ITER Fusion Reactor (and Fusion Research in General): The Facts

ITER Summary
Primary ITER Design Objective
Collateral Damage of the Power Deception
Intentional Continuation of False Claims
Method
Motive
Money
White Papers
Citations of Steven B. Krivit’s JET, ITER, and Fusion Fuel Investigations
Other Recommended Reading and Viewing
Acknowledgements

On Dec. 13, 2016, we reported that the ITER Organization had been making false claims about the projected reactor net energy.
On Nov. 7, 2017, we reported that the ITER Organization had made some corrections to its false power claims.
Other international science, government, and industry organizations followed with their own corrections.
On Nov. 15, 2022, we reported that the ITER Organization had begun withdrawing its final set of false reactor net energy claims.
It was the last of the international organizations to do so.

ITER Summary

The International Thermonuclear Experimental Reactor project was under construction until French regulators ordered a halt to the reactor assembly on Jan. 5, 2022, because of several safety-related nonconformities. If regulators approve a revised plan, reactor assembly will resume. Every day of delay adds €1 million to the cost.

Funding for the reactor was obtained by misleading elected officials in the U.S. and the EU about ITER’s design purpose and about results from earlier reactors. The money has gone and is going to thousands of contractors and hundreds of staff members.

If the project is ever finished, it will demonstrate that fusion researchers underestimated the cost by a factor of at least 10 and exaggerated the promised power gain by a factor of 20. Rather than costing $6 billion, ITER will cost at least $65 billion (as of 2018). Rather than demonstrate a reactor power gain of 10, the reactor power gain will be about one-half. The overall reactor was never designed for net power gain. The net power gain was planned only across the plasma. ITER, however, was sold on the false appearance of reactor power gain, not plasma power gain.

Fusion promoters have claimed for decades that the fuel for fusion is “abundant, virtually inexhaustible, and equally accessible to everyone.” Fusion reactors will need a 50/50 mixture of deuterium and tritium. Deuterium is abundant. But tritium does not exist in nature as a natural resource. It’s an unwanted byproduct of a small fleet of aging nuclear fission reactors, primarily located in Canada. These fission reactors are scheduled to be decommissioned by 2060.

Fusion promoters have claimed for decades that fusion reactors will be able to make their own tritium from lithium-6. But, in the U.S., there is no legal mercury-free method to make industrial quantities of enriched lithium-6. It is enriched in North Korea, China, and Russia for nuclear weapons. (Summary article for fuel issues).

The Primary ITER Design Objective

If successful, the ITER fusion experiment will inject 50 million Watts of heating power into the fusion fuel and, in turn, produce fusion reactions (in the plasma) with 500 million Watts of thermal power. This would be a tenfold power gain. But reaction (or plasma) power gain is not the same as reactor power gain.

If ITER succeeds in this reaction (or plasma) power gain — which is its primary scientific goal — then the correlated result for the overall reactor will be a loss, not a gain. The loss will be equivalent to 550 million Watts of thermal power. If ITER is operated continuously and connected to the electric grid, that would translate to a loss of 220 megawatts of electric power.

The ITER reactor was never designed to produce net power, or equivalent electric power output. Nevertheless, the ITER organization claimed, under the direction of Bernard Bigot, the former director-general, and Laban Coblentz, the head of communications, that the reactor’s usable output would “translate to about 200 megawatts of electric power, enough for about 200,000 homes.” The Princeton Plasma Physics Laboratory made the same claim. The European ITER domestic agency said that “ITER will produce a significant amount of heat in the range of 500 MW for about 7 minutes — enough to satisfy the electricity needs of a medium-size town.” If ITER works as designed, the potentially usable net power output won’t operate even one light bulb.

In a nutshell, the ITER reactor is designed for a net power gain across the plasma, not across the entire reactor. The “50 MW” and “500 MW” values always were associated with the plasma gain, but ITER’s previous promoters said or implied that those values were associated with the entire reactor.

