India: We will build our own ITER Fusion Reactor

Tokamak - contributed by Max-Planck Institut für Plasmaphysik to Wikimedia

Tokamak – image contributed by Max-Planck Institut für Plasmaphysik to Wikimedia

Guest essay by Eric Worrall

The Indian government has just given a major boost to domestic nuclear fusion research, by sanctioning the expenditure of Rs 2,500 crore (around $400 million by my calculation) as seed money, to spur interest in fusion research.

According to The Times of India;

India is presently one of the seven partner countries in world’s biggest energy research project – the ITER – that is coming up in Cadarche, France.

“Presently, our contribution as one of the seven partners in the International Thermonuclear Experimental Reactor (ITER) project in France is 10%. The knowledge that we gain will be used to set up our own demonstrator reactors at home. We will begin by setting up an experimental version of the Cadarche ITER reactor in France here,” ITER-India’s project director Shishir Deshpande said here on Monday night.

Deshpande along with ITER’s top brass – Dr Sergio Orlandi (director – central engineering and plant) and deputy director general Dr Remmelt Haange — is touring India to review progress made by Indian companies involved in the fusion reactor project.

Sources said that the central government has sanctioned Rs 2,500 crore to seed research in nuclear fusion.

Read More: http://timesofindia.indiatimes.com/india/India-to-set-up-its-own-mini-N-fusion-reactor/articleshow/46763586.cms

India is also very active in Thorium fission research – a new 300Mw Thorium reactor is scheduled to go online in 2016. India takes Thorium very seriously. Although India does have some significant Uranium deposits, India has around 25% of the world’s known Thorium reserves.

Advertisements

218 thoughts on “India: We will build our own ITER Fusion Reactor

  1. yeah, looks like India’s premier really meant it when he said India should lead AGW mitigation.
    everyone wants to take the leading role from the EU. who will take that role, India or the US? shall it remain in the EU’s hand?
    considering the 2 first Presidental candidates in the US, it seem the US may be left behind once again.

    • Gee, of all the major world powers, which one has (unnecessarily) cut production of CO2 the most? The U.S.A.

      • Well the USA is the only large land based carbon sink; so we aren’t even a part of the problem.

      • “Well the USA is the only large land based carbon sink; so we aren’t even a part of the problem.”
        An inconvenient truth?
        If they knew the continental US was going to show up as a big green CO2 sink on the new CO2 monitoring satellites, do you think they ever would have been launched? I highly doubt it.

        • KTM

          If they knew the continental US was going to show up as a big green CO2 sink on the new CO2 monitoring satellites, do you think they ever would have been launched? I highly doubt it.

          And, not surprisingly, the continental United States and Canada are the world foodbasket. A net exporter of food, fodder, farm products (including grain-fed/grass-fed beef, pork, chicken and fish), fruit, and feedstock and wood and paperproducts.

    • Perhaps an attempt to secure as many basic Fusion technology patents as possible and train personnel over the next two decades. Note that the proposed investment is only about 2.5% of the 16B USD cost of ITER (which is 300% over budget BTW). It is a pretty safe bet that by the time the first commercial Tokamak technology fusion power plant comes on line in the 2030s or 2040s (or maybe not at all), India will be the world’s most populous country and either the greatest or second greatest emitter of greenhouse gases before or after China. So it seems to me unlikely that they are seriously trying to save the planet.
      Or maybe they have some other motivation entirely.
      see http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/ITER for details on ITER,

      • Well you can’t simply get a patent on just anything at all. One of the requirements is that your “invention” be ‘useful’.
        So if it doesn’t do anything useful, then you will be spending your funds for nothing.
        But then nobody is likely to usurp your discoveries either, so go ahead; but please don’t employ any of MY tax moneys on your go nowhere schemes, even if you can con the patent office into giving you protection for it.

      • They say they have nothing, but will have a model in 2017 if they start building one now.
        Somehow that’s not too impressive.

      • Daniel,
        Lockheed is not going to have fusion in 2017 or even in 2117 and neither will India. But I see you do have the concept of only big projects will save the ‘environment’. I bet you support big projects, backed by big government along with massive controls on usage by the population.

      • “Daniel,
        Lockheed is not going to have fusion in 2017 or even in 2117 and neither will India. But I see you do have the concept of only big projects will save the ‘environment’. I bet you support big projects, backed by big government along with massive controls on usage by the population.”
        quite some claims about Fusion. and quite some claism about me.
        i hate government. i like big science projects, like LHC, ITER etc etc. controll over the population?
        i come a country where the people have controll over the government. we have direct democracy.
        and i don’t want it any other way.
        what makes you think we will not have Fusion?

      • “””””…..i come a country where the people have controll over the government. we have direct democracy.
        and i don’t want it any other way……”””””
        Well I’m not sure which country you are referring to Daniel; the one that has “direct democracy.”
        In the USA we have a Republican form of government, and we like it that way.
        Direct Democracy as you put it, is a polite way of saying “anarchy”.
        And in case you haven’t noticed it, there is no way that the American people have any control over this run amok government that we currently have in WDC.
        We just had an election in which the people suggested what it was they wanted their government to do, and they didn’t even wait to get inaugurated, before thumbing their noses at what the people told them to do.
        So I presume that America is not the Shangri La where you say you come to.
        So where are you ??

      • to george e. smith
        Switzerland.
        i disagree about your view on Direct Democracy. when what we have is anarchy, then i am a huge Anarchist 🙂
        You may dislike it, we like it. it is up to a society to decide what form of government they want, you like yours, we like ours.
        “And in case you haven’t noticed it, there is no way that the American people have any control over this run amok government that we currently have in WDC.”
        the people are not rich enough it seems. take a look at the donors to the political races.
        but that is your problem. i would not want it.

      • I am going to discover a cure for cancer in two years, but it won’t be of much use, because the Earth is going to warm by at least 500 degrees by then. At least that is what my models show.

      • Does anyone have any idea how many trillions of trillions of stars there are in the universe ??
        So clearly making stars is pretty ho hum; in fact it maybe harder to not make a star, than to make one; provided you have enough of the proper raw materials.
        If you put enough of the right raw materials (just H will do) in a reasonably small region; maybe just ten million miles on a side is small enough; it will form a star all by itself, untouched by human hand. So gazillions of them just formed themselves by themselves.
        Evidently white dwarf stars are about earth size; say 10,000 miles diameter or smaller, but they no longer are thermonuclear reactors generating energy by fusion.
        So evidently fusion reactors that can create the energy of the sun here on earth, would actually have to be bigger than the earth, which is going to be hard to build for us.
        So nyet on creating the energy of the sun on earth. Gravity is such a feeble weak source of energy, that it takes too much matter to make one, and we don’t have enough.
        So gravity, which powers all of the fusion stars, is out for controlled thermo-nuclear fusion reactors.
        So that leaves the Coulomb force which as we know wants to blow everything apart, rather than squish it all together like gravity.
        Maybe there is a trick way to mix the Coulomb force with the strong force, to make super whacking big nuclei of protons and neutrons, and whatever makes the strong force, to hold all that much together to make fusion happen.
        But I haven’t seen any how to books, on exactly how to get the strong force to do anything for us. So maybe that is way too blue sky to get a government grant to do; but maybe I could write a book on strong force engineering techniques.
        I’m not clever enough to figure out how to get the Coulomb force to behave, and hold protons and other small things together to squish them into bigger atoms. Then of course you need to add some new fuel protons etc. on a continuous basis, and remove the heavy atom rubbish so it doesn’t clutter up the place.
        Well don’t hold your breath on that happening any time soon.

    • I always enjoy people that want to lead a charge off a cliff. Hopefully most people won’t follow. By the way, looking for alternative sources of energy is NOT the same as AGW mitigation, in case the thought never occurred to you. It is called looking past the time when carbon fuels do become scarce and we still need power. Every think of it from that pint of view? Better still, ever think?

      • Tom O:
        A great blessing will result if fusion works and provides the safe clean power it promises, but it has been a promise for half a century. I support the attempts to fulfill the promise but will remain sceptical until its success is demonstrated.
        You ask

        I always enjoy people that want to lead a charge off a cliff. Hopefully most people won’t follow. By the way, looking for alternative sources of energy is NOT the same as AGW mitigation, in case the thought never occurred to you. It is called looking past the time when carbon fuels do become scarce and we still need power. Every think of it from that pint of view? Better still, ever think?

        No, I have never thought of it from that ignorant and mistaken point of view because I think.
        Carbon fuels will not become scarce in the foreseeable future (i.e. coming centuries) and nobody can know what will then be available for provision of power. It is a waste of present resources to use them to address a problem that cannot exist for centuries and may never exist.
        Richard

      • “I always enjoy people that want to lead a charge off a cliff. Hopefully most people won’t follow. By the way, looking for alternative sources of energy is NOT the same as AGW mitigation, in case the thought never occurred to you. It is called looking past the time when carbon fuels do become scarce and we still need power. Every think of it from that pint of view? Better still, ever think?”
        sure, but India knows AGW is real and are mitigating like most industrialized countries do.

      • ” ignorant and mistaken point of view ”
        followed by an argument from ignorance…..
        “nobody can know”
        so lets just blindly run into the future?

      • I don’t know about charging off a cliff — perhaps continued head banging into an already well-compacted spot on a brick wall would be the more appropriate metaphor. From the Wikipedia reference:

        The ITER fusion reactor has been designed to produce 500 megawatts of output power while needing 50 megawatts to operate.[5] Thereby the machine aims to demonstrate the principle of producing more energy from the fusion process than is used to initiate it, something that has not yet been achieved in any fusion reactor. Construction of the ITER Tokamak complex started in 2013[6] and the building costs are now US$16 billion, some 3 times the original figure.[7] The facility is expected to finish its construction phase in 2019 and will start commissioning the reactor that same year and initiate plasma experiments in 2020 with full deuterium-tritium fusion experiments starting in 2027.

        Six years to build; 7 years to first experiments and 18 years to the “full deuterium-tritium” phase. Current cost is 16 Billion (10E9) US dollars. Net power output projected at 450 megawatts. Capital cost is therefore roughly $35.5 million (10E6) US dollars per megawatt, and we still have a few more years of possible cost overruns and/or schedule delays.
        I know, I know: it’s a research project. That’s my point — this is a long way from practical deployment, even if it works as stated above. For the rest of most of our lives, we will have to meet our power needs with something other than high temperature fusion.

      • Tom… Nobody I know is against alternate forms of energy. Most of us are against the lies and fraud and the ripping off, of the taxpayers to promote the false alarm of Thermageddon.

      • Daniel sez:
        …India knows AGW is real and are mitigating like most industrialized countries do.
        Which India? The one on your planet? Or the one here on Earth?
        There is no way that India is going to stop using coal. We disregard their words just like we disregard China’s words. Actions are what matter. Watch their actions. They are not reducing coal use; quite the opposite.

