Apr 282022
 
Ronald Richter working on the Huemul Project, the first fusion reactor that allegedly proved the commercial feasibility of fusion. It was also the first fusion project identified as fraud.

Ronald Richter working on the Huemul Project, the first fusion project that allegedly proved the feasibility of fusion. It was also the first fusion project identified as fraud.

By Daniel L. Jassby, Princeton Plasma Physics Lab (ret.)
April 27, 2022

Reprinted with permission from the American Physical Society Forum on Physics and Society April 2019 Newsletter, pp 13-16

“It is much easier to fool people than to convince them that they have been fooled.” – Mark Twain

Modern Fusion Fantasies

During the last decade a host of fusion energy “startups” have captured the attention of the technology press and blogosphere. These startups promise to develop practical fusion electric power generators in 5 to 15 years, and incidentally will achieve ITER’s planned performance in a fraction of the time at 1% of the cost. With few exceptions, journalists have accepted these claims without criticism and propagated them with enthusiasm.

But these projects are nothing more than modern-day versions of Ronald Richter’s arc discharges of 1948-54, the inaugural fusion energy brouhaha [1]. Just as Richter’s contraption could not generate a single fusion reaction, none of the current projects has given evidence of more than token fusion-neutron production, if any at all.

It was principally the absence of neutron emission that doomed claims of “cold fusion”, so why should more elaborate assemblies get a free pass, just because they use plasmas heated beyond room temperature? A tepid plasma of deuterium cannot produce measurable levels of fusion neutrons because one or more of the ion temperature, ion density, or plasma volume is too small. As far as energy production is concerned, such systems are the functional equivalent of “cold fusion” but cost orders of magnitude more.

Robert Park was the longtime director of the Washington office of the American Physical Society, and author of the book “Voodoo Science” [2]. In his book and numerous columns under the heading “What’s New,” Park demolished “cold fusion” but never mentioned any of the failed “warm plasma” fusion schemes of his era. Unlike “cold fusion,” plasma-based fusion attempts are generally not voodoo science but most of these enterprises can be classified as voodoo technology.

For present purposes, we define “voodoo fusion” as those plasma systems that have never produced any fusion neutrons, but whose promoters claim will put net electrical power on the grid or serve as a portable electric power generator within a decade or so. As in Richter’s pioneering fiasco, all the modern voodoo schemes offer perfect examples of one axiom of fusion energy R&D: The Inverse Timescale Axiom states that for any fusion concept, the smaller the achieved fusion neutron production, the shorter the predicted time to a working power reactor.

The total absence of any fusion neutron production has an inexplicable psychological effect: It encourages both promoters to predict and onlookers to believe that tinkering with a tepid plasma can result in commercial fusion electric power generators within a decade.

Voodoo incantations are necessary both to induce a trance in journalists, investors and politicians in order to procure financing, and eventually to command the fusion neutrons to materialize by witchcraft as those neutrons cannot be produced by the touted plasma concepts. Today the messianic incantations of the voodoo priest-promoters invoke the aura of “the energy source that powers the sun and stars” as well as the myth that terrestrial fusion energy is “clean and green” in order to cast a spell over credulous investors and politicians.

Fusion Neutrons are Critical

Unlike solar fusion reactions that produce no neutrons, in the most favored Earth-bound fusion reaction (deuterium-tritium), 80% of the energy is released in streams of high-energy neutrons. Because of the difficulty in handling radioactive tritium, experimenters commonly use deuterium alone, and 50% of D-D reactions produce high-energy neutrons. Some enterprises propose to use the neutron-free D-3He reaction, but neutrons are still produced in unavoidable D-D reactions. In all cases, no neutrons means no fusion. Finally, some ventures propose to use the aneutronic proton-boron reaction, but the only convincing way to discern progress in reaching reactor conditions is by doping the plasma with deuterium and measuring D-D neutron output.

Numerous fusion “startups” promise a practical fusion reactor delivering net electric power in 5 to 10 years, but almost all have apparently never produced a single D-D fusion reaction. The currently most notorious (in alphabetical order) are General Fusion [3], Helion Energy [4], Lockheed-Martin Compact Fusion [5], and Tri-Alpha Energy [6], all of which have made that promise for the last 5 to 15 years.

