Dec 212022
 

We obtained the 400 MJ input value from the lab and reported it 16 months ago. For more information about the earlier story, please see this article.

This video explains:
  1. The actual device input energy that the Lawrence Livermore National Laboratory omitted in its December 2022 announcement.
  2. The real-world significance of fusion ignition/scientific breakeven.
  3. The gap between the ignition result and the energy needed for device breakeven.
  4. The extremely brief duration of the fusion reaction.
  5. Why the claims that fusion is an “unlimited, abundant” source of energy are not true.
  6. That one of the two required fuels for most nuclear fusion concepts does not exist.
  7. That there currently are no good ways to make tritium.
  8. Visually, how far away this fusion device is from becoming a practical source of energy.

Credit for the visual concept for the diagram: David Kramer

Dec 152022
 

By Steven B. Krivit
Dec. 15, 2022

In my reporting about the United States government announcement of a nuclear fusion research result at the National Ignition Facility, I was wrong about something.

I first heard about the developing story on Sunday night when I began receiving text messages about it from friends. Tom Wilson of the London Financial Times had broken the story. I went online and realized that the news contained a major omission.

“Net energy gain indicates technology could provide an abundant zero-carbon alternative to fossil fuels,” Wilson wrote. His article explained that, from a 2.1 megajoule energy input, the experiment produced a 2.5 megajoule energy output.

I knew, as a specialist in nuclear energy research, that those values apply to only the energy going into and coming out of the fuel, and not the large amount of energy required to operate the NIF device.

The promoters of the International Thermonuclear Experimental Reactor (ITER), a magnetic fusion experiment, had been creating the same type of misunderstanding about the prospects of ITER, which I described in news stories five years ago.

A Question of Context

A year ago, my sources at the NIF lab had told me that the lasers consume 400 MJ of energy each time they run an experiment. Wilson had omitted this fact.

In the context of the actual NIF science accomplishment, the 400 MJ needed to operate the device is not relevant. But in the context of how the story was pitched — “abundant zero-carbon alternative to fossil fuels” — the net energy of the entire system was entirely relevant.

David Abel from the Boston Globe contacted me Monday morning and asked me to explain the numbers. The way the NIF story was playing out, as Abel accurately quoted me, “creates the false appearance that the device has produced net energy.”

But Abel immediately followed that with a comment from Mike Campbell, a former director of the one of the world’s leading centers for fusion research, the University of Rochester’s Laboratory for Laser Energetics.

According to Campbell, my critique was “misleading” because it implied the NIF result was associated with a practical demonstration of the NIF result.

“The experiment was only meant to show that the plasma in the fusion reaction could generate more energy than it consumed,” Abel wrote.

Then Campbell did exactly what he said I had done.

Campbell, as Abel paraphrased, “compared the breakthrough at the national lab to what the Wright Brothers did in Kitty Hawk, N.C. ‘They showed that a heavier-than-air machine could get off the ground; they weren’t designing a 787,’ Campbell said. ‘They showed that air travel was possible, if you could power it.”

The Wright brothers did get their plane off the ground and travel several dozen yards. But the NIF device did not demonstrate the production of a single Watt of power. Rather, it lost 99.2 percent of the energy it consumed.

Among the comments I have received from my readers, one stands out to me as the most thoughtful:

I hang my head in shame over the behavior over the last few days of my fellow scientists. It is being interpreted as the breakthrough that means commercial fusion is just days away. And the people being interviewed, who sometimes start with an honest description of what was achieved, are quickly losing their honesty and allowing the interviewer to misinterpret what they said.

I wasn’t wrong about the energy values. But I had thought that most of the news media who had reported the NIF result were to blame for the hype and exaggeration. That’s where I was wrong.

The Source

Yesterday, I saw what Kim Budil, the director of Lawrence Livermore National Laboratory (LLNL), told the Wall Street Journal.

“This is one igniting capsule, one time. And to realize commercial fusion energy, you have to do many things,” Budil said.

The journalists, Jennifer Hiller and William Boston, made a reasonable, though optimistic interpretation from that. “[Budil] said it could take decades to commercialize fusion but that the achievement was a necessary first step that proves fusion could provide energy to a power plant.”

