47. European ITER Domestic Agency Removes False Fusion Claims

Sep 122020
 

 

Johannes Schwemmer, Director of Fusion for Energy

Johannes Schwemmer, Director of Fusion for Energy

Return to ITER Power Facts Main Page

By Steven B. Krivit
Sept. 12, 2020

Last week, in response to letters from New Energy Times, the European ITER domestic agency removed its three primary — and false — claims about the promised results for ITER from its Web site.

The agency, known by the trade name Fusion for Energy, under the leadership of Director Johannes Schwemmer, had published the false claims about the forthcoming ITER reactor earlier this year. Schwemmer’s agency made the false claims despite the fact that he knew the accurate and honest way to describe the ITER design objective, and he knew about his agency’s earlier false and misleading claims. Schwemmer has been one of the primary participants in the ITER reactor fraud, a bait-and-switch trick to gain support and money by grossly exaggerating and falsifying the project’s design objectives and promised outcome.

The ITER project is managed by the central ITER organization headquarters. Secondarily, activities in Europe, China, India, South Korea, the Russian Federation, and the United States are managed by their respective domestic agencies.

Schwemmer removed the following false claims:

  • ITER will be the first fusion device to generate more energy than it consumes.
  • ITER is designed to produce excess heat at a rate that would be sufficient to satisfy the electricity needs of a medium-size town.
  • ITER will generate 10 times more power than it uses.

New Energy Times began writing to Schwemmer and his staff in June 2018, pointing out an earlier set of false and misleading claims on the agency’s Web site, only one of which Schwemmer corrected – and that only partially. Schwemmer complained to us on Dec. 18, 2018, that he felt unfairly judged. He expressed indignation that our letters suggested that his organization was deliberately making fraudulent claims. He said he would not discuss the issue further with us.

On July 20, 2020, after we discovered the new set of false claims, we wrote to Beatrix Vierkorn-Rudolph, the chair of the governing board of Fusion for Energy. We also provided suggestions for accurate corrections. We received no response from Vierkorn-Rudolph. Three days later, we publicly reported Schwemmer’s new false, fraudulent claims.

If the new claims were the result of a clerical error, Vierkorn-Rudolph did not tell us. If Vierkorn-Rudolph asked Schwemmer to make any corrections, we don’t know what happened to her request.

A month later, on Aug. 27, 2020, we wrote to Kadri Simson, the European Commissioner responsible for the European Commission’s Directorate-General for Energy. One week later, Schwemmer made the necessary corrections. (Change log) Two days later, a staff member wrote to New Energy Times on behalf of Simson. (See below)

Schwemmer and his agency have now published accurate, honest, and transparent claims. The text in the corrected claims is similar to that which we suggested to Vierkorn-Rudolph. One major difference is that the new claims are even more conservative than we suggested. Rather than using the phrase “thermal power,” which could contribute to further misunderstandings that the ITER reactor is intended to produce “power,” the text says that ITER will “generate heat.”

The claims now focus on the legitimate design goal of ITER, a tenfold amplification in the rate of heat produced by the fusion reactions compared with the rate of heat injected into the reaction chamber. The overall reactor itself will produce no net power and will not demonstrate that producing commercial energy from fusion is possible.

April 23, 2021 Update: After reviewing the Benfatto paper, and the 500 MW of electrical power required to start the fusion reaction, we have determined that two of the “corrected” claims noted above are also inaccurate. The “corrected” language still creates a false association between the physics reactions and the overall device power balance. The language “it will be the first fusion device to generate more heat than used to start the fusion reaction” is technically accurate, but misleading because it omits the majority of electrical power needed to start the fusion reaction. The overall reactor, accounting for the full rate of power required to start the fusion reactions, will generate no more power than is produced by the fusion reactions.

Schwemmer knows the accurate way to represent the primary objective and goal of ITER; to “ensure that there is no possible misunderstanding on the ITER energy gain of 10 – [that it is] linked only to the plasma and not to the energy balance of the overall ITER plant.”

 

46. Letter to European Commission: False Claims By European ITER Agency

Sep 122020
 

Return to ITER Power Facts Main Page

August 27, 2020

Kadri Simson
Commissioner, Directorate-General for Energy

SUBJECT: Fusion Claims By European ITER Agency

Dear Ms. Simson,

The primary difference between a mistake and fraud is intent. The person who makes an unintentional mistake, once notified of it, demonstrates integrity and honesty not only by correcting that mistake as soon as possible but also by immediately announcing the intent to do so. A person who knowingly and intentionally commits fraud admits no mistake and continues to perpetuate the falsehood.