For reference, one watt of D-D fusion power is accompanied by approximately one trillion neutrons per second. Fusion concepts that can attain some level of fusion activity include many tokamaks in numerous labs worldwide, a few stellarators, laser-compressed pellets at Livermore (NIF) and the University of Rochester, MagLIF at Sandia, electrostatic fusors, and the dense plasma focus (DPF). Neutron production by itself has various practical uses such as isotope production and radiography [7]. More than 90% of fusion concepts have never produced measurable levels of fusion neutrons, which means those systems may have little practical value.

This discussion excludes Tokamak Energy and Commonwealth Fusion from the voodoo class despite their preposterous and insupportable declarations of near-term electrical power production [8], solely because their schemes are based on tokamaks. For 50 years many tokamak facilities have demonstrated that they are capable of producing a significant level of D-D fusion reactions, increasing from 1xE8 n/s in T-3 in 1969 to more than 2xE16 n/s in TFTR in 1988 [9] and comparable rates years later in JET and DIII-D [10]. We also exclude LPP Fusion, because its DPF does produce meaningful levels of D-D fusion neutrons (3xE11 n/pulse), as the DPF has done since the 1960’s.

Naked Emperors Flaunt Their New(tronless) Clothes

One sketchy way to track the predicted dates for each player’s commercial power plant is to review the articles issued periodically by Brian Wang on nextbigfuture.com [11]. For the last dozen years, Wang has quoted uncritically the rash predictions of future accomplishments with dates furnished by project promoters. Wang treats all projects and unjustified claims seriously, but you, dear reader, will merely take note of the dates promised for commercial fusion reactors.

Here are samples of the more recent predictions for energy breakeven and commercial power plants from the currently most notorious voodoo fusion enterprises. The symbol NBF denotes the website nextbigfuture.com.

General Fusion (GF)
“GF targets prototype by 2015 and a working reactor by 2020,” from NBF 5/19/2012.
“GF will demonstrate DD-equiv. net (energy) gain in 2016,” and “GF targeting commercial reactor for 2020,” from NBF 5/24/2013.
GF will demonstrate net gain in 2018 and “GF targeting commercial reactor for 2023,” from NBF 8/18/2015.
“GF Demo nuclear fusion plant around 2023”, quoting C. Mowry, CEO of GF, from NBF 5/23/2018.

Helion Energy
“The Helion Fusion Engine will enable profitable fusion energy in 2019,” from NBF 7/18/2014.
“If our physics holds, we hope to reach that goal (net energy gain) in the next three years,” D. Kirtley, CEO of Helion, told The Wall Street Journal in 2014.
“Helion will demonstrate net energy gain within 24 months, and 50-MWe pilot plant by 2019,” from NBF 8/18/2015.
“Helion will attain net energy output within a couple of years and commercial power in 6 years,” Science News 1/27/2016.
“Helion plans to reach breakeven energy generation in less than three years, nearly ten times faster than ITER,” from NBF 10/1/2018.

Lockheed-Martin Compact Fusion
“Lockheed will have a small fusion reactor prototype (power plant) in five years…and a commercial application within a decade,” from MIT Technology Review, 10/20/2014.
“Net energy gain in 2020 and commercial power plant targeted for 2024,” from NBF May 3, 2016.

Tri-Alpha Energy (now TAE Technologies)
“Tri Alpha says it will produce a working commercial reactor between 2015 and 2020,” from NBF 8/16/2011.
“Tri Alpha Energy now likely 2020 – 2025….. for commercial nuclear fusion,” from NBF 10/16/2015.
“Tri-Alpha Fusion to develop commercial fusion by 2027,” from NBF 1/19/2017.
”The company will generate net energy from fusion…. in about five or six years,” from K. Bourzac [8], 8/6/2018.

Another collection of postings describing plasma fantasies masquerading as practical energy sources along with projected commercialization dates can be found on The Polywell Blog [12], maintained by Matthew Moynihan.