All power-related references and sources are here: https://news.newenergytimes.net/iter-fusion-reactor-technical-references/

The Collateral Damage: Some of the Victims of the Power Deception

“ITER aims to produce 500 megawatts of power, 10 times the amount needed to keep it running.” (Daniel Clery, Science magazine, Oct. 13, 2006) [Science journalists were misled for 19 years.]
“[ITER] has the ultimate goal of generating an output power that is ten times its input power, 500 MW versus 50 MW.” (Editors of Nature magazine, Aug. 17, 2021) [Nature journalists were misled for 16 years.]
“L’objectif final affiché est de générer une puissance de 500 MW durant plus de six minutes à partir d’une puissance de 50 MW.” [“The final objective displayed is to generate a power of 500 MW for more than six minutes from a power of 50 MW.”] Commission Nationale du Débat Public [This organization was responsible for giving French citizens in the region where ITER was to be built a chance to debate about ITER. The debate was held after the decision was made to build ITER in their region.]
“If successful, ITER would create the first fusion device capable of producing thermal energy comparable to the output of a power plant.” Office of President George W. Bush
“ITER is designed to produce at least 10 times the energy it consumes.” Rep. Eric Swalwell Jr.
Hundreds of other examples

Intentional Continuation of the False Power Claims

The power facts explained above stand in contrast to the widespread false claims made by representatives of the fusion community. Yet even after Bernard Bigot, the former director-general of the ITER organization, and Laban Coblentz, his head of communications, were fully informed about the false power claims on their organization’s Web site, they continued the practice.

On July 28, 2020, the ITER organization issued a press release claiming that “if operated continuously and connected to the electric grid, [the 500 MW thermal output] would translate to about 200 megawatts of electric power, enough for about 200,000 homes.” (Archive Copy) That math works only if the input power to the reactor is excluded.

Johannes Schwemmer, the director of the ITER European domestic agency, also continued to publish false power claims on his agency’s Web site long after he knew they were false. In Spring 2020, Schwemmer published a new Web page saying that “ITER will produce a significant amount of heat in the range of 500 MW for about 7 minutes — enough to satisfy the electricity needs of a medium-size town.” That math works only if the input power to the reactor is excluded.

Bigot testified falsely before the French Senate in 2021. He had also testified falsely before the U.S. Congress in 2016.

Bigot, Coblentz, and Schwemmer were merely continuing in the footsteps of their colleagues. In 2012, the Princeton Plasma Physics Laboratory published a brochure saying that ITER was designed to produce 500 million Watts of power. The brochure said this would be enough for the “electrical needs for 200,000 average-size homes.” That math works only if the input power to the reactor is excluded.

In 2011, fusion scientists told members of the European Parliament that ITER was designed to “produce 500 megawatts of output power for 50 megawatts of input power” by 2027. They told the members that, as a result, ITER was designed to “demonstrate the commercial viability of fusion.”

These are just a few of hundreds of examples of the persistent deceptive practices that have been going on for decades.

One of the many examples of the JET and ITER deceptions

The Method

The fusion scientists promoting ITER consistently failed to explain that the 50 MW input meant only the injected thermal power used to heat the fuel. They failed to explain that the 500 MW thermal output is not possible without the 440 megawatts of electricity needed to operate the reactor.

The false claims made by the ITER organization prior to Oct. 6, 2017

False claims made by the ITER organization. Retrieved on Oct. 5, 2017
(Click here to see the ITER organization’s correction soon after Oct. 5, 2017)

The ITER organization and its representatives established the false foundation of ITER based on the false claim about the Joint European Torus (JET) reactor. They said that JET needed a total of only 24 MW of input power. JET actually needed 700 MW.

