DOE National Laboratory Makes History by Achieving Fusion Ignition Hoax

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  

 

 

Fusion Energy Breakthrough Scam

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.

New Head of ITER Organization Withdraws Reactor Net Energy Claim

Nov 152022
 
Pietro Barabaschi, ITER organization director-general

Pietro Barabaschi, ITER organization director-general

By Steven B. Krivit
November 15, 2022

The ITER organization has revised both its English-language and French-language web sites to more accurately describe the goals of the ITER program, and to remove the misleading claim that the ITER reactor is designed to produce net energy.

The Old Regime

Six years ago, I requested the net energy correction through investigations published in New Energy Times and in my direct communications with ITER leadership, including Bernard Bigot, the former director-general of the ITER organization.

The ITER organization made limited corrections after I published the fact, on Oct. 6, 2017, that the ITER reactor as a whole was designed to consume at least 300 megawatts of electricity rather than 50 megawatts. But Bigot refused to withdraw the misleading energy claims from his organization’s Web site.

Four years later, Bigot falsely claimed during an Oct. 27, 2021, hearing of the French Senate’s Committee on Economic Affairs that the projected power gain for the overall reactor is between three and five times the power it is designed to consume. This claim was untrue because ITER has a projected electrical input of at least 300 MW (more likely 440 MW) and a projected thermal output of 500 MW. Bigot died on May 14, 2022.

The New Regime

On Sept. 14, 2022, the ITER Council appointed Bigot’s successor, Pietro Barabaschi. A month later, the ITER organization published a news story saying that Barabaschi intended to emphasize “collaboration and integrity.”

On Oct. 29, 2022, I wrote to Barabaschi, congratulated him on his appointment, and applauded his intention. I encouraged him to publish accurate and transparent power claims about the reactor.

I told Barabaschi that, in 2018, when members of the European Parliament escalated the matter of misleading power claims to the European Commission, Commissioner Arias Cañete responded, “The IO Web site now states unambivalently that the performance of ITER will be assessed by the so-called fusion Q, i.e., by comparing the thermal power output of the plasma with the thermal power input into the plasma.”  Although Cañete had accurately described how the distinction should be communicated publicly, the ITER organization Web site had not done so.

Barabaschi wrote back to me a day later.

“I can confirm that immediately after my selection, some weeks ago, I asked Laban [Coblentz, the head of ITER communications] and his team to review the messaging on the ITER public Web site. You will see the resulting changes over time,” Barabaschi wrote.

Barabaschi invited me to provide additional comments on his organization’s public messaging. The ITER organization, under Barabaschi’s leadership, has already made corrections to some of its public claims, demonstrating more scientific integrity than I have seen, as a critical observer of this organization, in six years.

The False Net-Energy Claim

The most conspicuous false claim about the ITER project — and it goes back decades — was that the ITER reactor is designed to be the first fusion device in history to create net energy. Other related claims went along with this myth, that the ITER reactor was designed to:

“deliver ten times the power it consumes.”
“demonstrate that it is possible to produce commercial energy from fusion.”
“produce about 500 megawatts of thermal power. If operated continuously and connected to the electric grid, that would translate to about 200 megawatts of electric power, enough for about 200,000 homes.”
“demonstrate magnetic confinement fusion at near power-plant size.”

The ITER organization prominently published the false reactor net-energy claim in the second gallery image on its English-language and French-language Web sites under the heading “AMAZING MACHINE.” On Jan. 12, 2017, the text said that the ITER tokamak was “designed to produce 500 MW of fusion power for 50 MW of input power (a power amplification of 10); it will take its place in history as the first fusion device to create net energy.”

Second gallery image on the ITER organization's Web site home page as of Jan. 12, 2017

Second gallery image on the ITER organization’s Web site home page as of Jan. 12, 2017

After I published “The ITER Power Amplification Myth,” on Oct. 6, 2017, the ITER organization added one word to that text: “heating.” It made the claim a tiny bit more honest.

Second gallery image on the ITER organization's Web site home page as of Nov. 6, 2017

Second gallery image on the ITER organization’s Web site home page as of Nov. 6, 2017

Here’s what the home page said on Oct. 31, 2022: “The primary objective of ITER is to experimentally attain a ‘burning’ plasma, in which the self-heating of the plasma by nuclear fusion reactions dominates all other forms of heating.” Barabaschi’s revision was accurate and unambiguous.

Second gallery image on the ITER organization's Web site home page as of Oct. 31, 2022

Second gallery image on the ITER organization’s Web site home page as of Oct. 31, 2022

Barabaschi also removed the net-energy claim from the “What is ITER?” page. During Bigot’s tenure, the organization had said there that “ITER will be the first fusion device to produce net energy.”