There are also numerous wannabe fusion contenders that have popped up in the last 5 years or so, making the usual preposterous claims on the basis of nothing but hot air or cold plasma, but these outfits are not yet sufficiently well-known to warrant more than a mention. Examples are Dynomak, First Light, HyperJet, and numerous members of the delusional Fusion Industry Association.

Journalists and promoters rarely mention neutrons, because most journalists have never heard of them, while the promoters assume that neutrons can eventually be made to issue from their contraptions by the appropriate voodoo recitation. Wang and Moynihan, who monitor all relevant press releases, have probably heard of fusion neutrons but they care not a whit about their absence — in their eyes any gaseous plasma is the basis of a working fusion reactor simply because its promoters claim that it is. But you, dear reader, will actually search for reports of fusion neutron production and you will find essentially nothing!

The permanent fusion R&D organizations, mainly government-supported labs, are the silent spectators of the parade of naked emperors, only occasionally challenging their insupportable assertions and predictions. One feature that voodoo fusion schemes do share with their neutron-producing rivals is that while they will never put electricity onto the grid, all of them take plenty of energy from the grid. The voracious consumption of electricity is an inescapable feature of all terrestrial fusion schemes.

In January 2019, well after this article was first submitted, TAE Technologies reported achieving a token fusion reaction rate [13]. TAE Tech’s experiments with deuterium plasmas have produced a maximum of 5E9 n/s (~5 milliwatts fusion) in a 5 ms pulse amounting to about 2E7 D-D neutrons per pulse, with the injection of at least 5 MW of neutral beams and tens of MW total electric power consumption. [Ed: the fusion reaction produced an output of 0.005 Watts from an input of tens of millions of Watts of electricity.]

As noted above, the Dense Plasma Focus at LPP has produced a D-D neutron yield per pulse that’s 10,000 times larger than TAE’s best, while the TFTR, JET and DIII-D tokamaks have produced D-D neutron rates that are 10 million times larger.

Despite TAE Tech’s device producing fusion power that’s at least nine orders of magnitude smaller than its electric power consumption, TAE Tech has just issued its most outlandish claim ever. That’s described by Brian Wang in “nextbigfuture.com” (16 Jan. 2019) under the headline “CEO of TAE Technologies Says They Will Begin Commercialization of Fusion by 2023.”

A Cousinly Voodoo Plasma Enterprise

So how will these ballyhooed boondoggles end up? For guidance let’s look at the fate of a notorious voodoo technology enterprise in the field of medical diagnostics. Theranos (a contraction of THERApy diagNOSis) is a California-based company that purported to have a revolutionary blood-testing system, garnered nearly a billion dollars of investment, and stacked big names on its Board of Directors. The company’s claim is that with only a tiny drop of blood it could run hundreds of tests and detect diseases in their early stages. Over the past few years it was exposed as a total sham, principally by the investigative work of John Carreyrou, which culminated in his book “Bad Blood” [14].

Theranos and fusion energy enterprises are both centered on fluids called “plasma,” liquid in the case of Theranos, and gaseous for the others. But Theranos and the so-called fusion energy startups have a lot more in common than the name of their working fluid. It’s striking how the characteristics of the Theranos undertaking are similar to those of the phantom fusion enterprises that promise a practical fusion reactor delivering substantial net electric power in 5 to 10 years, but have never produced more than a token amount of D-D fusion reactions, if any at all.

Here are some of the features of the Theranos sensation, derived from Carreyrou’s book and published interviews with Carreyrou [14]. The voodoo fusion analogs are in parentheses.

  • Holmes preached that the Theranos device was “the most important thing that humanity has ever built.” (That’s the same refrain made by fusion technologists about their beloved contraptions.)
  • Theranos’s technology was either not ready or unworkable during the initial period of bombast, and when put into service was never validated. (Today’s much-heralded voodoo fusion equipment can produce only token fusion neutrons, if any, and to the end of time will be capable only of phantom energy production.)
  • Holmes beguiled high-profile people to serve as directors or investors. They ignored or could not recognize all indications that they were being fooled. (Trusting billionaires and celebrities serve as investors or board members in General Fusion, Helion, TAE Tech., etc.)
  • Holmes’ game was always that the ends justify the means. She thought the technology would eventually catch up with all the promises she made, and practiced “fake it till you make it.” (Fusion promoters assume that high-energy neutrons will magically show up someday in the abundance needed for promised electricity generation.)