      • dbstealey
        India already has a CO2 tax on coal, increased tax on Petroleum and slashed the subsidies for it by 50%
        China had a reduction in coal use.
        the world has accepted AGW, AGW mitigation has started 🙂
        like it or not. most people listen to science and not blogs.

      • Daniel
        Having made a complete fool of yourself on the Willie Soon thread you have come to this thread in attempt to do the same here.
        I wrote

        Carbon fuels will not become scarce in the foreseeable future (i.e. coming centuries) and nobody can know what will then be available for provision of power. It is a waste of present resources to use them to address a problem that cannot exist for centuries and may never exist.

        You have replied

        ” ignorant and mistaken point of view ”
        followed by an argument from ignorance…..
        “nobody can know”
        so lets just blindly run into the future?

        NO! I did NOT make an argument from ignorance. On the contrary, I argued that the evidence says to NOT do what you desire.
        We know there is no present need for alternatives to fossil fuels.
        We know there will be no need for alternatives to fossil fuels for centuries.
        We know the world will be different in future centuries.
        We don’t know what need that different world may have for fossil fuels.
        Therefore, there is no present problem of a need for alternatives to fossil fuels.
        And there is no identifiable problem of future lack of fossil fuels.
        So, the only rational decision that can now be made is to leave consideration of possible future lack of fossil fuels to our great, great grandchildren because they will know what problem – if any – they have with lack of fossil fuels.
        According to you we should not “just blindly run into the future” but should be seeking alternative habitation to planet Earth because the Earth will be destroyed when the Sun becomes a Red Giant billions of years in the future.
        Richard

    • I appreciate your hopeful attitude. If only everyone would wake up to the facts we could stop wasting money making the peddlers of the AGW snake oil richer and help the poor with cheaper and more abundant energy.

      • “help the poor with cheaper and more abundant energy.”
        lol…. nobody is preventing you or WUWT from building a coal plant somewhere in a poor country.
        even i that hates coal would support it.
        but i don’t see anyone building coal plants for the poor.

      • “””””…..The ITER fusion reactor has been designed to produce 500 megawatts of output power while needing 50 megawatts to operate.[5] …..”””””
        Just how in hell, does one design a “reactor” to produce a specific power output, when you haven’t even proved that it is even possible in the first place ??
        Maybe it works by capturing “black body radiation”; that must be the answer.

      • your opinion vs the research from the most respected scinetific institutions and universities,,,,
        no wonder most industrialized countries have already started AGW mitigation.

      • Daniel
        You say

        your opinion vs the research from the most respected scinetific institutions and universities,,,,

        Please cite and reference some “research from the most respected scinetific institutions and universities” that indicates a “problem” requiring replacement of use of fossil fuels by alternatives. A brief explanation of the problem and the research (e.g. the abstract from the cited paper) is needed because you keep making assertions that are untrue.
        I know of no such “research” and I am certain you know of none.
        Richard

      • “Please cite and reference some “research from the most respected scinetific institutions and universities” that indicates a “problem” requiring replacement of use of fossil fuels by alternatives.”
        https://www.ipcc.ch/report/ar5/
        here is a nice summary of the current udnerstanding of AGW.

      • “I know of no such “research” and I am certain you know of none.”
        sure you are ignorant, so must the rest of the world be…..
        you know damn well what the science says, you are here in denial about it all day long.
        yet nothing but myths and lies on denier blogs comes from the likes of you.
        blogs vs science…..
        LOL

      • Daniel:
        I asked you

        Please cite and reference some “research from the most respected scinetific institutions and universities” that indicates a “problem” requiring replacement of use of fossil fuels by alternatives. A brief explanation of the problem and the research (e.g. the abstract from the cited paper) is needed because you keep making assertions that are untrue.
        I know of no such “research” and I am certain you know of none.

        You have replied saying

        “Please cite and reference some “research from the most respected scinetific institutions and universities” that indicates a “problem” requiring replacement of use of fossil fuels by alternatives.”
        https://www.ipcc.ch/report/ar5/
        here is a nice summary of the current udnerstanding of AGW.

        Your reply proves I was right when I said,
        “I know of no such “research” and I am certain you know of none.”

        The IPCC AR5 contains no “research from the most respected scinetific institutions and universities” that indicates a “problem” requiring replacement of use of fossil fuels by alternatives”; none, zilch, nada.
        It is precisely because I anticipated your provision of such a falsehood as you have provided that I wrote,
        “A brief explanation of the problem and the research (e.g. the abstract from the cited paper) is needed because you keep making assertions that are untrue.”
        You cannot quote and reference whatever it is in the AR5 which you claim is “research from the most respected scinetific institutions and universities” that indicates a “problem” requiring replacement of use of fossil fuels by alternatives”. You cannot quote and reference it because it doesn’t exist.
        There is no “:research from the most respected scinetific institutions and universities” that indicates a “problem” requiring replacement of use of fossil fuels by alternatives”. I know that, and your reply proves you know that, too.
        Richard

      • “Your reply proves I was right when I said,
        “I know of no such “research” and I am certain you know of none.””
        nope, that was shown wrong.
        “The IPCC AR5 contains no “research from the most respected scinetific institutions and universities” that indicates a “problem” requiring replacement of use of fossil fuels by alternatives”; none, zilch, nada.”
        well the scientific community disagrees with you. but how would you know what is in it anyway?
        are you telling me you did read it?

      • Daniel
        You attempt to deflect from your having been ‘outed’ as to your assertion of your falsehood that the IPCC AR5 contains “research from the most respected scientific institutions and universities” that indicates a need to replace use of fossil fuels.
        Your claim is a blatant falsehood because the IPCC AR5 contains no such “research” and cites none.
        You try to deflect from your falsehood by asking me of the AR5

        are you telling me you did read it?

        I have studied every word of every IPCC Report. I provided expert peer review of two of the IPCC Scientific Reports, and the IPCC asked to to review two others but I rejected those requests because the IPCC had used my name while ignoring my critiques of the Reports I had reviewed.
        On the other hand, your ignorant and untrue assertions indicate you have not read any IPCC Report. You merely quote from warmunist web sites untrue assertions about the contents of IPCC Reports, and you cannot substantiate those assertions when challenged.
        Richard

      • “I have studied every word of every IPCC Report. ”
        LOL……..
        every word?
        yeah yeah, you must have been furious when it said that human activity is the dominant cause of warming since 1950.

        • Daniel

          every word?
          yeah yeah, you must have been furious when it said that human activity is the dominant cause of warming since 1950.

          See, your reply goes back to the “truth” of your original trolling comment disparaging Dr Soon’s religion, then extended to Lord Monckton religion.
          That the IPCC’s advertisements “claimed” that man’s release of CO2 was the dominant cause of the world’s most recent warning DOES NOT make the IPCC’s claim “True” or “Correct” or “Accurate” in any sense of the word.
          Equally, that you claim “Dr Soon is not trustworthy simply because, at one time in the past, he was paid by private companies for his research” is only valid IF you assume that Dr Soon could be influenced or corrupted in his scientific research by the source of money that supported prts of his research. IF Dr Soon had no morals (or IF he had only the morals and judgement and honesty of (say) Dr Mann, Dr Hansen, Al Gore, Senator Reid, Biden, Pelosi, our dear departed IPCC railroad engineer head, Obama, Putin, Soros, or any of 10,000 other paid-for-their-results Big Government bureaucrats and so-called “scientists”) then perhaps your “claim” of corruption might be valid.
          But …
          Since Dr Soon IS honest and trustworthy- “regardless of his declared religion” – unlike any all who champion the death and injury required by your acceptance of the CAGW religion – THEN THE SOURCE OF MONEY FOR HIS RESEARCH DOES NOT MATTER.
          Dr Soon (and Lord Monckton by extension of HIS actions) IS judged reliable by virtue of his character and his actions.
          It is those who actively seek to destroy him because of his results who are proved to be untrustworthy and unreliable and unworthy of regard. They, in their lying and in their propaganda and in their results of their policies and actions, are guilty. Because they are proven liars and wrong in every policy decision, publicity stunt, press release and pal-reviewed self-selected paper published in friendly journals, their fundamental research and their conclusions not only “can be” rejected as false, but “should be” rejected unless it is independently verified by independent review OUTSIDE OF the self-selected CAGW fraternity.

      • Daniel says:
        LOL…….. every word?
        It may surprise noobies like Daniel, but many of us here have read all of the IPCC literature…
        …while Daniel gets his misinformation from alarmist blogs. No wonder his posts are descending into personal attacks like that. He lacks any real knowledge of the subject.

      • “It may surprise noobies like Daniel, but many of us here have read all of the IPCC literature…
        …while Daniel gets his misinformation from alarmist blogs. No wonder his posts are descending into personal attacks like that. He lacks any real knowledge of the subject.”
        LOL, quite some specualtion on your part here 🙂
        but i admit, i have not read every IPCC report, not even every AR. only 2 of them.

        • Daniel

          but i admit, i have not read every IPCC report, not even every AR. only 2 of them.

          Now, you do understand that EVERY IPCC document – but especially the five AR’s (and the Summary for Policymakers for which they are written and re-written to support) are NOT scientific documents but are “advertisements” written for a purpose for the political impact of forcing the world to accept the death and destruction that is the deliberate desired result of your CAGW religion?

      • “Now, you do understand that EVERY IPCC document – but especially the five AR’s (and the Summary for Policymakers for which they are written and re-written to support) are NOT scientific documents but are “advertisements” written for a purpose for the political impact of forcing the world to accept the death and destruction that is the deliberate desired result of your CAGW religion?”
        they are scientific documents, they are the largest scientific reports on the topic of AGW.
        no matter what you think about it.

      • “Equally, that you claim “Dr Soon is not trustworthy simply because, at one time in the past, he was paid by private companies for his research””
        what? i have not made any such claim at all…..

      • Daniel Kuhn
        You speciously write

        “Now, you do understand that EVERY IPCC document – but especially the five AR’s (and the Summary for Policymakers for which they are written and re-written to support) are NOT scientific documents but are “advertisements” written for a purpose for the political impact of forcing the world to accept the death and destruction that is the deliberate desired result of your CAGW religion?”
        they are scientific documents, they are the largest scientific reports on the topic of AGW.
        no matter what you think about it.

        NO! They are purely political documents no matter what people who have not read them such as you and Daniel “think” about it.
        The UN Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change (IPCC) only exists to produce documents intended to provide information selected, adapted and presented to justify political actions. The facts are as follows.
        It is the custom and practice of the IPCC for all of its Reports to be amended to agree with its political summaries. And this is proper because all IPCC Reports are political documents although some are presented as so-called ‘Scientific Reports’.
        Each IPCC Summary for Policymakers (SPM) is agreed “line by line” by politicians and/or representatives of politicians, and it is then published. After that the so-called ‘scientific’ Reports are amended to agree with the SPM. This became IPCC custom and practice when prior to the IPCC‘s Second Report the then IPCC Chairman, John Houghton, decreed,

        We can rely on the Authors to ensure the Report agrees with the Summary.