The European ITER domestic agency known as Fusion for Energy is a joint undertaking operated under the authority of the European Commission. I am writing to you in your capacity as the commissioner responsible for oversight of Fusion for Energy.

Continue reading »

45. Nobel Laureate Foresaw ITER is Bait-and-Switch, 2004 Article Reveals

Sep 042020
 
Nobel Laureate Masatoshi Koshiba

Nobel Laureate Masatoshi Koshiba

Return to ITER Power Facts Main Page

Sixteen years ago, in 2004, Japanese Nobel laureate Masatoshi Koshiba spoke with Agence France-Presse about the ITER project. Here is a reprint of the article.

The most recent Japanese winner of the Nobel Prize for Physics on Friday questioned the validity of a multi-billion dollar nuclear fusion project his country is competing for against France to host.

Masatoshi Koshiba, 77, who shared the Nobel physics prize in 2002, told AFP that he had warned that the experiment to emulate the sun’s nuclear fusion might not live up to its billing in an article more than three years ago.

The 10 billion dollar International Thermonuclear Experimental Reactor (ITER) project aims to produce the clean, safe, inexhaustible energy of the future, but once operational, it is not expected to generate electricity before 2050. [Ed: See footnote.]

“I wrote … that the popular project ITER is like what is said in ancient China: ‘Sheep head and dog meat’,” Koshiba said, speaking in English.

“This implies that the shop says it is selling sheep meat but actually they are selling dog meat.”

Koshiba said he had also pointed out that before it could become the next energy source, nuclear fusion had to be proven to be both safe and economical, but no one had any experience in dealing with the sort of power it could unleash.

He added that the resulting energy could cost more than estimated if operations had to be halted to replace absorbers or walls.

But the professor emeritus at the elite Tokyo University said he was also scared that scientists were not in charge of the project.

“This project is not in the hands of scientists any more but in the hands of politicians and businessmen, so there is no chance scientists can make any change,” he said.

The project is a joint effort between the European Union, the United States, China, Japan, South Korea and Russia. The partners will share the cost, but competition is intense to host the project. The partners are to vote in late February on whether the French town of Cadarache or the northern Japanese village of Rokkasho-mura should house it.

They failed to decide on the site at a meeting in December, with Japan drawing backing from the United States and South Korea, while France won support from China and Russia. Earlier this week, Japan’s science minister argued that the Rokkasho site would win out on a fair assessment of technological merit, but suggested one country might house the reactor site and the other an information centre.

Text Copyright © 2004 AFP

New Energy Times Note: The AFP author wrote “it is not expected to generate electricity before 2050.” It’s even worse than the author understood: 1) ITER was never designed to produce electricity. 2) ITER was never designed, as a reactor system, to produce even one Watt of net power.

44. 2016 Survey of Professors on ITER Power Claims

Aug 292020
 

Return to ITER Power Facts Main Page

By Steven B. Krivit
August 29, 2020

In the past three years, I have contacted many leaders and representatives of fusion organizations about false and misleading power claims on their Web sites about the ITER reactor. Most of the representatives have now made the necessary corrections.

But what about the broader fusion research community? Did they realize what was going on? Did they care? Why were they silent about the bait-and-switch trick about the ITER power claim?

I conducted a survey in December 2016. I randomly contacted 24 professors around the world who worked in plasma physics. I asked them about the 50 MW input and 500 MW output claim displayed throughout the ITER organization’s Web site.

False and misleading claims on the ITER organization's Web site home page as of December 2016

False and misleading claims on the ITER organization’s Web site home page as of December 2016

I received responses from half of them; the relevant excerpts from our conversations are below. The only two respondents who spoke critically of the ITER organization’s claims did not want to be identified. At the time, I did not know that the overall reactor was designed to consume at least 300 MW, but I had a hunch that it was much more than 50 MW.

This is what I wrote to them: “I want to tell my readers (lay readers, not experts in fusion) about the projected power gain of ITER. The information on [this page] appears pretty straightforward. It seems that 50 MW of power will go into the reactor and 500 MW will come out. Is that the basic idea? Are there any other important details I should tell readers about the power?”

#1, Barrett N. Rogers, Dartmouth University

  • Rogers: Yes, a factor of 10 or more gain is the goal.
  • Krivit: So does that mean, if successful, the reactor will produce 450 MW excess thermal power based on all the electrical power it will consume?
  • Rogers: Yes, very approximately. That is the goal.
  • Krivit: And these values are for the entire reactor, not just for the plasma heating?
  • Rogers: The numbers represent the input power needed to heat the plasma, and the output represents the fusion power generated by the plasma as a whole.

Analysis: Rogers gave me an accurate answer only after, and only because, I asked an informed question.