The founders and chief executives of General Fusion, Helion Energy, Lockheed Fusion and Tri-Alpha are reincarnations of Ronald Richter, the first practitioner of voodoo fusion energy. Like Theranos’s Elizabeth Holmes, these modern priests of voodoo fusion have cast a spell over most journalists, investors and politicians.

The pinpricks of blood plasma extracted by Theranos could not produce enough usable data for meaningful tests. It was voodoo diagnosis. Similarly, the tepid plasmas of the voodoo fusioneers can never produce enough fusion neutrons, if any at all, to have practical use. Very recently, Theranos announced that it would dissolve and its investors will receive at most one cent on the dollar. At best, that same outcome awaits the voodoo fusion ventures when it becomes apparent that their power plant foolishness, fantasies and deception have zero factual basis. And at worst? Follow the Theranos case.

References
  1. Jose A. Balseiro, “Report on the September 1952 Inspection of the Isla Huemul Project,” Comisión Nacional de Energía Atómica, Buenos Aires, Argentina (1988); M. A. J. Mariscotti, “El Secreto Atómico de Huemul,” Sudamericana-Planeta, Buenos Aires, Argentina (1985); many references in Wikipedia entry for “Huemul Project.”
  2. Robert L. Park, “Voodoo Science,” Oxford Univ. Press, 2000.
  3. General Fusion website http://www.generalfusion.com/
  4. Helion Energy website http://www.helionenergy.com/
  5. Lockheed Martin website http://www.lockheedmartin.com/us/products/compact-fusion.html
  6. TAE Technologies (Tri-Alpha Energy) website http://www.tae.com/
  7. APS Panel on Public Affairs Report, “Neutrons for the Nation,” Amer. Physical Soc., July 2018.
  8. D. Kramer, Physics Today, August 2018, p. 25; K. Bourzac, Chemical & Engin. News (ACS), August 6, 2018.
  9. M.B. Bell et al. (TFTR results), Proc. IAEA Fusion Energy Conf. (Nice, 1988), Vol 1, p. 27.
  10. P.B. Snyder et al. (DIII-D results); H-T Kim et al. (JET results); both presented at 27th IAEA Fusion Energy Conf. (India, 2018)
  11. Brian Wang, www.nextbigfuture.com
  12. Matthew Moynihan, www.thepolywellblog.com
  13. R. M. Magee, et al, Nature Physics, publ. online, 14 Jan. 2019.
  14. John Carreyrou, “Bad Blood,” Alfred Knopf, 2018; book review by R. Lowenstein, New York Times, May 21, 2018; interview of Carreyrou by Vox, June 19, 2018
Appendix

Neutron Distractions

  • Some years ago when “sonofusion” was a short-lived obsession, General Fusion applied an electrically driven shock wave to a sphere of deuterated water and claimed to have produced up to 50,000 neutrons per shot. That was never confirmed and in any case has nothing to do with the company’s fusion reactor concept.
  • TAE Technologies is pursuing another venture that uses ion beams striking solid targets to produce neutrons for cancer therapy. This technique is real, having been pioneered by cyclotron inventor Ernest Lawrence and his physician brother in 1938 and used for eight decades.
Apr 272022
 

Return to ITER Power Facts Main Page

By Steven B. Krivit
April 27, 2022

On Feb. 21, 2022, New Energy Times reported that the assembly of the ITER reactor had been suspended by the French nuclear regulator, ASN. The suspension placed a hold on the assembly’s critical path — the main parts that compose the reactor chamber. In addition, ASN objected to other safety issues and demanded that the ITER organization submit a comprehensive revised plan to address all of them before the regulator allows reactor assembly to continue.

Three days after we published that news, Bernard Bigot, the ITER organization director-general, sent a message to his staff members. Here is our response.