        This was done and has been the normal IPCC procedure since then.
        This custom and practice enabled the infamous ‘Chapter 8′ scandal so perhaps it should – at long last – be changed. However, it has been adopted as official IPCC procedure for all subsequent IPCC Reports.
        Appendix A of the most recent IPCC Report (the AR5) states this where it says.

        4.6 Reports Approved and Adopted by the Panel
        Reports approved and adopted by the Panel will be the Synthesis Report of the Assessment Reports and other Reports as decided by the Panel whereby Section 4.4 applies mutatis mutandis .

        This is completely in accord with the official purpose of the IPCC.
        The IPCC does NOT exist to summarise climate science and it does not.
        The IPCC is only permitted to say AGW is a significant problem because they are tasked to accept that there is a “risk of human-induced climate change” which requires “options for adaptation and mitigation” that can be selected as political polices and the IPCC is tasked to provide those “options”.
        This is clearly stated in the “Principles” which govern the work of the IPCC.

        These are stated at
        http://www.ipcc.ch/pdf/ipcc-principles/ipcc-principles.pdf
        Near its beginning that document says

        ROLE
        2. The role of the IPCC is to assess on a comprehensive, objective, open and transparent basis the scientific, technical and socio-economic information relevant to understanding the scientific basis of risk of human-induced climate change, its potential impacts and options for adaptation and mitigation. IPCC reports should be neutral with respect to policy, although they may need to deal objectively with scientific, technical and socio-economic factors relevant to the application of particular policies.

        This says the IPCC exists to provide
        (a) “information relevant to understanding the scientific basis of risk of human-induced climate change”
        and
        (b) “options for adaptation and mitigation” which pertain to “the application of particular policies”.
        Hence, its “Role” demands that the IPCC accepts as a given that there is a “risk of human-induced climate change” which requires “options for adaptation and mitigation” which pertain to “the application of particular policies”. Any ‘science’ which fails to support that political purpose is ‘amended’ in furtherance of the IPCC’s Role.
        The IPCC achieves its “Role” by
        1
        amendment of its so-called ‘scientific’ Reports to fulfill the IPCC’s political purpose
        2
        by politicians approving the SPM
        3
        then the IPCC lead Authors amending the so-called ‘scientific’ Reports to agree with the SPM.
        Simply, the IPCC says in its official publication of its Role that all IPCC Reports are pure pseudoscience intended to provide information to justify political actions; i.e. Lysenkoism. And the IPCC acts to ensure the purely political nature of all IPCC ‘Reports’.

        People like you and Daniel should actually read IPCC documents instead of coming here to spout falsehood that those of us who have read the IPCC documents can easily refute by reference to the IPCC documents.
        Richard

      • “After that the so-called ‘scientific’ Reports are amended to agree with the SPM. This became IPCC custom and practice when prior to the IPCC‘s Second Report the then IPCC Chairman, John Houghton, decreed,”
        a blatant lie.

      • Daniel Kuhn
        You write

        “After that the so-called ‘scientific’ Reports are amended to agree with the SPM. This became IPCC custom and practice when prior to the IPCC‘s Second Report the then IPCC Chairman, John Houghton, decreed,”
        a blatant lie.

        NO! How dare you?!
        I provided a complete explanation.
        If you think there is any untruth in my quotation and explanation of the IPCC’s own referenced and linked “Principles” which govern its work then state that untruth.
        And if the IPCC’s own statements of those facts are “a blatant lie” then please explain why the SPM is published before the so-called scientific reports are completed.
        Your untrue assertion of “a blatant lie” would be beneath any reasonably decent human being but, of course, is what can be expected from you.
        Richard

      • “NO! How dare you?!
        I provided a complete explanation.”
        a false one, you provided absolutely NO evidence for your accusation that the Policymakers have ANY say about the content outside of SPM.

      • Liar posting as Daniel Kuhn
        You lie

        “NO! How dare you?!
        I provided a complete explanation.”
        a false one, you provided absolutely NO evidence for your accusation that the Policymakers have ANY say about the content outside of SPM.

        Your assertion is absolutely untrue.
        I wrote

        This custom and practice enabled the infamous ‘Chapter 8′ scandal so perhaps it should – at long last – be changed. However, it has been adopted as official IPCC procedure for all subsequent IPCC Reports.
        Appendix A of the most recent IPCC Report (the AR5) states this where it says.

        4.6 Reports Approved and Adopted by the Panel
        Reports approved and adopted by the Panel will be the Synthesis Report of the Assessment Reports and other Reports as decided by the Panel whereby Section 4.4 applies mutatis mutandis .

        So, you have attempted to bolster one of your many lies with an additional lie.
        Slither back under your bridge.
        Richard

      • still no evidence for you false accusations. you can quote mine all day long, does not change the fact that neither the content of AR itself nor the Technical summary is in any way decided by any policymakers.
        as usual from the likes of you, accusations and not a shred of evidence.

      • Liar posting as Daniel Kuhn:
        I have twice provided the official IPCC Procedure as started by the IPCC itself.
        That is the “evidence” for the IPCC procedure which I have personally witnessed by attending an IPCC Meeting at the invitation of the then IPCC Chairman, Rajendra Pachauri.
        But you persist in your lie that I have not provided this evidence.
        This adds to
        1.
        Your lie that the IPCC has provided “research from the most respected scinetific institutions and universities” that indicates a “problem” requiring replacement of use of fossil fuels by alternatives. It has not.
        2.
        Your lie that you “name” information. You don’t even when pressed for it.
        3.
        Your lie that others don’t “name” information. I do and e.g. have here but you lie that my citations and quotations don’t exist.
        etc.
        Slither back under your bridge.
        Richard

      • “I have twice provided the official IPCC Procedure as started by the IPCC itself.”
        you did, it just does not support your claim. you seem to be reading stuff into it that is not in the text….
        so where is your evidence for the accusations?
        let’s see what some one that was actually was involved has to say.
        “Before returning to the topic of today’s blog entry — the SPM process and outcome — I want to emphasize that the IPCC’s Working Group III “Technical Summary” and the underlying Working Group III report of 15 chapters were completely untouched by the government approval process of the Summary for Policymakers. So, the crucial IPCC products – the Technical Summary and the 15 chapters of WG 3 – retain their full scientific integrity, and they merit serious public attention. Now, back to the SPM process and outcome …”
        http://www.robertstavinsblog.org/2014/04/25/is-the-ipcc-government-approval-process-broken-2/
        this directly contradicts your claim.
        now, it is just his word.
        maybe you have evidence for your accusations. it is about time you show that evidence for your claim.
        “That is the “evidence” for the IPCC procedure which I have personally witnessed by attending an IPCC Meeting at the invitation of the then IPCC Chairman, Rajendra Pachauri.”
        i did not have ay reason to believe that, but as someone that actually was incolced contradicts your claim.
        it seems like your claim is propably not true at all.

      • Daniel Kuhn
        I maker no “claim”. I merely cite, link, reference and quote the IPCC’s own official procedures in its own procedural documents.
        You have at last recognised that you failed by persisting with your your lie that I had not cited and quoted the information I had twice cite and quoted. And my only “accusations” are of your clear and demonstrated lies.
        So you have ‘changed tack’ and now try to misrepresent by saying misrepresent by saying

        let’s see what some one that was actually was involved has to say.

        “Before returning to the topic of today’s blog entry — the SPM process and outcome — I want to emphasize that the IPCC’s Working Group III “Technical Summary” and the underlying Working Group III report of 15 chapters were completely untouched by the government approval process of the Summary for Policymakers. So, the crucial IPCC products – the Technical Summary and the 15 chapters of WG 3 – retain their full scientific integrity, and they merit serious public attention. Now, back to the SPM process and outcome …”

        http://www.robertstavinsblog.org/2014/04/25/is-the-ipcc-government-approval-process-broken-2/

        this directly contradicts your claim.
        I made no “claim” and it does not “contradict” anything I cited, quoted and/or explained.
        Adjustment to agree with the Summary for Policymakers is completely consistent with being “untouched by the government approval process of the Summary for Policymakers”. Indeed, there would be no reason to mention “the government approval PROCESS of the Summary for Policymakers” if the Report were not adjusted to concur with the SPM which is the result of that process.
        A scientific report has a summary of it: a political report is an exposition of the summary associated with it. All IPCC Reports are political reports.

        Yes, the weasel words of “some one that was actually was involved” are very, very informative.
        Richard

      • ““After that the so-called ‘scientific’ Reports are amended to agree with the SPM. This became IPCC custom and practice when prior to the IPCC‘s Second Report the then IPCC Chairman, John Houghton, decreed,””
        that is YOUR claim. and sofar, you failed to provide ANY evidence for this claim.
        and i showed someone that was actually involved in AR5 and complained about the policymaker’s Changes.
        and it directly contradicts your claim….
        so not only is your claim sofar unsupported by any evidence, it is directly contradicted by someone that was really involved and is not just claiming to have been involved.
        my example shows how the SPM is changed, but NOT the AR or technical summary. directly contradicting your claim……

      • Liar posting as Daniel Kuhn
        I see that you have reverted to your lie that I have not provided the documentary evidence that I have twice provided in this sub-thread.
        Your oleaginous behaviour does not enable you to slide away from the truth that I have demonstrated by citing, linking and quoting the IPCC’s own official documents that explain the IPCC’s Role, purposes and practices.
        All IPCC Reports are political documents and that is their defined purpose.
        You attempt to deny this fact
        (a) by saying the IPCC’s own documents are not evidence,
        (b) by making a completely untrue claim that I made a “blatant lie” (which is rich coming from a persistent liar such as yourself),
        and
        (c) by posting a straw man. Nobody has asserted that any IPCC Report is not “untouched by the government approval process of the Summary for Policymakers”. That is a straw man intended to deflect from the simple truth that every IPCC Report is adjusted to agree with the Summary for Policymakers (SPM) as defined by the IPCC’s own official documents that explain the IPCC’s Role, purposes and practices.
        The IPCC says its Reports are political documents and they are.
        Slither back under your bridge.
        Richard

      • so your other claims got debunked , so you bring new claims to debink. cool
        “The IPCC says its Reports are political documents and they are.”
        oh really? where? why did you not link to where they say that?
        meanwhile i link to parts where the IPCC calls the reports SCIENTIFIC REPORTS.
        “Since then the IPCC has delivered on a regular basis the most comprehensive scientific reports about climate change produced worldwide, the Assessment Reports.”
        http://www.ipcc.ch/organization/organization_history.shtml
        now can you pls link me to a document or anything from the IPCC, where the IPCC itself calls its reports “political documents”?
        for someone that claims to have been involved with the IPCC AR’s , you contradict the IPCC pretty often.

