Dec. 23, 2017 – By Steven B. Krivit
In response to letters from New Energy Times to Agneta Rising, the director general of the World Nuclear Association, the association made several sequential corrections to its false and misleading ITER claims.
Original Page
Second correction
Dec. 22, 2017 – By Steven B. Krivit –
In response to an e-mail from New Energy Times on Dec. 22, 2017, Anatoly V. Krasilnikov, the ITER Russia Project Director, corrected one false and misleading claim about the ITER fusion reactor. Other false and misleading claims remain.
Original EN Page
Revised EN Page
Dec. 11, 2017 – By Steven B. Krivit
Return to ITER Power Facts Main Page
Recently, some organizations involved in the International Thermonuclear Experimental Reactor (ITER) program have corrected false and misleading information published on their Web sites, after reading articles published by New Energy Times.
This report summarizes the way that some ITER proponents have misled non-experts about the potential power output of the ITER experimental nuclear fusion reactor, once it becomes operational. The misrepresentation is not exclusive to ITER; it has been a systemic problem in the fusion community for decades. ITER is simply the largest and most recent fusion project.
Specifically, the proponents conflated the power gain ratio of the plasma (technically known as the fusion Q) with the power gain ratio of the device (technically known as the engineering Q). They took the value for Q-fusion and convinced non-experts that it was the value for Q-engineering. They did this not only by switching the Q-values but also by hiding the actual input power required for the reactor. This report also identifies people and organizations who have published false statements about the ITER design and function based on the information they were given by the ITER organization.
A decade ago, Neil Calder, a former ITER spokesman, taught attendees at his international communicators’ workshop how to promote ITER to the world:
False and misleading 2008 statement by Neil Calder, former head of ITER public communications (Source)
Nov. 23, 2017 – By Steven B. Krivit
On Tuesday, this writer sent a letter to Petra Nieckchen, the head of media relations for EUROfusion, informing her that three Web pages on the organization’s Web site contained false claims about ITER. On Thursday, the fusion organization corrected the pages.
EUROfusion is a consortium that manages and funds European nuclear fusion research activities on behalf of 26 European Union member states, in addition to Switzerland and Ukraine and a hundred university and industrial laboratories.
Contrary to what has been nearly universally promoted by fusion advocates, the International Thermonuclear Experimental Reactor (ITER) is not designed to produce 10 times the power it will consume. Using the most favorable calculation, ITER will instead produce 1.6 times the power it consumes. Using the more conservative calculation, it will lose more power than it produces. Continue reading »
Ian Chapman, CEO UKAEA
Nov. 16, 2017 — By Steven B. Krivit
Yesterday, Ian Chapman, the chief executive officer of the U.K. Atomic Energy Authority, acknowledged the inaccuracy of his statements about the performance of the U.K.’s biggest fusion reactor. Chapman’s inaccurate quote was published in the U.K. Sunday Times on Nov. 12, 2017.
Chapman is one of several fusion scientists who have consistently provided false and misleading statements about fusion reactor performance to the news media and public. Chapman told the Sunday Times that the U.K. Joint European Torus (JET) fusion reactor produced 16 megawatts (MW) of electrical power with a 25 MW input. If true, this would represent an efficiency of 64 percent.
In fact, the 16 MW output was in the form of heat, not electric power. More significant, instead of requiring 25 MW of electrical input power, the reactor required 700 MW of electrical input power. This means that the most powerful controlled nuclear fusion experiment in the world produced power equivalent to only 1 percent of the power it consumed. In other words, the result was a net loss of about 684 MW of electricity. Continue reading »
| © 2024 newenergytimes.net |