Seven days later, Gilles Perrier, the new head of the ITER Safety and Quality department explained that the shutdown was “part of the normal regulatory process.” The letters ASN sent to the ITER organization in 2021 indicate that ASN repeatedly refused the ITER organization’s requests to release the hold point on the reactor vessel assembly.

The first sector subassembly, Perrier wrote on Feb. 28, 2022, “will be transferred into the Tokamak pit in the coming weeks.”

On March 20, 2022, ITER communication manager Robert Arnoux told Nice Matin that the stop-order will have “no impact on the assembly schedule.”

A few days ago, in the May issue of Physics Today, David Kramer reported that Alain Bécoulet, the head of ITER’s engineering domain, “expects that ASN will lift its hold by early fall, allowing assembly to resume in November, just a couple months behind schedule.”

In fact, November 2022 would be 11 months behind schedule. The first sector subassembly was supposed to be lowered into the tokamak pit in December 2021.

Our examination of the history of the ITER organization’s timeline promises shows a consistent pattern of optimism. As a result, we believe the first sector will not be lowered into the tokamak pit until November 2024 — or never — and that ITER will become the world’s largest stranded science asset.

 

Apr 252022
 

Return to ITER Power Facts Main Page

By Steven B. Krivit
April 25, 2022

One of the myths in the nuclear fusion field is that an international DEMO reactor is supposed to follow the international ITER project. This article will dispel this myth.

In fusion parlance, the term “DEMO” refers to a fusion reactor designed not only to produce more power than it consumes but also to demonstrate the net production of electricity.

In its public relations programs, the ITER organization implies that a single international DEMO-class reactor will follow ITER.

Image from ITER organization's Web site, April. 25, 2022

Image from ITER organization’s Web site, April. 25, 2022

This implication helps to maintain the expectation that the work and the costs of the envisioned reactor will be shared among the 33 nations that are now partners in the ITER project. But the ITER partners have no plan for a joint international DEMO reactor and never have had one.

DEMO-Class Reactors

Rather than supporting a unified DEMO that would follow ITER, each of the seven ITER partners has its own plans for a DEMO-class reactor, as shown in this diagram by U.S. fusion scientist Laila El-Guebaly. [3]

Planned DEMO-class reactors, by Laila El-Guebaly

Planned DEMO-class reactors, by Laila El-Guebaly

The European Union has a group in Garching, Germany, at the Max Planck Institute for Plasma Physics, under the direction of Hartmut Zohm, that has been working on the EU DEMO project for 12 years. If the EU builds its DEMO fusion reactor, European taxpayers will have to pay the entire cost, rather than sharing it with the U.S., India, China, Japan, South Korea, and Russia.

The New Scientific Method

According to the 2012 EFDA timeline shown below (click the image to view it full-size), fusion researchers hoped to have completed the majority of the EU DEMO design work (Task 80) before ITER even starts fusion experiments using deuterium-tritium fuel (Task 59).

2012 ITER and EU DEMO Timeline, as published by EFDA

2012 ITER and EU DEMO Timeline, as published by EFDA

This is business as usual in the business of fusion. Fusion scientists begin designing their next reactor projects before they begin running current deuterium-tritium fusion experiments, let alone obtaining and analyzing results from those experiments.

The fusion scientists did it with the Joint European Torus (JET), ITER’s predecessor. The first deuterium-tritium fusion experiments took place in November 1991.[1] But as explained in a May 1991 IAEA document, the initial design of ITER was complete. The design activities began in April 1988 and were completed in December 1990. [2]

It’s not the scientific process, but it’s what fusion scientists have to do to maintain the flow of interested graduate students and public money and keep the field alive.

 

1. IAEA, “ITER Physics,” ITER DOCUMENTATION SERIES No. 21, (May 1991) IAEA
2. EURATOM, “JET Joint Undertaking Progress Report 1991, Volume I. Report for the Period 1 January – 31 December 1991,” EUR 14434 EN (EUR-JET-PR9) (April 1992) EURATOM and EU Commission
3. National Academies of Sciences, Engineering, and Medicine. 2019. Final Report of the Committee on a Strategic Plan for U.S. Burning Plasma Research. Washington, DC: The National Academies Press, p. 92

 

Apr 242022
 

Return to ITER Power Facts Main Page

By Steven B. Krivit
April 24, 2022

Analyzing power claims of past and future tokamak fusion reactors is not easy. One of the reasons is that fusion researchers often make assumptions in their calculations and don’t state them in their papers. Sometimes, they don’t disclose the power needed to operate the reactors. The term for this value is called “balance of plant.”