False claims made by the ITER organization, as published on its Web site, before Oct. 6, 2017 (Click here to see ITER organization's correction soon after Oct. 5, 2017)

False claims made by the ITER organization, as published on its Web site, before Oct. 6, 2017 (Click here to see the ITER organization’s correction soon after Oct. 5, 2017)

The Motive

Access to public money was always a motive for the misleading and exaggerated fusion claims. But a deeper issue was at stake: relevance.

In the 1960s and 1970s, fusion researchers oversold and under-delivered their promises of turning fusion research into fusion energy. In 1981, the U.K. government began cutting back fusion funding. Plans for the next big British experiment, the Reversed Field Experiment, were cancelled. In 1984, the U.S. government decided not to fund the next big proposed U.S. reactor, the Compact Ignition Tokamak. The Soviet fusion program had gone as far as it could with its limited resources.

Here are some historical references:

“The reversed field pinch, a promising new approach to fusion power, may die because the government is cutting back on Britain’s fusion program.” — New Scientist (Sept. 24, 1981)
“President Reagan’s proposals to curtail the U.S. research program on fusion energy are a tragedy for the world.” — New Scientist (Jan. 21, 1982)
“Last summer, Congress sliced 10 percent off the DOE’s request for $483 million for this year’s work. It was a message to the DOE, recalls one congressional staff member, ‘to get your act together; we’re not getting our money’s worth.'” — New Scientist (Nov. 15, 1984)
“The Soviets must join an international collaboration if they are to have access to the fusion engineering test reactor — the next step in fusion energy development — during the next 25 years. Because of economic and manufacturing constraints, they probably are unable to construct an ETR themselves.” — CIA Report #SW 90-10039 (July 1990)

By 1990, the field was facing the threat of obsolescence. Without the long-promised proof of fusion as a practical source of energy, there would be no continued public funding. As evidenced by nearly every news story about fusion in the last 60 years — with the exception of military applications — fusion research was always sold to the public and elected officials with the primary goal of energy production. Without public funding, there would be no new research reactors.

“ITER is the last chance we have to demonstrate that tokamak fusion is manageable — there will be no other.” (Bernard Bigot, ITER organization director-general)
“[If ITER does not succeed, then] fusion will be dead forever or at least for a very, very long time — nobody will bet on fusion for a long time.” (Sabina Griffith, ITER organization press officer)

In 2013, fusion scientist Dennis Whyte, who later became the director of the MIT Plasma Science And Fusion Center and a co-founder of Commonwealth Fusion Systems, gave a TEDx talk in 2013. He told the audience that he and his students had designed a fusion reactor that could produce 250 MW of electricity 24/7. But he pleaded with the audience to educate themselves: “Our lab is about to close. The federal government is threatening to remove all of our funding and it will, in fact, cut off this extremely promising area of research toward this energy source.”

Three years later, in 2016, after 43 years of support for the Massachusetts Institute of Technology’s series of fusion reactors, Congress finally told MIT that it was done spending taxpayers’ money.

“On September 30, 2016, M.I.T.’s old experimental fusion device, which had been running for twenty-five years, was obliged to shut down by midnight. ‘This device graduated more than a hundred and fifty Ph.D.s,’ Dennis Whyte said wistfully.” (Rivka Galchen / New Yorker, Oct. 1, 2021)

Without reactors to perform the experiments, there would be nothing left but computer simulations. With research limited to computer simulations, new generations of young scientists would be less likely to choose fusion as a career. Without filled classrooms, fusion professors would need to look to private fusion companies for employment. With construction of ITER nearly complete, with U.K. fusion researchers no longer part of the project (thanks to Brexit), with U.S. researchers hungry for domestic fusion research, the fusion spotlight in the U.K. and U.S. shifted to private enterprise.

The Money

Although money was never the ultimate driving factor in fusion (see The Motive, above) it was an integral part of the system, particularly with publicly funded reactors like ITER. Below are some resources for investigators who want to follow the money.