#2, Adil Hassam, University of Maryland

  • Hassam: That is the plan, 50 into 500MW. It’s like striking a match to a gas burner – input some energy and get a multiplication, because there is fuel.
  • Krivit: So to confirm, 50 MW goes into the reactor, 500 MW comes out. Are there any other major details or assumptions I should understand about the power gain?
  • Hassam: To be sure, there are many other major details and assumptions that go into calculating how much power gain. 40 years of experimentation, new physics advances, optimizations, follow-up experiments, scale-ups: these have all gone into the calculations.
  • Krivit: I want to confirm: Are these values (50 MW in / 500 MW out) for the entire reactor or just for the plasma heating?
  • Hassam: [no response]

Analysis: Hassam concurred with the ITER organization’s false claim. But he may not have known it was false.

#3, Name and Affiliation Withheld

  • #3: That is one of the goals of ITER. The goal you describe is to heat the plasma with 50MW of heating power and then produce 500 MW of power in fusion reactions. However, to clarify, that does not mean it costs 50MW to keep that plasma confined. This does not include the power needed for the magnets, cooling systems, etc.
  • Krivit: From what you are saying, the actual [power] cost to get that 500 MW is not 50 MW. Do you have any idea of the real MW cost to get the 500 MW output?
  • #3: I don’t know what the real cost of input versus output is going to be. From the input side, I am sure people could come up with a decent number, and the heating is going to be the dominant contribution.
  • Krivit: Given your understanding of these data (and now mine), what do you think of the way they advertise ITER on the ITER Web site?
  • #3: The statement is technically correct and follows the traditional way in how this has been defined within the fusion community historically. However, I do also see how such a statement could be misleading to people who are not on the inside or have no historical knowledge.
  • Krivit: I understand and appreciate both points of view. Thank you very much.
  • #3: I have a feeling this will come to bite me eventually.

Analysis: This professor understood the facts and chose to make sure that I did too.

#4, George Tynan, University of California, San Diego

  • Tynan: You have it right. The machine design aims to produce 500 MW of heat production with 50 MW of power input.
  • Krivit: So to confirm: 50 MW goes into the reactor; 500 MW comes out. The gain is ten-fold. Are there any other major details or assumptions I should understand about the power gain?
  • Tynan: [no response]

Analysis: Tynan concurred with the ITER organization’s false claim. But he may not have known it was false.

#5, Name and Affiliation Withheld

  • #5: Yes, 50 MW will go into ITER, to heat plasma up and then to control the burn of hydrogen isotopes (deuterium and tritium), which will generate 500 MW of power.
  • Krivit: So is it accurate to say, in very simple terms for a lay audience, that 50 MW of electrical power goes into the system and 500 MW of heat come out, a 10-fold gain in power?
  • #5: No, because to generate 50 MW of the power which goes into ITER (as RF waves and energetic neutral beams), you need to spend at least 150 MW of the heat! In practice, even more, since you have energy losses when you generate both RF waves and energetic neutral beams.
  • Krivit: And are you saying that the 50 MW input is thermal? And therefore, 150 MW electric is required to provide that 50 MW thermal input?
  • #5: You better call me [phone number redacted].
  • #5: [Notes from phone call] There is much more power required than 50 MW; many other components consume power for the reactor. I cannot answer how much energy you need for that.
  • Krivit: What do you think of the way they advertise ITER on the ITER Web site?
  • #5: This is bullshit.
  • Krivit: Can you be more specific? Which part, please?
  • #5: Net gain of energy.

Analysis: This professor understood the facts and chose to make sure that I did too.

#6, Nathaniel Fisch, Princeton University and the Princeton Plasma Physics Laboratory

  • Fisch: I am not sure if that 50MW includes the power to maintain the magnetic field.

Analysis: Fisch is a highly qualified academician and scholar, and associate director for academic affairs at the Princeton Plasma Physics Laboratory.

 

#7, William Heidbrink, University of California, Irvine

  • Heidbrink: That’s right. Q=10=(power out)/(power in) is the goal.
  • Krivit: Does that mean the reactor will produce 450 MW excess power based on all the power it consumed?
  • Heidbrink: Not really. It’s a demonstration.  There are experimental modules that will try to recover a fraction of the produced power. Plus, there is lots of energy expended to set up the conditions that then produce 10 times more power for awhile that’s not counted. The idea is, if the reactor ran in steady-state, those startup energy costs would become negligible as the reactor continued to produce power.
  • Krivit: What confuses me is the claim on the ITER organization’s Web site. It gives me the impression that the reactor will produce “ten times the amount of energy put in” to it. That seems very different from what you are saying.
  • Heidbrink: It’s inaccurate. The goal is 10 times the power, not 10 times the energy.