Thus, I created UTRC, the Universal Tokamak Reactor Calculator. This approximation tool should be considered as a back-of-the-envelope calculator. It does not attempt to account for granular differences, details, and variables that exist among reactor designs. Given three basic numbers for a reactor, you can quickly and easily calculate the theoretical net electrical power that the reactor should produce and its associated Q values.

Click here to go to the calculator.

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

Apr 092022
 

Return to ITER Power Facts Main Page

By Steven B. Krivit
April 9, 2022

In this article, I will explain how representatives of the nuclear fusion community caused so many people to misunderstand the power specifications of experimental fusion reactors. The fusion fuel deception is an equally important issue, but I have covered that matter in this summary article and its subordinate articles.

In order to keep this article as concise as possible, I’m going to focus on the underlying concepts the representatives used rather than their specific activities. I’ve covered such activities in my documentary film “ITER, The Grand Illusion: A Forensic Investigation of Power Claims.”

The entire nuclear fusion community did not actively participate in the power deception. Only a few of their representatives were directly responsible. However, the rest of the fusion community, with few exceptions, passively allowed it to happen.

For people who are new to the subject, I will first show some examples to provide a sense of how significant this deception was.

National Ignition Facility

The Lawrence Livermore National Laboratory’s National Ignition Facility (NIF) announced new results in August 2021. Scientists at NIF caused the news organization Vox, for example, to tell its readers and viewers that the NIF laser fusion device came very close to producing net energy. Vox told its audience that the NIF experiment produced an output of 1.3 megajoules of energy with an input of 1.9 megajoules. 1.3 megajoules is enough energy to boil one kettle of water.

The Vox journalists did not understand — and it was by no means their fault — that the NIF laser fusion device actually consumed 400 megajoules of energy. I explained the exact details of how the laboratory created this misunderstanding in an Aug. 8, 2021, article as well as in three follow-up articles starting on Feb. 2, 2022.

The NIF scientists didn’t trick only journalists. They also tricked American professor of theoretical physics and television personality Michio Kaku into thinking that the NIF device produced fusion reactions that released 70 percent of the energy consumed by the device. Kaku spoke on CNBC in August 2021. Kaku didn’t realize that laser fusion scientists at NIF have four definitions for breakeven. Kaku inadvertently led viewers to believe that the NIF device (not just the fusion reaction) “hit breakeven: to extract more energy than you put in.” With 400 megajoules in and 1.3 megajoules out, the NIF device didn’t come close.

Joint European Torus

Fusion scientists misled journalist and author Charles Seife about the Joint European Torus (JET) reactor which produced the most powerful fusion output in the world 25 years ago.

Seife thought, as he wrote in his 2009 book Sun in a Bottle, that JET was not the hallmark of a great power plant because it produced an output of only 6 Watts for every 10 Watts it consumed. The common belief was that JET produced 16 MW from a total input of 24 MW of electricity. How far did JET scientists spin the facts? JET consumed 700 MW of electricity. JET produced fusion reactions with only two percent of the power the reactor consumed.

International Thermonuclear Experimental Reactor

Science magazine journalist Daniel Clery has written many articles about ITER, the International Thermonuclear Experimental Reactor. Clery describes himself as someone with “a long pedigree in science journalism.”

In 2006, Clery told readers of Science that “ITER aims to produce 500 megawatts of power, 10 times the amount needed to keep it running.”

In 2013, he told readers that “no reactor has yet produced net energy gain.”  He wrote, “ITER is expected to break through that barrier and generate 500 megawatts from a 50 MW input.”

In 2020, he told readers that “ITER is designed to show net energy output can be achieved.”