      • “linking and quoting the IPCC’s own official documents that explain the IPCC’s Role, purposes and practices.”
        you did, it just happens to be that it did not support your claim.
        yet the link i provided from an expert that actually was involved and not only claims to have been involved, directly contradicts your claim.

      • Liar posting as Daniel Kuhn:
        You have not refuted any of the IPCC’s own official documents that say all its Reports are political documents which are adjusted to agree with IPCC SPM’s which are published before its so-called ‘Scientific’ Reports are completed.
        You have “debunked” nothing.
        You have posted a straw man by some person you claim was involved in providing one Report.
        You have yet to provide anything that is both true and relevant.
        I will again respond in the unlikely event that you do manage to provide something both true and relevant. Until then, I am willing to leave things as they stand because I am content to have demonstrated that the IPCC says its Reports are intended to be political documents they are. And I am content that you have demonstrated you have nothing other than lies and a straw man to support your untrue and ridiculous assertion that the IPCC Reports are scientific Reports.
        Richard

    • So just how much of your own personal funds are you willing to invest in fusion energy research? Since you are apparently gung ho for somebody to take funds from others to spend on such a boondoggle; why not lead the way by investing your own money in one of those programs?
      A similar investment in some mundane cleaner coal program, would yield positive results immediately.
      So where will your fusion energy company obtain its tritium??

      • “So just how much of your own personal funds are you willing to invest in fusion energy research? ”
        non, part of my tax money flows into it already.

      • Well Daniel, I do hope that you get your money’s worth. I have such a big list of things I wish my government would stop wasting my tax money on, that I don’t think I can even find fusion research in the list.
        I’d be happy if they just spent my tax money on what they have been authorized as well as told to do; which is maybe 20 things all told.

      • ” I have such a big list of things I wish my government would stop wasting my tax moneys on, that I don’t think I can even find fusion research in the list.”
        well start a people’s initiative…. ooh right, no Direct democracy on federal level in the US 😀
        “I’d be happy if they just spent my tax money on what they have been authorized as well as told to do; which is maybe 20 things all told.”
        i guess you mean federal government, and the rest state government? or Fed and state together 20 things?

    • everyone wants to take the leading role from the EU.
      Not true. No one wants to take the ‘leading role’ away from a fool. We are entirely comfortable letting the EU bankrupt their partner nations, chasing a ‘solution’ to a nonexistent problem. The US of A should continue developing our abundant natural resources, to provide inexpensive and reliable energy that expands our economy, reduces debt, and stimulates free enterprise and prosperity for all of its citizens!
      This time tested energy policy will once again take us to the forefront of the world economies and leave those self deceived countries, that choose to depend on unreliable and expensive energy sources, in the dusts of history once more.

      • Ahhhhh Daniel – you cite our resident fool as your source! Perfect!
        He’s attempting to lead us down a fools path… and applauded by fools like you!
        Thanks for being my ‘straight man’!
        Elections have a way of catching up with fools however!
        As the veterinarian stated, about the cat’s hairballs:
        “This too shall pass!”

      • ” Mac the Knife ”
        your diliek for him does not change what he wants or what india wants.
        im not an Obama fan either. but i don’t care much, not my president.
        nor do i like that Indian guy. nor do i like the EU government… oh most likely because i hate politicsters 😀

      • Daniel,
        Breathe. Type whole words. Use punctuation. And ‘spell check’……
        What the heck is a ‘politicsters’… and why do you hate them?
        Awww, never mind. Haters gotta hate……

      • ” and why do you hate them?”
        because they are professional liar…. ok you guys have no problem with that as long they lie the way you like it……

      • Haters gotta hate…..
        OK Daniel – ‘you guys’ have no problem hating people, facts, and data that do not support your fevered, flawed, and failed fears of man made global warning. It’s clinically termed cognitive dissonance.
        There is a 12 step program for hate filled folks like you, suffering from CO2 AGW delusions in a world with satellite data documented +18 years of no global warming. The first step, however, is recognizing you have a problem. Start there……. You will find other folks here at WUWT who were similarly afflicted and are willing to help. But you must take the first step…..

      • It’s only E.U. funded marketing that leads people to imagine that the E.U. has a leading role in low-carbon energy sources. Look up the figures and the world leaders in renewable power are countries that embraced hydro-electrical generation, not the ones putting windmills in the middle of the sea.
        Only Sweden is up in the top ranking countries.
        Here is the real picture:
        http://www.geocurrents.info/geonotes/mapping-renewable-electricity-generation

      • Daniel Kuhn,
        You really are hilarious.
        Thanks Dan – it’s a talent. I try to keep a joyful heart!
        From the present month and looking straight into the historical record from RSS, there has been no global warming for 18 years and 4 months. See the latest plot of RSS data plot here:
        https://wattsupwiththat.files.wordpress.com/2015/04/clip_image0023.png
        Then read the supporting article here:
        http://wattsupwiththat.com/2015/04/06/el-nio-or-ot-the-pause-lengthens-again/
        Note that the end points are not ‘cherry picked’ to provide a distorted view. It just plots the interval from the present month back to the earliest month that still shows no warming trend at all. Zero. Zip. Nada. Nunca. Zed. Diddly Squat!
        Mmm, Mmm, Mmmm. No Global Warming!
        Even as the evil CO2 gas that you exhaled with every polluting breath for the last 18 years and 4 months continues to increase in the atmosphere, there is no evidence of the least global warming, let alone the thermaggedon your delusion insists must be occurring. Hence the cognitive dissonance you experience, and the frustration and anger it produces in you.
        The first step is acknowledging you have a problem…..

      • “Even as the evil CO2 gas that you exhaled with every polluting breath for the last 18 years and 4 months continues to increase in the atmosphere,”
        really?
        you think breathing contributed to the CO2 increase over the past 18 years and 4 months?
        that is the level of your understanding of carbon cycles?
        you are indeed hilarious.
        but i wouldn’t call that a talent.
        and
        http://www.woodfortrees.org/plot/uah/from:1997/plot/uah/from:1997/trend/plot/gistemp/from:1997/plot/gistemp/from:1997/trend/plot/hadcrut4gl/from:1997/plot/hadcrut4gl/from:1997/trend/plot/rss/from:1997/plot/rss/from:1997/trend
        why RSS?

      • Daniel Kuhn
        April 11, 2015 at 9:28 pm
        Daniel,
        If you think man made emissions of CO2 are causing the planet to overheat, please show us you commitment to stop it. Cease exhaling immediately. Anything less is ‘pollution hypocrisy’.
        You didn’t respond to the evidence provided above …. but I’m happy to provide it again.
        https://wattsupwiththat.files.wordpress.com/2015/04/clip_image0023.png
        Should you find yourself unable to repress your polluting exhalations and you still can’t grasp the significance of +18 years and 4 months consecutively of no global warming, please answer the following question:
        “Can you produce an empirical, testable, verifiable measurement quantifying the fraction of global warming attributable to human CO2 emissions?”
        Show your work….

    • Not so fast.
      In todays (Saturday Weekend Australian newspaper 11 April, page WORLD 13) Snippets from a much longer article by Amanda Hodge South Asia Correspondent
      “Greenpeace is facing expulsion from India after the government stepped up its campaign against the group yesterday, cutting off access to all its bank accounts and giving it 30 days to show why it should not be deregistered for ‘anti-development’ activities.”
      In addition the Delhi High court has also placed a travel ban on a greenpeace activist who was to address the British parliamentary committee regarding a British mining companies activity in the forests of India.
      “The [India] governments focus on Greenpeace sharpened last June with the release of an Intelligence Bureau report alleging the group. Along with other NGO’s was damaging India’s economy by campaigning against power projects, mining and genetically modified food.”

    • Daniel says “it seem the US may be left behind once again.”
      Hooray for that!
      “considering the 2 first Presidental candidates in the US”
      That would be George Washington and John Adams.
      “everyone wants to take the leading role from the EU”
      Not me. They are welcome to it. The United States left Europe and for good reasons.

      • George asks “What evidence do you have that fusion energy would be either cheap, or dependable?”
        I have none whatsoever; but if I did, there’s no way for me to hand it to you over the internet. On the other hand, fusion’s fuel is extremely abundant.

      • Fusion power has been deemed the holy grail of energy production since the workings of the Sun were understood. Please read post from WUWT on 31/03/2015 “The lost nuclear fusion reactor design?” specifically the video presentation.
        Robert, coal and nuclear. Totally agree but both are finite resources and as far of the future of mankind is concerned I am a “belt and braces” man. If fusion power can be created from hydrogen, then we will have virtually unlimited energy

      • “””””…..I have none whatsoever; but if I did, there’s no way for me to hand it to you over the internet. On the other hand, fusion’s fuel is extremely abundant……”””””
        Well so far, about the only results I have read about anybody actually getting “fusion’s fuel” to actually fuse in a laboratory apparatus, is at the Livermore Whackamole machine, sometimes referred to as the National Ignition Facility. in the SF Bay area.
        The “fuel” they use is a tiny glassy sort of pellet, that has to be spherical to extremely high precision. They have some fancy name for the thing. I don’t know exactly what the material is, but I am sure it takes a heck of a lot of energy to make one of those things that is good enough to whack with their laser hammer, which they do every now and then.
        Apparently, they fill their fuel pellet, with a mixture of Deuterium which comes from the top 1/16th of an inch of the water in San Francisco Bay, and also some tritium. which comes from: well heck I have no idea where that comes from, but certainly not from SF Bay.
        Well the DT is what they actually want to fuse; but they can’t do that without the little 2-3 mm diameter glassy pellet sphere which is what is the real fuel you need to get a supply of. You need lots of these fuel pellets because every time you smack one, it get smashed to smithereens, so you have to place an order for another one, with the guy who makes them; whoever that is. The Deuterium is dirt cheap by comparison, but the Tritium is something else since I don’t know where you can mine that stuff. Most of it has to be made just like the fuel pellets have to be made.
        I don’t know what they do with the remains of the fuel pellets after they smash them, but somebody has to clean up all the mess that is left, so you can clean the apparatus up so you can smack another fuel pellet some other time, when you get a new one.
        It’s all very complicated; but in any case, I don’t see that there is a plentiful supply of fuel at least for that fusion machine.
        It would be a lot better if you had a machine that could run off ordinary sea water right out of SF Bay, without having to manufacture something out of it.
        Well luckily, I’m not that excited about doing it myself.
        g

      • I concur as well. I don’t think that fusion reactors of the comercial kind will happen for many decades to come. The sun has emmense problems containing it’s reaction, it’s the nature of chaotic systems. LTR is going to be the simplest way forward and would have prevented Iran getting the nuclear weapons it so desires if the US had not stopped it’s research in the ’50.

