The Shocking Video That Explains the Hidden Flaw of Nuclear Fusion
By Steven B. Krivit
October 13, 2022
Ryan Hughes has produced an eight-minute video explaining that the required fuel for nuclear fusion doesn’t exist.
Hughes is a doctoral researcher at the Institute for Advanced Automotive Propulsion Systems in Bath, England.
Hughes has been fascinated with nuclear fusion and is enthusiastic about new breakthroughs in fusion research. Here are his opening comments from the video:
Nuclear fusion is often seen as the Holy Grail of clean energy, with the possibility to produce endless power to the world. However, there is a problem with nuclear fusion that doesn’t seem to be discussed as often. In fact, some people even seem to be trying to keep it a secret. This issue is so big [that] it could mean all of the time and money spent on current nuclear fusion research is wasted. As someone who wants fusion to work, [I believe that] it seems better to be transparent and work collectively to solve these challenges rather than pretending they don’t exist.
Steven Krivit, the editor of New Energy Times, broke the news about the fusion fuel problem in 2021 and, three months later, explained to President Biden’s Council of Advisors on Science and Technology that the fuel required for commercial nuclear fusion doesn’t exist.
In addition to providing a video-based explainer, Hughes goes further in his video than Krivit on the matter of beryllium and explains why it’s necessary. Beryllium is more toxic than asbestos or hexavalent chromium; however, it seems to be the only material that will work in a fusion reactor, along with enriched lithium, to breed sufficient quantities of tritium.
How Did We Get Here?
How did the world develop such grand expectations about fusion without a source for the required fuel? Watch this video produced by Krivit:
One of the fusion experts is Ian Chapman, the chief executive officer of the United Kingdom Atomic Energy Authority. Several years ago, Chapman told a public audience at the Royal Institution that, to get fuel for a fusion reactor, “we would breed it ourselves, so it would be self-sufficient, so you wouldn’t have to worry about the cost.”
This is wishful thinking. According to a peer-reviewed scientific paper Krivit cited in his article “Without Fuel, the Fusion Game Is Over,” there is no known science or technology to enable fusion reactors to be tritium self-sufficient.
Chapman also told the audience that the UKAEA’s Joint European Torus (JET) fusion reactor produced 16 MW of energy, which he said was a “reasonable amout of energy” but not enough to put on the commercial grid.
Chapman did not seem to understand that, to produce 16 MW of thermal power, the JET reactor consumed 700 MW of electrical power from the grid. Chapman told the audience that “the big problem is that that 16 MW was generated having put 25 MW into the machine.”
Chapman made the same type of mistake when telling the audience about the International Thermonuclear Experimental Reactor (ITER): “Instead of putting in 25 and getting out 16, in the next-step device, we’ll put in 50 and get out 500.”
ITER will actually need 500 MW of electricity to start and at least 400 MW to run. If the input electrical power value is normalized to the output thermal power value so apples are compared with apples, ITER would consume more power than it produces.