ITER-Org-Suppliers-list1-partially-redacted.xlsx (~ 2015)
ITER-Org-Suppliers-list2.xlsx (~ 2015)
U.S. ITER Participants.pdf (2017)
Roster of Attendees of ITER Business Forum 2017 (Not necessarily recipients of ITER funding, but at least interested parties.)

White Papers

The Nuclear Fusion Bubble Is Going to Burst (April 30, 2022)
26-page White Paper applicable to public and private fusion projects.
The Fuel for Nuclear Fusion Doesn’t Exist (Jan. 12, 2022)
Without a source for tritium, without a source for tons of enriched lithium, fusion can never be a source of energy.
The Dark Side of ITER
35-page White Paper explaining the power deception and its history. (June 15, 2020)
When Will We Get Energy From Nuclear Fusion?
Analysis of fusion triple-product progress; initial analysis of false claims about fusion fuel. (July 1, 2021)
(This is a long and detailed analysis about why the fusion triple-product value and the Moore’s Law analogy is irrelevant.)
U.S. Department of Energy Scientists Will Give Presentation on Fusion Energy Progress
Analysis of fusion triple-product progress.
(This is a concise analysis about why the fusion triple-product value is a false indicator of fusion progress.)

Citations of Steven B. Krivit’s JET, ITER, and Fusion Fuel Investigations

“Lithium for the Metaverse: Myths of Nuclear and Digital Fusion,” by Niels Neissen, in Materials of Culture: Approaches to Materials in Cultural Studies, 9783839466971, 3839466970 (2023)
Fusion Nucleaire : Iter Et Sa Communication Trompeuse (Enquête 1/2) (May 25, 2023)
“Grenzenlos Probleme statt grenzenloser Energie,” Janosch Deeg published in Bulletin.ch (Dec. 2, 2022)
“Nuclear Fusion Illusion. Is it time to park the pipe dream?,” by Dave Borlace (March 20, 2022)
“Breaking News: Fusion Recedes Into Far Future for the 57th Time,” by Michael Barnard, Cleantechnica.com (Nov. 9, 2021)
“ITER, un Réacteur Expérimental à la Com.’” published by Le Canard Enchaine (Oct. 27, 2021)
Sun in a Bottle? … Pie in the Sky!: The Wishful Thinking of Nuclear Fusion Energy, by L.J. Reinders, published by Springer (Aug 1, 2021)
“Le Futur Réacteur Nucléaire ITER: Un Projet Titanesque Et Énergivore,” by Celia Izoard, published by Reporterre (June 16, 2021)
The Fairy Tale of Nuclear Fusion, by L. J. Reinders, published by Springer (May 21, 2021) (Krivit excerpt)
“A Fusion Experiment Promised to Be the Next Step in Solving Humanity’s Energy Crisis. It’s a Big Claim to Live Up To,” by Grant Hill, aired on WHYY-PBS Radio (May 7, 2021)
ITER: The Giant Fusion Reactor, by Michel Claessens, published by Springer (Oct. 30, 2020)
Soleil Trompeur-ITER Ou Le Fantasme De L’ Énergie Illimitée, by Isabelle Bourboulon, published by Petits Matins (Jan. 2, 2020)
“ITER Is a Lie and Already Obsolete!,” by Michèle Rivasi, member of the European Parliament, published on her Web site (Nov. 20, 2018)
ITER, Étoile de la Science. Petite Histoire d’un Projet Scientifique Titanesque, by Michel Claessens, published by Springer (Oct. 29, 2018)
“ITER Is a Showcase … for the Drawbacks of Fusion Energy,” by Daniel Jassby, published in Bulletin of the Atomic Scientists (Feb. 14, 2018)
“False information and misleading communication about the International Thermonuclear Experimental Reactor (ITER) programme” European Parliament (Feb. 8, 2018)

Acknowledgements

Steven B. Krivit would like to acknowledge the New Energy Times team for its support, as well as the Internet Archive as an invaluable resource for our ITER investigation.