      • The reactor that was run for 10years, built during nuclear research immediately after the war in America posed no problems, Perhaps the corrosion problem is a bit overstated.

    • Do remember that we have already made thorium fueled reactors. It works well in the CANDU, which is believed to be how the Indians got the U233 for that demo bomb. (they did a large variety of odd bombs in one fast series, including also one from power reactor fuel of some sort. Pu that was hotter than desired, but did work in a test device). The USA had a working one very early and made a mixed fuel test bomb with partial U233 in it from the thorium reactor.
      I suspect what you are really advocating is a Molten Salt Reactor, more than just thorium in our present fleet designs. (thorium bundles have been shown to work in both Russian and US design water reactors. Changes in the fuel bundle are mostly all it takes – including bundle management steps…)

      • But the LFTR reactor do not need water cooling. Moulton salt has a high melting point but a very high boiling point so there is no high pressure buildup requiring the large containment vessel built to contain the release of high pressure radioactive steam in a leakage event. LFTEs work at about 750C, 300C higher than PWRs so more energy available for power. Excess heat can melt the plug to the drain vessel shutting down the reaction.

    • You are right, in the short to middle term but better still stop spending money on “climate research” and work on both, with thorium as an intermediary with fusion being the ultimate goal

  2. Deuterium-Tritium fusion is a dead end. It’s only good for the fissile initiated H bombs Obumbler gave Iran a green light for. For civilian fusion power what you need is Helium 3.
    The Helium 3 isotope makes fusion practical, however it is rare. Known sources are Lunar regolith, deep sea volcanic vents and Antarctic ice. The simplest of these sources to access is Antarctic ice. The Antarctic could easily be strip mined. While Antarctic temperatures range below -50C the thundering turbo-machinery of progress could have its gears and bearings lubricated by fresh penguin oil squeezings. Penguins could be breed and zlaughtered! Seal free breeding areas could be established for mankind’s flightless helpers!! The blenders could be silenced!!! When zey went down the tube, zer would be no unpleasant squavking, so zer relatives would have no shocking memories….
    …Mien Fuhrer! I can zquavk!!

      • Eustace, the lithium in the lithium-deuteride “fuel” actually does contribute to energy release. Lithium “fissions” into deuterium & tritium due to the very energetic neutrons, then that fuses into helium. The bomb-designers found this out during one of the Bravo H-bomb tests in the Pacific.

      • beng1, yes you are technically correct. But Robert seemed to me to be saying that lithium is the primary fuel, which it is not. H-bombs are “so-called” because the primary fuel is, well, hydrogen.

      • Lithium deuteride is the fuel used, neutron bombardment produces tritium from the Li and the tritium reacts with the deuterium to produce He and a huge amount of energy.

      • Phil is correct. I apologize. Though I will equivocate and say that deuterium and tritium are still the primary fuels. In the millionth of a second that they exist. 🙂

      • So Phil,
        Now we only need Lithium, and neutrons to get the DTs to squish with our Tokamak.
        How do we stop the neutrons from making some otherwise harmless materials radioactive.
        How do we provide a continuous supply of Lithium to this machine, and continuously remove the trash that is created, so that the whole thing can run smoothly.
        Can we fission the Lithium off site, to get the DTs, and is DT really the best fusion reaction to depend on ?
        I believe it is the lowest ignition point reaction; but is that the one to use.
        I see the Livermore Laser as just a giant whackamole machine, and not a method of getting controlled fusion energy.
        As I recall, the late Charles Townes told everybody at a convention that inertial confinement was never going to lead to controlled fusion energy.
        But thanks for the info on the Lithium process. I think I had seen before that it was involved in the uncontrolled nuclear fusion process, but didn’t know in what way.
        I still think glowing promises of cheap and clean are pie in the sky.
        G

      • Today nearly all practical H bombs are fusion boosted fission bombs (usually) using a Plutonium pit. The fusion process is primarily for increased neutron production which increases the efficiency of the fission bomb core. Staged fission/fusion devices increase the yield dramatically, allowing for devices into the Gigaton range. The Hydrogen is stored thusly:
        “The optimal way to store deuterium in a reasonably dense state is to chemically bond it with lithium, as lithium deuteride. But the lithium-6 isotope is also the raw material for tritium production, and an exploding bomb is a nuclear reactor. Radiation implosion will hold everything together long enough to permit the complete conversion of lithium-6 into tritium, while the bomb explodes. So the bonding agent for deuterium permits use of the D-T fusion reaction without any pre-manufactured tritium being stored in the secondary. The tritium production constraint disappears.”
        http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Nuclear_weapon_design

  3. Good luck to them. They have a well educated workforce with expertise in Physics and Mathematics.
    Sigh. I remember when…

  4. And in related news, India freezes the bank accounts of their local Greenpeace affiliate:

    The report, which was leaked to the press, claimed that “people-centric” campaigns organised by NGOs blocked projects in seven sectors – nuclear power, uranium mining, thermal and hydroelectric power, farm biotechnology, extractive industries, and mega industrial projects – were aimed at keeping India in “a state of underdevelopment”.

    Good luck to them.

  5. What a bunch of idiots! The ITER technology has been studied for over 40 years. It is well-established that it will not and cannot work.
    But there is another problem identified in a series of prescient articles published in Science in 1978 or so. These machines are so large that even if they worked the cost of electricity produced by them would be an order of magnitude larger than the most expensive fission reactors. Remember, at that point fission reactors typically had capacity factors down around 50%, and their electricity was the most expensive around. (Matters have improved markedly.)
    These costs mean that even if it worked ITER would have no commericial or military use, “Aliens” not withstanding.
    Also, neutron activation of trace elements in structural steel means that fusion reactors would produce low-level radioactive waste.
    ITER is a scam. It’s sole purpose is to support some senior physicists in their jet set life style.
    Every fusion scheme has been proven to be a deadend, an impossibility. Lockheed’s will undoubtedly end up in the trash heap, too. This should not be a surprise. The forces needed to overcome nucleus-nucleus repulsion are stunning huge, like a large fission bomb.
    The corruption now rampant in most sciences is an indictment of our civilization.
    Institution stupidity like this goes a long way to explaining Indian backwardness.

    • I have doubt about the feasibility and costs. In the late eighties I was in contact with a supplier for mechanical parts for the fusion test unit in England. He explained the difficulties and costs and my perception of fusion since then is like science fiction, so maybe it can work but at what costs.

    • I agree. Magnetism cannot contain the plasma. We won’t have fusion until we can control gravity and contain the plasma the same way the sun does. It may be a while yet.

    • So Bob, I personally have believed (just my opinion) that controlled thermo-nuclear fusion isn’t possible (on earth), because gravity sucks, which makes gravitation powered TNF reactors big; roughly star sized; while Earnshaw’s theorem says that stable Coulomb force confinement isn’t possible either, because it blows instead of sucks, and no configuration is stable (outside the atomic nucleus).
      So I’m interested in your basis for a similar end point conclusion.
      G

    • Also, neutron activation of trace elements in structural steel means that fusion reactors would produce low-level radioactive waste.
      Bob,
      The solution to that part of the equation is to not use steel for the primary structure. Titanium alloys containing vanadium and aluminum perform very well under neutron bombardment conditions. The most common alloy used commercially, Ti-6Al-4V, is readily castable, formable, weldable, and available in large supply for all product forms. The potential radioactive isotopes these elements (Ti, Al, V) can create under neutron bombardment conditions are few and short lived. A tokamak primary toroid constructed thusly is viable and ultimately recyclable. It’s nonmagnetic properties also work well for magnetic containment designs.
      Mac

    • one other factor often missed – the ‘containment’ consists of certain relatively rare metals such as niobium….I recall that one would need to mine all the beaches in Australia to get the stuff….and way back in 1976, when I formed my first research group in Oxford, we were joined by a doctoral level engineer refugee from the Culham fusion progamme – yes! it is that old, and the UK has devoted billions to the quest…..and he said then, it was more a religious quest than anything remotely beneficial for energy supplies, and we then worked together on ‘alternative’ energy strategies – meaning anti-nuclear…..if you gung ho pro-nuclear people had ANY idea of how close disaster has been, with reactor cores and their stored wastes, you might pause…..
      and even then, we had a good idea of what alternatives would do to the environment – turbines, barrages, biofuels and hydro……but of course, this blog, for which I do have much respect, does not care about the environment….have you seen a strip-mine for coal? or the fracking fields? or thought about what happens if their is a ‘deepwater’ accident in the oilfields of the Arctic?
      and where do you get this idea there will not be a fossil fuel crisis within several hundred years if at all! it is thirty years for readily accessible and cheaper oil, sixty years if the global economy can bear $100 dollars a barrel for more than a few years…..the only way forward is to USE LESS and for that we need to create new kinds of cities, better habitation and completely different transport systems….

  6. I remember reading SPIE letters and IEEE journal articles on laser fusion research back in the 1970s It was my first year working in the physics division of a local research labs and I was dazzled by Tokamak, Shiva, and all the cool tech at a nearby university’s Laser Energetics Lab where some of my friends worked. I was convinced that, in a few short years, we would be getting all of our energy from private little “suns” contained in a vessel in the garage.
    I grew up, raised a family, and eventually retired five years ago – no mini fusion reactor in my garage. None in anyone’s garage for that matter. I still hope that that particular “perpetual motion machine” known as hot fusion can and will be achieved but I’m not holding my breath. If I had held my breath way-back-when – well, I wouldn’t be making this comment today.

  7. Here is a good fusion reaction that will supply a lot of energy to the world. C + 02 ->> CO2

  8. This is such a poor idea even if it worked in principle that the process would render more energy than that spent to run it. The cost of nuclear reactors is essentially the cost of money and the fuel does not contribute that much. An fusion reactor would require that it runs for about a century and interest rate close to zero.
    But then again, India is already into Thorium reactors which seems much cheaper to construct.

    • India have their own version of the CANDU and both run well on thorium in a regular heavy water process. MSR are a nice advance, but not needed to use thorium.

  9. ‘To be executed over 10 years, European Union, China, Japan, Korea, Russia and the US apart from India are the seven nation partners in France project which is expected to be commissioned by 2024.’
    I wonder how well they’re all going to get along. BTW: Where’s Iran?

  10. Helped by British aid money which is well over 200 million pounds a year (but to be phased out in 2015).

  11. What a bunch of doughnuts.
    The Indian government, I mean. Not the reactors.
    As usual, policy makers have revealed their talent for ostentatiously picking the most expensive item on the menu.
    And in this case, a recipe that produces, as yet, zero calories.
    Meanwhile a vast swathe of their population have yet to discover the miraculous advantages bestowed through the use of iron cooking stoves.