Net-energy claim on the ITER organization's "What is ITER?" page as of April 25, 2017

Net-energy claim on the ITER organization’s “What is ITER?” page as of April 25, 2017

At face value, that was a false claim. However, the organization provided some fine print that effectively made it only misleading rather than outright false. If viewers clicked on the link for “net energy,” a message would pop up attempting to explain what the organization meant by “net energy.” As I explained to Coblentz at the time, the pop-up message implied that the projected energy gain was to be compared with the power required to operate the reactor’s systems (plural). I also explained to Coblentz that the message mixed the terms energy and power.

Pop-up message on the ITER organization's "What is ITER?" page as of Aug. 19, 2017

Pop-up message on the ITER organization’s “What is ITER?” page as of Aug. 19, 2017

After I published “The ITER Power Amplification Myth” on Oct. 6, 2017, the ITER organization continued to indicate in its publications that the reactor would be “the first fusion device to produce net energy.” However, the organization did refine the pop-up message to accurately reflect that the projected power gain was to be compared against the injected thermal power needed to heat the plasma.

Pop-up message on the ITER organization's "What is ITER?" page as of Nov. 6, 2017

Pop-up message on the ITER organization’s “What is ITER?” page as of Nov. 6, 2017

By Oct. 31, 2022, the “What is ITER?” page no longer implied that the reactor was designed to be the first fusion device to produce net energy. The pop-up message was gone. Instead, Barabaschi’s revision was accurate and unambiguous.

Former location of

Former location of “net energy” claim on ITER organization’s “What is ITER?” page as of Oct. 31, 2022

Limited Energy

Another positive change under Barabaschi’s leadership is the ITER organization’s removal of its claim of “UNLIMITED ENERGY” from the first gallery image on the home page of its Web site. As we reported beginning on Oct. 10, 2021, the tritium required for tomorrow’s fusion power plants does not exist. The enriched lithium needed to breed tritium does not exist. A legal, environmentally safe process to enrich tritium does not exist. Even if sufficient quantities of enriched lithium were available, a method to breed tritium in a fusion reactor fast enough does not exist. (See our Fusion Fuel page.)

First gallery image on the ITER organization's Web site home page as of Dec. 21, 2016

First gallery image on the ITER organization’s Web site home page as of Dec. 21, 2016

First gallery image on the ITER organization's Web site home page as of Oct. 31, 2022

First gallery image on the ITER organization’s Web site home page as of Oct. 31, 2022

On the Road to Integrity

After I sent Barabaschi and Coblentz a few other statements on the ITER organization’s Web site that needed correction, Barabaschi wrote back.

“Thanks for your email,” Barabaschi wrote. “Accuracy in communication is an important element of scientific integrity, and important to all of us in the ITER project. With Laban, we welcome constructive criticism from members of the public, and specifically we appreciated very much your feedback.”

 

U.K. Energy Bureau Doesn’t Know Input Power for Planned Reactor

Oct 192022
 
Artistic rendering of proposed Spherical Tokamak for Energy Production

Artistic rendering of proposed Spherical Tokamak for Energy Production (STEP) “100 MW electric” fusion reactor.

Oct. 19, 2022

The U.K. Department for Business, Energy and Industrial Strategy (BEIS) has claimed a net electrical output for a planned fusion reactor but there is no evidence that BEIS knows the planned input power.

This is the basic calculation for any energy production system: Output power rate minus input power rate equals net power rate.

The chief press officer for BEIS is Safi O’Shea, but the person who responded to our emails refused to give a name. Here is the e-mail conversation between Steven B. Krivit and the BEIS news desk.

Krivit: “What is the rate of electrical power that the STEP reactor is designed to put onto the grid?”

BEIS News Desk: “STEP is a prototype, fully integrated?fusion energy plant capable of supplying electricity to the grid. It will demonstrate the capability to generate 100 MW of electricity and provide the pathway to commercial plants for the future.”

Krivit: “What is the rate of electrical power that the STEP reactor is designed to draw from the grid?”

BEIS News Desk: “We are currently in the concept design phase of the STEP programme, so it’s too early to be completely sure of power needs.”

Without knowledge of the input power rate, BEIS cannot accurately claim that STEP will demonstrate the capability to generate 100 MW of electricity.

Related:
Head of U.K. Fusion Walks Back Claims For Planned $22 Billion Reactor (Oct. 22, 2022)
False Fusion Claims by Ian Chapman, Head of U.K. Fusion  (Nov. 7, 2020)
UK plans first nuclear fusion power plant  (Feb. 21, 2010)

 

The Shocking Video That Explains the Hidden Flaw of Nuclear Fusion

Oct 132022
 

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.

 

 

 Older Entries  Newer Entries
© 2024 newenergytimes.net