Actually, the ITER reactor is designed to consume 500 MW of electricity to start and then use 300 to 440 MW throughout the experiment. This will leave nothing left over, with no net energy for the overall device, because the planned 500 MW thermal output is equivalent to 200 MW electrical output.

How They Did It

How were fusion scientists so effective in deceiving so many smart people? The key was their use of terms that have double meanings. Among them, the No. 1 most-effective method was their use of the phrase “fusion power.” There are two examples in the image below.

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 ITER organization’s correction soon after Oct. 5, 2017)

#1. Fusion Power vs. Fusion Power

The practical meaning of the phrase “fusion power” is the net power produced by a fusion reactor. The scientific meaning of “fusion power” is the gross thermal power produced by fusion reactions.

The first meaning includes the power required to operate a fusion reactor. The second meaning excludes the required operating power. The fusion community elected not to explain or define this distinction or even advise the public of the existence of the second meaning. The ambiguity worked in the community’s favor. It caused most people to think, using JET as an example, that the reactor produced 16 MW of fusion power when, in fact, it produced only reactions with 16 MW of fusion power. In that sentence, there’s no way that anybody but an expert can tell the difference. Because members of the public knew only one meaning of the phrase “fusion power,” that’s the only meaning they ascribed to “fusion power.”

For more-technical readers: It did not help that fusion representatives added “(Q=10)” in promotional literature, as shown above, because most members of the public did not know anything about “Q.” There was no way for the public to understand that, in these instances, “Q” was supposed to mean Qscientific. Moreover, language as shown above — “from a total input power” — associated “Q” to the wrong Q-value, to Qengineering. Ordinarily, “Q” by itself is associated with Qscientific. By their pervasive association of “Q” with “total input power,” the fusion representatives, in fact, co-opted the meaning of “Q” to imply Qengineering.

#2. Misleading Purpose of Research

Hand-in-hand with the systemic ambiguity of the phrase “fusion power” was the fact that fusion scientists were ambiguous when speaking with the public about the purpose of fusion research. For most of the 70-year duration of the research, scientists implied that their goal was net reactor power. But none of the 100-plus fusion reactors was ever designed to obtain net reactor power output. The goal was always (except until recently) net reaction power output.

#3. Misleading Input Power Values

Whenever fusion scientists told members of the public any input power value, they always gave a power value representing the injected heating power used to heat the fuel. But the scientists rarely explained that to the public. That’s what the “24 MW” and “50 MW” values mean in the example above. Instead, the scientists implied that those values were the required input power to operate the JET and ITER reactors, respectively. In the JET example above, it was more than just implied. They said “total input power.” The fusion community almost never explained that these values — “24 MW” and “50 MW” — represented the injected heating power until I publicly explained the problem in 2018.

#4. Omitted Reactor Input Power Values

In order to complete the false appearance that injected heating power values, like “24 MW” and “50 MW,” represented the total input power value for the reactors, one more component was needed: the complete public omission of the real input power required to operate the reactors. And that’s how this whole house of cards fell apart when, by accident, on Dec. 1, 2014, I learned how much power JET required.

The Fusion Fuel Deception

Equally important to the power deception is the fuel deception. Many fusion scientists and their publicists have told investors and members of the public that the fuel for deuterium-tritium fusion reactors is “abundant, virtually inexhaustible, and equally accessible to everyone.” Nothing could be further from the truth.

Although deuterium is abundant and available as a natural resource, tritium is not. Some fusion scientists say that they can produce all the tritium they need for fusion reactors by breeding tritium from lithium. This claim is not supported by the science. There is no known way to breed tritium fast enough from enriched lithium. There is also no known legal, non-toxic way to produce the necessary industrial quantities of enriched lithium. The scientists know this. Some of them have been transparent about communicating it. Others have not. One of the victims of the fuel deception was Michio Kaku, as revealed when he spoke on CNBC about NIF in 2021.

Here’s what Kaku said about fusion fuel: “And the fuel — the fuel is seawater! Hydrogen from seawater could be the basic fuel. So this is too good to be true.”

Yes, it is too good to be true. A good place to start to understand the fuel deception is my article “The Fuel for Nuclear Fusion Doesn’t Exist.”

 

 

© 2024 newenergytimes.net