  12. Daniel
    April 10, 2015 at 4:25 am
    And your evidence?
    [for saying US leads the world in CO2 reduction]
    http://www.michigancapitolconfidential.com/17967
    Obviously making use of evidence isn’t something you do. Daniel, don’t just float along believing your fellow travelers. If you don’t know this well known fact, it tells all that you are of no use even in promoting the notions of those you worship. Be skeptical enough to do a little research on your own and don’t just subscribe to the knowledge bites that are pre-digested for fools. This is WUWT!!

  13. “Giving society cheap, abundant energy would be the equivalent of giving an idiot child a machine gun.”
    Are we ready to run down this rabbit hole? If prescient paul says it’s true, who are we to doubt him?

    • Hey I could run Ehrlich over with my 55 kW VW Polo, so the genie is out of the bottle with regards to “too much energy”.

      • How dare you impune the good reputation of pp? Have any of his predictions not come to pass?
        “In ten years all important animal life in the sea will be extinct. Large areas of coastline will have to be evacuated because of the stench of dead fish.” Paul Ehrlich, Earth Day 1970
        “Population will inevitably and completely outstrip whatever small increases in food supplies we make, … The death rate will increase until at least 100-200 million people per year will be starving to death during the next ten years.” Paul Ehrlich in an interview with Peter Collier in the April 1970 of the magazine Mademoiselle.
        “By…[1975] some experts feel that food shortages will have escalated the present level of world hunger and starvation into famines of unbelievable proportions. Other experts, more optimistic, think the ultimate food-population collision will not occur until the decade of the 1980s.” Paul Ehrlich in special Earth Day (1970) issue of the magazine Ramparts.
        “The battle to feed humanity is over. In the 1970s the world will undergo famines . . . hundreds of millions of people (including Americans) are going to starve to death.” (Population Bomb 1969)
        “Smog disasters” in 1973 might kill 200,000 people in New York and Los Angeles. (1969)
        “I would take even money that England will not exist in the year 2000.” (1969)
        “Before 1985, mankind will enter a genuine age of scarcity . . . in which the accessible supplies of many key minerals will be facing depletion.” (1976)
        “By 1985 enough millions will have died to reduce the earth’s population to some acceptable level, like 1.5 billion people.” (1969)
        “By 1980 the United States would see its life expectancy drop to 42 because of pesticides, and by 1999 its population would drop to 22.6 million.” (1969)
        “Actually, the problem in the world is that there is much too many rich people…” – Quoted by the Associated Press, April 6, 1990
        “Giving society cheap, abundant energy would be the equivalent of giving an idiot child a machine gun.” – Quoted by R. Emmett Tyrrell in The American Spectator, September 6, 1992
        “We’ve already had too much economic growth in the United States. Economic growth in rich countries like ours is the disease, not the cure.” – Quoted by Dixy Lee Ray in her book Trashing the Planet (1990)
        “People are welcome to any religious belief they want but I don’t want them planning my planet on the basis of ideas that they think can be ascribed to some supernatural monster written down thousands of years ago. That’s just silly” [14]

      • Eric,
        A wonderful list! As we prepare for Earth Day, April 22 2015, I will remind any and all who are promoting it how it originated through outrageous predictions of impending doom in 1970. In hind sight from 2015, those ‘predictions’ are laughably stupid…. and yet they sound oh so similar to the modern day cries of impending doom from the AGW faithful!
        I encourage everyone here at WUWT to publish these retrospective ‘predictions’ from 1970 on blogs, comments, and letters to the editor in the next 2 weeks. Let’s help the younger generations understand just how long this scam has been running…. and how foolish it’s duped adherents from 1970 and on have been and continue to be. Show them how foolish they will be, if they fall for the same scam today. It should be a modern day parable, taught to every new generation.

  14. The US used to own innovation and tech revolutions because of the economic success of its former free-enterprise system. I’m happy to see former third world countries get into it, but it does mark a beginning of the end of US dominance in technology since it began giving that sector away (Clinton gave China its space technology) and going into wifty-poofty Euro sociological experimentation even though the same experiments have pushed Europe beyond hope of recovery of any semblance of its former greatness.
    The Tokamak was probably in 1950s Popular Mechanics issues, so they are starting at the beginning and will waste a lot of money finding out it doesn’t work very well, but at least someone is doing something instead of planning the new world order. India’s thorium reactor coming on in 2016 had already come on at Oak Ridge in ~1960s – man what a futuristic world we could have been living in. The next US visitor to the moon will probably need a Chineses visa to enter. I better stop before I get to far into a rant.

    • India uses Thorium as an add on in a light water reactor.
      The Chinese are building a LFTR. chinese have also licensed German HTR Thorium reactor patents.

    • “India’s thorium reactor coming on in 2016 had already come on at Oak Ridge in ~1960s – man what a futuristic world we could have been living in.”
      Symptomatic of the thorium nonsense. There was no thorium reactor at Oak Ridge. Indeed, thorium isn’t even reactive.

      • Gamecock
        April 10, 2015 at 7:39 am
        The program was shut down by Atomic Energy under pressure from Pentagon because it didn’t produce plutonium. The reactor was running however.
        http://americanfreepress.net/?p=14456
        “Admiral Hyman G. Rickover, was in charge of developing the U.S. nuclear Navy in the 1960s and 1970s. But he and several congressmen also wanted to build bombs to shower on the Soviets. Safety of U.S. citizens was not their concern.
        Thorium was therefore of no use to the genocidal warhawks, who shut down the ORNL program in 1973 and told Weinberg to resign, after he had dedicated 18 years to safe atomic energy.”

      • I repeat: there was no thorium reactor at Oak Ridge.
        Gary Pearse
        April 10, 2015 at 6:21 am
        “had already come on at Oak Ridge in ~1960s”
        Your statement is still false.

      • The U-233 at Oak Ridge was not derived from thorium.
        The only U-233 derived from thorium in the U.S., at Aiken, SC, and Shippingport, PA, were never used.

      • Gamecock is correct. The demonstration in principle was to show in two different experiments that Thorium could be turned into U233 and separately that U233 could be used in a fission reactor to sustain a chain reaction with a commercial output of energy. Both experiments were successful.
        The U233 experiment was in danger of losing its funding so it was recast as a way to create a nuclear powered aircraft that would be able to remain airborne pretty much indefinitely. Popular Mechanics published a schematic of such a system.

    • When you say that a Tokomak “doesn’t work very well”, just what “work” is it actually doing besides keeping a bunch of otherwise unemployable people busy doing something.
      I not aware of an existing Tokomak actually doing anything; besides using up a whole lot of materials and labor and energy as well as space.
      So please; before talking about “working well”, let us just start with “working”.
      Now just what work does it do, and why would I want one ??
      g

  15. The H bomb worked in the 1960s. Maybe we should start with that. See how small we can make them, blow them up in a deep large chamber in remote Precambrian granite terrain and draw off the energy in heat for a couple of decades. Hmmm….lets see what shape the chamber should be:
    http://media.photobucket.com/user/NuklearDrunk/media/bomba-nuclear.jpg.html?filters%5Bterm%5D=hydrogen%20bomb%20explosion&filters%5Bprimary%5D=images&filters%5Bsecondary%5D=videos&sort=1&o=14
    Gee, it is shaped like a Tokamak!!

    • I am fundamentally opposed to any sort of energy cycle, that starts off by converting otherwise good energy into waste heat, and then trying to get the Carnot efficiency of some “heat engine” up to a respectable level.
      That’s one reason I don’t like the Kentucky Fried Chicken power plants in Nevada. Using trash heat energy to do work is simply gross.

  16. India is also interested in supporting LENR (aka cold fusion)
    “Indian Government Agency Hosts Meeting to Find ‘Way Forward’ for Cold Fusion/LENR, Oversight Committee Formed.”
    http://www.e-catworld.com/2015/04/10/indian-government-agency-hosts-meeting-to-find-way-forward-for-cold-fusionlenr-oversight-committee-formed/
    Don’t forget that Rossi’s1 MW plant, built by Industrial Heat, has been under test at a customer’s site for ~3 months, as part of a one year trial.
    The hot Cat has been tested by Elforsk and replicated by Dr. Parkhomov in Russia recently.
    My guess is LENR will win this race. It is much easier and cheaper to build.

      • “The Application of LENR to Synergistic Mission Capabilities”
        by
        Douglas P. Wells, NASA Langley Research Center, Hampton, VA 23602
        Dimitri N. Mavris, Georgia Institute of Technology, Atlanta, Georgia 30332-0150
        Abstract:

        This paper does not explore the feasibility of LENR and assumes that a system is available.

        well…

    • If only nations had diverted some serious funding into LENR, who knows where we might be now. Even if “hot” fusion can be developed (a big IF) there would still be incredible advantage with LENR. GK

    • I find it interesting at about the same time the Government of India announced some big HOT fusion project (that’s been a sink hole of funding for 40+ years), they ALSO JUST formed the above committee and group for LENR.
      I suspect the hot fusion funding announcement that coincides with the LENR is much smoke and mirrors and also to keep the existing gravy train alive as they REALLY peruse LENR. VERY VERY strange that BOTH announcements come out at about the same time. As noted, this is really political correctness by their government.
      Airbus is has now filed patients based on LENR.
      And without a doubt, LENR will win this race, as more and more replications occur. The replication by Dr. Parkhomov just THIS YEAR is a HUGE boost to LENR, and I expect to see several more replications this year.
      MOST interesting?
      WUWT has not yet been willing to post or cover LENR, but that will likely change this year as more replications appear, and even “last holdouts” like this site will eventually see the light of day on this issue.
      However, given the huge readership of WUWT, then the failure of WUWT covering this beautiful new clean form of energy is certainly one big story and dropping of the ball big time by WUWT. Like mainstream science, or the political correctness of the science community on CAGW, the same can be said of WUWT on the issue of LENR – they done the public a huge disservice here by Watts refusal to cover this issue.
      Regards,
      Albert D. Kallal
      Edmonton, Alberta Canada

    • So Max, given that there is no net gravitational field inside a massive spherical shell, why would there be a huge compressive pressure at the center of a star.
      When I weigh the planet earth on my bathroom scale, I get less than 180 pounds (weight), primarily because the gravity from my body mass is just not all that high.
      So if I was at the center of a star, why would I get more than about 180 pounds of weight for the star ??

