The reaction always produces net energy (see any thermonuclear bomb test). The problem is that the reactor technology consumes energy in order to produce the energy. Now, this is true of essentially every power plant. A coal-fired plant or a hydroelectric dam require electric power for the lights, the offices, and the power-generating machinery. But it is a trifle compared to the power that is produced, so there is no harm. The problem with fusion is the challenge to attain "net" power production---power in excess of that required to sustain the reaction.
So, it is not really a lie---it was a mistaken statement. Unless it was made with deliberate prevarication, which would have to be proven. The devil is in the details. According to energy accounting, maybe they did, maybe they didn't. It is easy to get misled by enthusiasm.
I tip my hat. I got only 7 pages into the 37, but this fellow seems to have caught them red-handed. Sadly, as I said, the devil is in the details---and they chose to cook the books.
What I think is more telling, however, is the desperation for funding that this reveals, the willingness of scientists to be corrupt and dishonest, and the huge distance fusion is from any practical application. Truly, it will always be 30 years away. Fusion proponents need to digest this prevarication and learn a lesson.
Thanks for proving your point. Most excellently done.
The reaction always produces net energy (see any thermonuclear bomb test). The problem is that the reactor technology consumes energy in order to produce the energy. