#84 Events Leading to the False Claims in Laban Coblentz’s Press Release on Behalf of the ITER Organization

Return to ITER Power Facts Main Page

By Steven B. Krivit
Oct. 16, 2021

Laban Coblentz, the head of communications for the International Thermonuclear Experimental Reactor (ITER) organization, has provided inaccurate, ambiguous responses when asked about the ITER reactor input power requirement. He has also published fraudulent claims in a press release.

Krivit to Bigot and Coblentz

This was the first news inquiry I sent to the organization:

Subject: MEDIA INQUIRY ITER POWER
Date: Mon, 19 Dec 2016 15:46:12 -0800
From: S.B. Krivit
To: cab-public@iter.org, itercommunications@iter.org
Bernard Bigot, Director General

Dear Dr. Bigot,

You have shown on your Web page https://www.iter.org/sci/Goals, in very simple language, without conditions, that “ITER is designed to produce a ten-fold return on energy (Q=10), or 500 MW of fusion power from 50 MW of input power.”

In very simple language, without conditions, can you please tell me whether the entire ITER reactor, including all of the major power-consuming components, will require more than 50 MW in total power input to obtain 500 MW of fusion power?

If so, what is the best estimate of the power consumption for all the required major power-consuming components of ITER to obtain 500 MW of fusion power?

Thank you,
Steven

Coblentz to Krivit

Bigot never responded, but Coblentz did. By Dec. 22, Coblentz and I had exchanged 10 e-mails. In none of them did he answer my question. Finally, in e-mail #11, he responded to my fourth request.

According to what he said, he had not known, until that point, the answer to my question:

As head of communication, I don’t have access to – nor do I focus on – the exact electrical requirements of all ITER systems, whether tokamak systems or “plant systems.” The individuals who have those numbers are unfortunately scattered about at the moment, since you’ve caught us just at the holiday season. In short, it has taken time because I wanted to provide you the best estimates I can.

At the end of his e-mail, Coblentz gave his best answer to my question:

Finally, regarding your question: “What is the best estimate of the power consumption for all the required major power-consuming components of ITER to obtain the 500 MW of plasma power?”

Site requirements at steady state will enable the consumption of roughly 120 MW of power to support the “plant systems” such a cooling, cryogenics, vacuum, Tritium Plant and fuelling, Diagnostics, Test Blanket Modules, etc.

Even though I had not yet learned the correct input power rate for the reactor, I knew that Coblentz’s answer was wrong. He had omitted the largest power-consuming reactor drains: the plasma heating and current drive systems.

Five months later, Jassby taught me how to understand the various ITER power drains and was the first person to tell me that ITER would need at least 300 MW of electricity to produce the 500 megawatts of thermal output power. I then revisited the e-mail from Coblentz and saw that he had mentioned an additional 150 MW power needed for the plasma heating and current drive systems. But Coblentz had omitted the 150 MW value from his “120 MW” answer.

Based on my examination of Coblentz’s full e-mail, I cannot determine whether he failed to understand the information he had received from his experts or whether he did not want me to understand that information.

Coblentz to Izoard

Here’s what journalist Celia Izoard wrote about her attempt to ask Coblentz the same question:

Asked the same day about ITER’s total power consumption, Laban Coblentz, communications director, replied that he did not know. After a written request, plus fifteen days of waiting and several reminders, Coblentz provided approximate numerical values confirming those of Steven B. Krivit, but he accompanied them by a long dissertation on the need to “place these answers in the context of the mission of ITER.”

Coblentz to Claessens

In his books, Claessens cited my research to obtain and confirm the 300 MW value: “Krivit estimates the average total power consumption of ITER to be 300 MW.” But he did so only as a counterpoint to the official input power value he cited from the ITER organization: 110 MW.

“During operations, the electrical consumption of the ITER machine and its facilities should be on the order of 110 MW,” Claessens wrote.

Claessens has a Ph.D. in physical chemistry so he cannot be faulted for mixing machine power requirements and facility power requirements. For example, the street lights in the reactor facility parking lot do not count against the required input power for the reactor. Moreover, the ITER Web site, on its “Power Supply” page, also combines “electricity requirements for the ITER plant and facilities.” Regardless, not even the machine and its required components can operate on just 110 megawatts of electricity.

For the 110 MW value in his books, Claessens cited a news article by Robert Arnoux, a journalist who became part of the ITER public relations team. But there is no “110 MW” value in Arnoux’s article; instead, there is a “100 MW” value associated with the AC current. But Claessens didn’t understand that the DC current represents a separate and additional input power flow. Claessens missed something else Arnoux wrote in his article: “A plasma shot will require an input of 300 MW.”

Claessens has since agreed with me that the 300 MW value is more accurate. But where did Claessens get his 110 MW value from? He explained it to me last year:

– I sent an e-mail to [redacted] on 3 April 2017 to confirm that the total average electric consumption of the site is 110 MW (reactor + all installations)
– The day after (4 April), I received an e-mail from Laban saying that he will ask [redacted] to answer me. Because I had not copied Laban on my e-mail to [redacted], I suspect that [redacted] asked him for permission to answer me.
– On 20 April, [redacted] confirmed that the electric consumption of the site will be “around 100 MW.”
– I remember I then had a phone discussion with [redacted] and, a few weeks or months later, with [redacted].
– The only public information on the ITER site I found about this is https://www.iter.org/newsline/-/2589, which I quote in my books.
– If you write about this, please do not mention explicitly the names of my former colleagues, as they may have problems with their hierarchy.

Press Release with False Claims

Several years later, on July 28, 2020, Coblentz, under the leadership of Bernard Bigot, the director-general of the ITER organization, published a press release with intentionally false, and therefore fraudulent claims, about the reactor:

When ITER is finished, it is expected that it will demonstrate that fusion power can be generated sustainably on a commercial scale. … How much power will the ITER Tokamak provide? The plant at ITER will produce about 500 megawatts of thermal power. If operated continuously and connected to the electric grid, that would translate to about 200 megawatts of electric power, enough for about 200,000 homes.

Bigot and Coblentz omitted all of the electrical input power the reactor is designed and expected to consume. If Bigot and Coblentz had included the input power and if ITER was connected to the electric grid, ITER’s net output would translate to about zero Watts of electricity.

The ITER design, “if operated continuously and connected to the electric grid,” isn’t enough to power a single light bulb, let alone capable of demonstrating that fusion power can be generated sustainably on a commercial scale.

The day after the press release, I called Sabina Griffith, the staff member in the ITER organization’s public relations office whose name appeared on the press release. Griffith consented to an audio recording of our telephone call. In our conversation, it became clear that she did not have sufficient understanding of the scientific details to understand the press release bearing her name. But she didn’t write it, and she disavowed responsibility for the statements.

“I’m not the spokesperson of ITER. I’m a press officer,” Griffith said. “I’m just providing media, so for this question, regarding the content of the press release, I would have to ask you to talk to Laban Coblentz who is our head of communications. … I am not responsible for the statement printed in the press release.”

I invited Coblentz to provide a comment. He said nothing. But he removed the July 28, 2020, press release.