The NIF experiment lasted for 0.00000000009 of a second. The device produced no net energy. The device lost 99.2 percent of the energy it consumed. Suggesting to journalists who cannot be expected to be experts in nuclear fusion that this result “proves fusion could provide energy to a power plant” is beyond irresponsible. It is reprehensible.

Was Budil’s comment to the Journal a misquote? An isolated misstatement? Neither.

The news release from LLNL on Dec. 14 is rife with implications of laser fusion as a potential energy source. Here’s an example:

“I think it’s moving into the foreground and, probably with concerted effort and investment, a few decades of research on the underlying technologies could put us in a position to build a power plant,” Budil said.

The same news release explained that “with members of Congress, dignitaries and national laboratory directors in attendance, speakers at the stunning announcement celebrated the achievement as the culmination of 60 years of exploration and experimentation in ICF by generations of scientists.”

So after 60 years of laser fusion research, the last 10 using the most powerful laser fusion device in the world, laser fusion has demonstrated that it can produce slightly less than one percent of the energy it consumes.

A few journalists who reported this story have some training in physics. They knew better. But most journalists do not have training in physics. They are not to blame. They reported exactly what the officials told them. They omitted exactly what the officials — at least in the Dec. 14 news release — omitted; the device power consumption.

As a separate but equally important concern, the LLNL propaganda perpetuates the false claim about “limitless” energy from fusion. Even if NIF were to somehow miraculously produce net positive energy across the entire device, and repeat the 90-picosecond shots one after another, there is no tritium available in nature to fuel commercial reactors.

Any person who attempts to sell fusion to the public as a “limitless source of energy” without solving the multiple fuel issues is selling snake oil. Even the ITER organization, to its credit, withdrew its “unlimited energy” claim after I revealed that fallacy.

I am appalled, but sadly, not surprised at the behavior of the LLNL representatives. Taxpayers, rather than jubilant, should be outraged; not just for the falsehoods they have been told, but for the false hope these scientists have engendered and the diversion of our attention from other, more honestly promoted research.

 

Dec 142022
 

For more information about the 400 MJ input, which we obtained from the lab and reported 16 months ago, please see this article.


Slide courtesy Jeffrey Friedberg, MIT

Slide courtesy Jeffrey Friedberg, MIT

By Steven B. Krivit
Dec. 14, 2022

Look at the data. That’s what science is about.

A fusion device that loses 99% of the energy it consumes, after decades of experimental effort, and billions of dollars spent, does not provide evidence of a potential source of energy. Congress has been hoodwinked, again.

U.S. Senate Majority Leader Charles Schumer: “astonishing scientific advance put us on the precipice of a future no longer reliant on fossil fuels but instead powered by new clean fusion energy.”

U.S. Senator Jack Reed: “promising breakthrough … help fuel a brighter clean energy future for the United States and humanity.”

U.S. Senator Alex Padilla: “monumental scientific breakthrough … a milestone for the future of clean energy.”

U.S. Representative Eric Swalwell: “this breakthrough … enable progress toward new ways to power our homes and offices in future decades.”

Moreover, a claimed energy solution that is dependent on a fuel (tritium) that does not exist in nature is not a viable energy source.  

NIF was never intended for energy research; only defense. Senator Pete Domenici warned members of Congress in 2005.

senate Hearings, Committee on Appropriations, 2005

Senate Hearings, Committee on Appropriations, 2005

 

Dec 132022
 

For more information about the 400 MJ input, which we obtained from the lab and reported 16 months ago, please see this article.


By Steven. B. Krivit
Dec. 13, 2022

Billions of taxpayer dollars expended. Decades of hard work; thank you scientists.

The National Ignition Facility laser fusion device drew 400 megajoules of electricity from the grid. The fuel pellet ignited. A fusion reaction took place. It released 3.15 megajoules of energy.

But will the results “pave the way for … the future of clean power.” as claimed by the Department of Energy?

Does this “astonishing scientific advance put us on the precipice of a future no longer reliant on fossil fuels but instead powered by new clean fusion energy,” as claimed by U.S. Senate Majority Leader Charles Schumer?

