can seal them up and they're not going to be a proliferation risk, and they're not going to have either nuclear material or radiological material proliferated from their cores.

Another thing I do is I invent stuff.

The physicist was aware of the potential danger of nuclear fusion.

A mindmeld?

I have the first congruency.