Analysis: Heidbrink was right about the distinction between power and energy. But the major point is that he also knew that there is a lot of power required to operate the reactor that is not counted and he chose to make sure I knew that too. He also revealed what I have seen as a common theme among fusion scientists: a belief that it is acceptable with current reactors to not count the required operating power because, they believe, the required operating power in future reactors would be negligible.

#8, Sibylle Guenter, The Max Planck Institute for Plasma Physics

  • Guenter: You are right, that is exactly the idea, for 400 seconds’ duration.
  • Krivit: And to confirm, are these values for the entire reactor or just for the plasma heating?
  • Guenter: It is only for plasma heating.
  • Krivit: Do you know how much more power is required for the rest of the reactor’s required components?
  • Guenter: No, I don’t, sorry.

Analysis: Guenter gave me an accurate answer only after, and only because, I asked an informed question.

#9, Roland Smith, Imperial College London

  • Smith: Yes, that is one of the broad performance goals. One thing to note is that ITER is not designed to be an operational power plant; it’s a physics test bed with the goal of breakeven (Q=1) and then gain Q>=10, so 50MW in >= 500MW out.
  • Krivit: And just to confirm, are these values for the entire reactor or just for the plasma heating?
  • Smith: [no response]

Analysis: Smith gave me an inaccurate answer and went silent after I asked an informed question.

#10, Ahmed Hassanein, Purdue University

  • Hassanein: Yes, ITER is supposed to produce 10 times more energy (500 MW) than the input energy to start the fusion reaction (50 MW). This is called Q-value of 10. When Q=1 that means same output energy as input, or breakeven.
  • Krivit: Does that mean that the reactor will produce 450 MW excess thermal power based on all the electrical power it consumes?
  • Hassanein: Yes, but the produced fusion power from ITER will not really be used for electricity. Just to demonstrate the success of the concept on large scale compared to current machines. So far, no fusion device has produced more energy than input energy.

Analysis: Hassanein did not appear to understand the facts.

#11, Per Helander, Max Planck Institute for Plasma Physics

  • Helander: You should contact ITER or tokamak physicists directly for details about the power balance. My understanding is that 50 MW enters the plasma. However, the heating systems of course have an efficiency less than 100%, so more power may enter the reactor.

Analysis: Helander’s response was accurate but incomplete as he omitted the power required for the remainder of the reactor’s systems.

 

43. European Commission President Directs Correction of False ITER Claims

Aug 202020
 

Return to ITER Power Facts Main Page

By Steven B. Krivit
August 20, 2020

In response to letters from New Energy Times, and our report “The Dark Side of ITER,” sent to the European Commission President Ursula von der Leyen, the president’s office has directed staff members to correct another false and exaggerated claim about the forthcoming ITER fusion experiment.

The commission’s Web page, “Fusion Energy and ITER,” provides a link to English, French, and German versions of the document “The ITER Project: The Road to Fusion.” The document is part of a site redesign that went live in October 2019. At that time, the document made this false claim:

ITER’s goal is to prove that fusion power devices can feasibly produce energy that could be converted into electricity.

After I sent letters to Massimo Garribba, the deputy director-general for the commission’s energy department, he accepted my suggestion and corrected the claim as follows:

ITER’s goal is to prove that a fusion plasma can produce 10 times the thermal power injected into the plasma.

As “The Dark Side of ITER” reveals, promoters of the ITER project falsely stated the objective of the project and exaggerated its projected power production for nearly three decades. As a result, almost all public reports and public documents, until 2017, including documents and press releases by the European Commission, reflect the widespread discrepancy between what the public expects from the reactor and what it is designed to do.

Garribba has oversight responsibility for the ITER project for the commission and is the representative for the European Union on the ITER Council. Bernard Bigot, the director-general for the ITER organization, reports to Garribba and the other members of the ITER Council.

This was the third significant ITER power correction by the European Commission. We reported the commission’s first correction of exaggerated ITER power claims on Sept. 2, 2018. We reported the commission’s second correction on May 29, 2020.

The current correction process began when I sent a letter about the false claim to Arias Cañete. On May 29, when I learned that Cañete was no longer a member of the commission, I sent a copy of the letter to President von der Leyen. Garribba responded on June 10. Garribba suggested that changing the word “produce” would fix the problem.

Separately, on June 15, I sent a copy of “The Dark Side of ITER” to von der Leyen. Renatas Mažeika wrote back on July 1 on the president’s behalf and thanked me for the report.

On Aug. 2, I wrote to Garribba and explained why replacing the word “produce” could not fix the false claim. I suggested a phrase that would. Garribba responded on Aug. 14:

Click for larger version

 Older Entries  Newer Entries
© 2024 newenergytimes.net