      • Absolutely I’m serious.
        If I want to weigh myself on my bathroom scale, I place myself on the “top” side of the machine, where the readout is, and I place the planet earth on the back side of the machine, where there is no scale, and it reads something like 178-180 pounds weight, for the gravitational force F= G.m1.m2/(r1+r2)^2 where m1 and r1 are for the planet, and m2 and r2 are for me.
        So if I switch places with the planet earth, and put the planet on the side with the readout, and me on the backside with no readout, to provide a gravitational attraction to the earth, then I can see what the weight of the earth is by putting a mirror opposite the readout to see what it reads.
        And it usually reads about 180 pounds weight or so when I do it.
        Of course, if I weigh the earth on a platform that is less massive than me, then it can weigh even less. If I use the bathroom scale as its own platform, then the earth only weighs about two pounds.
        I haven’t tried too many other places to try and weigh the earth so I expect you can get a lot of different values.
        g

  17. GK. It is hard to know how much it would have helped. The Palladium/Deuterium route seems difficult to scale up. Pons & Fleischmann tried with good funding.
    It was not until Andrea Rossi demonstrated high power levels with Ni/H/Li (?) that people started taking notice and he wasn’t the first to use Ni/H.
    It is a strange and complicated subject. Not sure that I would trust the government to pick winners. .It seems to take a maverick they would never support..
    The http://www.lenrproof.com link is slightly dated now. Parkhomov and MFMP seem to be the ones to watch, apart from Rossi. I suspect that other, large corporations are now taking an active interest, after the recent replications.

      • A replication of LENR by some dude living in a small apartment in Russia is not what we pin our hopes on.
        However, the replication is significant. A few more groups as I write this are attempting to repeat Parkhomov’s results. If those replications are successful, then Parkhomov will certainly become one of the “hero’s” of the LENR chronicles.
        As for being skeptical of LENR? It really is becoming harder and harder to take such a position. The group that looked as Rossi’s reactor stated this is a nuclear effect, and they noted the isotope changes in the nickel.
        The third party report can be found here:
        http://kb.e-catworld.com/index.php?title=Third_party_E-Cat_test,_Lugano,_Switzerland_(2014)
        The authors of above state:

        “In summary, the performance of the E-Cat reactor is remarkable. We have a device giving heat energy compatible with nuclear transformations, but it operates at low energy and gives neither nuclear radioactive waste nor emits radiation

        Even 5 years ago, this 60 minutes piece hired a skeptic and independent physicist – he came back and said clearly LENR works.

        Like the global warming scam, anyone spending a bit of time will see this is real.
        There have been 100’s if not 1000’s of papers on LENR. The issue is not is the effect is real, but how soon commercialization will occur.
        As I re-stated, it is rather SAD that WUWT has refused to follow this story. The release of the above 3rd party test and report was likely the top story of LENR since P&F made their public announcement.
        Regards,
        Albert D. Kallal
        Edmonton, Alberta Canada

      • Well, you mean the more other fools come around repeating K’s fauxperiment and get the same results, this would somehow support R’s conjecture? We don’t know what R. is doing. He doesn’t tell. So succeeding in repetition of what K. does has nothing to do with what R. does.
        That’s almost like repeating G’s experiment (you know, the faked CO&#8322 one discussed here) successfully and claim therefore, it wasn’t fake.
        A. is right to not publish about this nonsense.

  18. Daniel – the reason the US had is doing better than EU and others in lowering it’s CO2 rate has been the change from coal to natural gas for generating electricity. Often natural gas from fracking has been lower cost than coal so even without the new ‘war on coal’ this conversion has been taking place for some time.
    Since we have not implemented cap and trade and other draconian measures that have failed in the EU, we have out done them due to the natural forces in the market place driven not by a desire to lower C02 but simply by switching to a lower cost energy source.
    Since we don’t have a reputation of being ‘green’ yet are more ‘green’ than ‘green’ countries, the data surprises some. I’m not surprised by that surprise as data is often unknown to many people.
    Data like our current slight increase in temps is less than the prior increases in temps since the last ice age. These peaks all line up and show we are still descending to the return of normal ‘ice age’ temps. Data is wonderful!

    • Across the E.U. countries have implemented “feed-in-tariff” subsidy schemes that reward the most expensive technologies with the highest rate of subsidy.
      Hence it is often more profitable to invest in the most expensive and least cost-effective sources of power.
      This may seem to be an irrational system. At least it should to any reasonable on-looker.
      In effect we incentivize the flow of money into projects that provide the least quantity of energy per euro/£. This is why, in countries such as Germany and the U.K., so little energy is being produced for the astronomical quantities of money committed.
      Here in the UK, many Solar P.V. schemes are being paid £430 per MWh. Almost 10 times the wholesale rate for electricity. And the commitment to that price runs for another 20 years.
      Cap and trade alone would have at least provided a platform for rational market incentives and consequent efficient use of resources.
      It is this topsy-turvy subsidy system that has lead to the maximizing of cost and minimizing of megawatts produced, or carbon emissions reduced.

    • I watched the CrossFire video. The waste heat conversion system, if it worked, would render the rest of the system unnecessary. It would alone replace all current thermal power stations. Its output efficiency is unphysical as I suspect is to the mechanism of using sets of helical waves to contain and then initiate fusion.
      The graphics are lovely. Maybe the system can be turned into a space craft’s Probability Drive which works by knowing precisely all the ways in which it cannot.

  19. Let’s see now China has a vague pledge for CO2 and coal cuts at a distant point in the future with some metro area cuts in coal plants. At least India gets a research center out of its “looking busy” pledge. Only the U.S. will have cuts and decline in manufacturing. This fits with the city states design plan around a service economy and supporting dear leaders voter strategies within those cities. Fly over country will be further de-populated and they don’t count anyway in the new model of vote buying and campaign strategy.

  20. @Gamecock > There was no thorium reactor at Oak Ridge. Indeed, thorium isn’t even reactive.
    You are in error. Oak Ridge’s Molten Salt Reactor Experiment (MSRE) included investigating thorium as a nuclear fuel, with positive results. Naturally occurring thorium is effectively all Th-232, which is fertile, not fissionable. Which means a thorium burning reactor requires an igniter fuel which is fissionable to start it up, after which it breeds fissionable U-233 from Th-232.
    cf. http://energyfromthorium.com/ornl-document-repository/ documents on the MSRE
    ITER is a waste of money, but I still have hopes for Z-pinch, Field Reversed Configuration, and Polywell.

    • “included investigating thorium as a nuclear fuel”
      There was no thorium in any Oak Ridge reactor. None. Double ought zero.

  21. And Britain is still giving ‘poverty aid’ to India?
    Our David Camoron (sic) is a numbskull.

    • Didn’t India reject the UK’s last offer of aid because it was too small compared with the size of their own economy?

      • Yes, we gave them $409 this year, but hopefully that should be the end of it. Our government is desperate to give it away to other countries, like…
        Uganda £80 million
        Kenya £105 million
        Tanzania £145 million
        Ethiopia £350 million
        Pakistan £250 million
        Nigeria £180 million
        Afghanistan £165 million
        Of course, here in Britain, we have so much money that we simply have to give it away.

      • Wind and solar are proven to kill birds and bats, disturb wild animals and natural habitats, noise affecting nearby residents, visual impact of the development on the landscape.

    • That will be India. They have little local uranium, but thorium is massive in India, so they have a clear long term plan to use thorium as their primary fuel. Already demonstrated in their existing CANDU style reactors with MSR on the way.

  22. At least the money is being spent on work that might have a useful outcome instead of being poured down the planetary black hole that is renewables subsidy. Though, I have doubts as to whether the overcomplex and costly ITER design is feasible as a commercial power unit. Particularly as the best it is likely to achieve is D-T fusion, which requires a scarce fuel and tends to degrade the apparatus through its very energetic neutron emissions.
    Robert Bussard’s Polywell design (magnetic containment but electrostatic acceleration instead of thermal) has already demonstrated fusion using inexpensive pure deuterium fuel, which does still release neutrons, although less energetic ones. A larger Polywell (a few metres across, still very much smaller than ITER) would probably be able to run on protium/boron fuel, which in theory is aneutronic. There would still be some neutrons due to secondary fusion reactions and hard X-rays due to bremmstrahlung (an inevitable consequence of magnetic containment) but these should be less of a problem than the copious fast neutrons of D-D or D-T fuel. The other advantage of p-B fuel is that the products being alphas, it may even be possible to extract the energy directly as electricity, eliminating the conventional boiler, turbine and alternator. There would still have to be a fairly sophisticated inverter to transform several Mv of DC into utility current, but I am sure modern electronics is up-to that task.
    Though, if the claims of the LENR developers are valid, then hot fusion research might indeed be a waste of time. If we can do the equivalent in a 25cm quartz tube instead of a multi-ton vacuum chamber, then no point. I understand that an 18 hour self-sustaining run has been had with an E-Cat or similar device.

  23. Another contender in the energy production that will likely outperform ITER is Lawrenceville Plasma Physics Focus Fusion approach http://lawrencevilleplasmaphysics.com/
    There have also been great advances in the LENR field recently with A Russian scientist replicating Rossi’s E-Cat twice and announcement of labs dedicated to its study in Europe, Japan, and India.

  24. Follow the Money!
    India knows that the fission trail is cold.
    There are big contracts to be had, to try though.
    Has the Smell and Colour of Climate change.

  25. DMA April 10, 2015 at 2:38 pm
    snipped
    There have also been great advances in the LENR field recently with A Russian scientist replicating Rossi’s E-Cat twice… snipped

    Rossi is a liar, a serial scammer and a convicted fraud. Evidence of this is all over the web. Parkmanov is a bumbling fool who published obvious fraud (the “cut and paste” temperature series).
    Rossi told Florida Bureau he has no US factory, no Nuclear reactions(after claiming for years that he had both).
    http://freeenergyscams.com/the-thermoelectric-scam-of-andrea-rossi-part-1/
    Rossi scammed the US government out of millions of dollars with his “Thermoelectric Generator” scam.

  26. Reblogged this on The Arts Mechanical and commented:
    India would be better off looking at all the small fusion reactors being developed. Tokamaks are a dead end unfortunately. I was told that personally by the head of Princeton’s plasma physics lab almost twenty years ago. Nothing I’ve seen since has changed that.

  27. India is wasting money on fusion research they don’t have.
    China’s first test thorium Molten Salt Reactor (MSR) reactor goes online later this year, with the revised goal of developing a commercial MSR for large-scale rollout by 2024 (initial goal was by 2040….)
    The biggest problem with Fusion is how to contain 14,000,000C of liquid plasma. With thorium MSRs, you’re dealing with how to contain molten salts at 1,400C and how to chemically remove unwanted transuranics in the uranium decay chain; a MUCH simpler problem.
    The Chinese are delighted to watch the West and India waste $trillions on wind, solar, bio-fuels, geo-thermal, ITER fusion, Compact Fusion Reactors, etc., while they quietly develop MSRs that’ll produce electricity for $0.03/kWh and use MSR waste heat to synthesize hydrocarbons and desalinate ocean water; thereby becoming 100% energy, hydrocarbon and fresh water self-sufficient.