Could this “promising breakthrough … help fuel a brighter clean energy future for the United States and humanity,” as claimed by U.S. Senator Jack Reed?

Is this a “monumental scientific breakthrough … a milestone for the future of clean energy,” as claimed by U.S. Senator Alex Padilla?

Will “this breakthrough … enable progress toward new ways to power our homes and offices in future decades,” according to U.S. Representative Eric Swalwell?

The reaction lasted for 0.00000000009 of a second. The device produced no net energy. The device lost 99.2 percent of the energy it consumed. 

Internal combustion engines ignite and make cars move. Rocket engines ignite and launch satellites. Laser fusion devices ignite and do nothing useful.

Let us not forget, as Bill Nye did on CNN today, that the required fuel for commercial fusion reactors does not exist.

Show’s over. Everyone can go home now.

Recommended reading: Epoch Times  

 

 

Dec 112022
 

For more information about the 400 MJ input, which we obtained from the lab and reported 16 months ago, please see this article.


By Steven B. Krivit
Dec. 11, 2022  (Updated Dec. 13, 2022)

Financial Times, among others, reported Sunday “Fusion energy breakthrough by US scientists boosts clean power hopes. Net energy gain indicates technology could provide an abundant zero-carbon alternative to fossil fuels.

Scientifically, the National Ignition Facility result is relevant and honest. But the exaggeration and misrepresentation of the result is not.

Omar A. Hurricane, chief scientist for the inertial confinement fusion program at the NIF lab, explained the facts to New Energy Times:

The total laser energy delivered to the target was 2.05 MJ and the total fusion yield was 3.15 MJ of energy. The laser pulse duration was about 9 nanoseconds long. The duration of the fusion reaction was 90 picoseconds long. Very short time-scales, obviously, which are the nature of inertial fusion systems.

Practically speaking, the result is irrelevant. The NIF device did not achieve net energy. The scientists who are promoting this result to the news media are playing word games. They use multiple definitions for the phrase “net energy.” Only the fuel pellet achieved “net energy.” This does not account for the energy required to operate the device.

The 3.15 megajoules of fusion output energy were produced at the expense of 400 megajoules of electrical input energy. A fusion device that loses 99.2 percent of the energy it consumes, in a reaction that lasts for 0.00000000009 of a second, does not indicate technology that could provide an abundant zero-carbon alternative to fossil fuels.

On Monday, CNN implied that the reactor produced a small amount of power, but too little to be practical:

“It’s about what it takes to boil 10 kettles of water,” said Jeremy Chittenden, co-director of the Centre for Inertial Fusion Studies at Imperial College in London. “In order to turn that into a power station, we need to make a larger gain in energy – we need it to be substantially more.”

The “10 kettles” represents the 3.15 megajoule output. CNN didn’t mention the 400-megajoule input. It’s a deceptive material omission, bordering on fraud.

The public promotion of this result as evidence that fusion is a potential energy solution is a scam and promotes false hope. NIF is a taxpayer-funded project that is never going to power any house. NIF is useful only to test nuclear weapons. Are there other laser fusion results that are better than NIF? No.

We have already explained the technical details but it seems that some journalists didn’t get the memo. See our reports #73#102#103#104.

P.S.: Let us not forget that half of the fuel mixture required for commercial fusion reactors does not exist. Does. Not. Exist

NIF researchers put 400 MJ of energy into the device and got out 2.5 MJ of energy. Fusion scientists have hoaxed the news media.

NIF researchers put 400 MJ of energy into the device and got out 3.15 MJ of energy. Fusion scientists have hoaxed the news media.

Actually, the NIF device created SIX-TENTHS OF ONE PERCENT of the energy that was put into it.

The NIF device created EIGHT-TENTHS OF ONE PERCENT of the energy that was put into it.

"More energy from a fusion experiment than was put in" Excluding the energy required to operate the experiment. Pay no attention to the fact that the half of the fuel mixture required for the "near-limitless clean energy" does not exist.

“More energy from a fusion experiment than was put in.” Pay no attention to the fact that the half of the fuel mixture required for the “near-limitless clean energy” does not exist.

© 2025 newenergytimes.net