    • “The biggest problem with Fusion is how to contain 14,000,000C of liquid plasma”
      Only if you take the perversely difficult approach of accelerating particles by heating them.
      Imagine if CERN had taken that route, their apparatus would probably not fit on the planet. The sensible way to accelerate ions is with an electrostatic field. Instead of a million degrees, ten kilovolts will give you low-rate deuterium fusion. The Farnsworth fusor, which works on this principle, has been around for years as an industrial low-rate neutron source for radiographic processes, etc.
      The difficulty then is not one of producing fusion (easy) but doing it in a way which keeps the energy losses down to less than the energy output. A key part of that problem is that in a tenuous gas phase,only a small fraction of accelerated ions interact such as to result in fusion, and the gain from these is easily outweighed by the losses from ions striking electrodes, bremsstrahlung, etc.

    • “China’s first test thorium Molten Salt Reactor (MSR) reactor goes online later this year”
      Thorium is not fissile. A thorium reactor is a physical impossibility.

      • Thorium breeds into U-233 A Thorium Reactor can be done with solid fuel in a PWR but misses the important safety and efficiency of the molten salt reactor.

      • If you put sugar in your coffee, it is still coffee. Putting thorium in a reactor doesn’t make it a thorium reactor. “Thorium reactor” is a marketing phrase.
        The problem with thorium to U-233, as determined by U.S. experiments, is that not enough is converted fast enough for it to be worthwhile.
        I love the conspiracy theories, like
        Gary Pearse
        April 10, 2015 at 9:43 am
        . . . link telling us the Pentagon shutdown thorium development in 1973, when, in fact, thorium breeding testing was conducted at Shippingport from 1977 to 1982.
        Wind and solar power proponents tell us wind and sunlight are free. Thorium reactor (sic) proponents tell us thorium is four times more common than uranium. That, and a buck-eighty, will get you a cup of coffee at Starbucks. In today’s world, uranium is far cheaper than trying to produce it by transmuting thorium.
        Why are India and China pursuing it? Perhaps they fear there sources may be cut off. The two are doing a lot of sabre rattling these days.
        One more thing . . . at Aiken, some trace amounts of the ultra nasty, gamma-emitting, U-232 were created, along with the 630 kilos of U-233 they made from thorium. The new types of reactors planned for breeding may produce MORE U-232. Which could kill the whole program.
        Hundreds of years from now, thorium breeding may be necessary for uranium replacement. Today, it is the 100 mpg carburetor, all over again.

  28. And the last time I looked, Switzerland was a Federal Republic, not a direct democracy, Daniel.

  29. How’s polywell fusion coming along?
    According to this presentation http://research.microsoft.com/apps/video/default.aspx?id=238715
    Wiffle ball 8 has verified the “high beta” proof of principle. EMC2 are now ready to produce a full size working prototype having about 1gw generating capacity. The cost of this was given as “a few hundreds of millions of dollars” and time scale of 3 years.
    Sounds to me a better use of India’s few hundred million dollars than the ITER boondoggle which has already had countless billions thrown at it.

    • My understanding is that the Polywell’s power output will scale rapidly with reactor size, so a very large unit like ITER should not be needed. The remaining feasibility issue seems to be whether bremsstrahlung losses will soak up too much of the power. There are seveal theories on that, but the only real proof would be to build a production-size model and see. As the cost won’t be all that high, why aren’t we doing that right now, I ask?

    • As far as I can understand bremsstrahlung ends in form of waste heat and one-third of that energy can be retrieved into electric power again.

  30. albertkallal April 11, 2015 at 9:30 am
    The third party report can be found here:
    http://kb.e-catworld.com/index.php?title=Third_party_E-Cat_test,_Lugano,_Switzerland_(2014)
    The authors of above state:
    “In summary, the performance of the E-Cat reactor is remarkable. We have a device giving heat energy compatible with nuclear transformations, but it operates at low energy and gives neither nuclear radioactive waste nor emits radiation

    The so called “third party report” is, in reality, no such thing. The convicted criminal fraudster Rossi was present and doing the actual operating at all pertinent times. He loaded the “fuel”(it’s no such thing) and turned on the junk pile. He then raised the power of the thing to “operating temperature”. He turned it off at the end and he removed the “ash”. The “ash” consisted of 99% Ni62 which is really strange given the starting isotope distribution. It is obvious that Rossi substituted the ash with commercially available Ni62. Rossi has admitted in the past to having switched samples. He did it again.
    The “third party report” has not been published. The TPR was done by a bunch of long time collaborator’s of Rossi. They are a bunch of washed up nobodies who do not have the support of their institutions.
    http://freeenergyscams.com/andrea-rossi-e-cat-industrial-heat-llc-first-rossi-lies-about-national-instruments-now-rossi-is-caught-lying-about-working-with-siemens/

    There have been 100’s if not 1000’s of papers on LENR. The issue is not is the effect is real, but how soon commercialization will occur.

    BS piled wider and deeper remains BS.

    As I re-stated, it is rather SAD that WUWT has refused to follow this story. The release of the above 3rd party test and report was likely the top story of LENR since P&F made their public announcement.

    No it is entirely proper that A does not devalue this important site by pushing the junk-science of LENR in general and criminal Rossi in particular, just as he properly does not allow discussion of “ch?m???ils”.

    • So you think the CBS video is wrong then?
      The test ran for 32 days and Rossi was neither at the controls nor running the reactor during this time (so you have to cite where you found such a lie). It is this report that Dr. Parkamov used to replicate the heat effect. The testers and results of that device are credible, and based on that report a replication of the heat effect has occurred.
      It really does not matter since LENR has been replicated many times by others. Just like many have difficulty grasping that CAGW is a scam, some simply lack the ability to make an informed judgment on LENR. This is only due to peoples own limitations and shortcomings. Anyone who spends a bit of time with a trained intellect can easy figure out LENR is real or they are people who must submit to higher authorities on such matters since they cannot make their own judgments.
      This week is the 19th conference on cold fusion (being held in Pauda Italy). And the CEO of the company that purchased Rossi’s rights is speaking. Tom Darden, CEO of Cherokee Investments who owns a company called Industrial Heat will speak. Industrial heat is currently running an e-cat in an industrial setting.
      It should be a great week for LENR.
      Regards,
      Albert D. Kallal
      Edmonton, Alberta Canada

      • albertkallal April 11, 2015 at 6:25 pm
        So you think the CBS video is wrong then?

        Yes CBS 60 Minutes is garbage. It is an entertainment program made by people who have no understanding of science. The whole video here is wrong except for the few seconds of Dr Richard Garwin. He is 100% correct.
        McKubre is an idiot. He says one thing that is true. He does not know how to measure power. He says it in a sarcastic way implying strongly that he does. But he doesn’t. Dr barry Kort has shown why.

  31. albertkallal April 11, 2015 at 6:25 pm
    So you think the CBS video is wrong then?

    Yes CBS 60 Minutes is garbage. It is an entertainment program made by people who have no understanding of science. The whole video here is wrong except for the few seconds of Dr Richard Garwin. He is 100% correct.
    McKubre is an idiot. He says one thing that is true. He does not know how to measure power. He says it in a sarcastic way implying strongly that he does. But he doesn’t. Dr barry Kort has shown why.

  32. Reblogged this on Climatism and commented:
    India. Forward thinkers in rational, clean, efficient and reliable energy production.
    India. Seeing through and beyond the ideological mess of ‘unreliable’ technology (wind/solar) c/o the politics of “climate change” that is savaging the west.

  33. I have spent literally decades learning about this stuff. It is extremely irritating when a newcomer comes along and tries to educate me and those of us who have spent a lot more time studying this than most people have and the newcomer has spent. No I don’t know everything there is to know about the latest IPCC report, not that I am impressed by everything the IPCC says, but for gosh sakes it is not worth arguing the basic points in IPCC report with someone who doesn’t understand them himself. This is like a first grader, who doesn’t know that 1+1=2 trying to teach me calculus. I love the free speech that WUWT allows, but when one demonstrates a major lack of knowledge, I think their comments might be subjected to a bit more scrutiny by the moderator.
    [Ah, but the moderators here usually find that it is more illustrative and much better training for the public at large to let those who make such errors be exposed (and rapidly corrected), rather than be arbitrarily censored, deleted and silenced. .mod]

    • Tom Trevor

      I have spent literally decades learning about this stuff. It is extremely irritating when a newcomer comes along and tries to educate me and those of us who have spent a lot more time studying this than most people have and the newcomer has spent. No I don’t know everything there is to know about the latest IPCC report, not that I am impressed by everything the IPCC says, but for gosh sakes it is not worth arguing the basic points in IPCC report with someone who doesn’t understand them himself.

      You have made your feelings known, but you have also failed to say who this “newcomer” is, nor why you disagree with his statements. Nor have you established your own credentials to correct/criticize him.
      A complaint? Yes. Most definitely.
      A useful complaint? No.

  34. The ITER fusion reactor has been designed to produce 500 megawatts of output power while needing 50 megawatts to operate.[5] Thereby the machine aims to demonstrate the principle of producing more energy from the fusion process than is used to initiate it, something that has not yet been achieved in any fusion reactor.

    Watch the units, guys. This is a nuclear-flim-flam.
    500 megawatts is a measurement of power not energy.
    How long do you have to pump 50 MW of power into the ITER before you get a 500 MW output power in a pulse for a fraction of a second? Is the energy of the output going to be greater than the energy of the input? I doubt it. But even if it is a theoretical energy breakeven, it is useless, for there is no way to use the energy.

    The goal of ITER is to operate at 500 MWt (for at least 400 seconds continuously) with less than 50 MW of input power, a tenfold energy gain. No electricity will be generated at ITER. (source)

    Even taking their goals as achievable, 500 MW for 400 sec is 55 MWhr of raw, uncaptured energy. 55 MWhr of delivered electrical energy is worth only about $5,500.
    The Energy Breakeven hill for Fusion is nothing compared to the viable economic hill.
    None of these Tokomak designs make any sense from a power generation standpoint. There is no way to make them work in continuous operation, feeding fresh fuel in and removing the helium “ash”. It is as if you were designing a coal-fired boiler where you loaded the firebox with a few pounds of coal, bolted the door closed, lit the fire and burn the coal, then had to let it cool off before removing the ashes and reloading the firebox with another couple of pounds of coal.
    Electrical generation — of any kind — requires a near constant energy conversion. Even wind and solar fit that bill, albeit poorly. A 1 GW coal fired powerplant consumes 400 tons per hour, 7 tons per minute, over 100 kg of coal per second pulverized and blown in to the furnace constantly, 24/7. BTW, those 400 tons of coal cost only $12,000.
    I might be a little more charitable toward Stellerator designs. But Tokomaks are an engineering dead end.

  35. sure. and tesla makes the worlds logistic dreams come through. Dream along.
    India, tesla, wind elecs – any emergency way out there?
    Hans

Comments are closed.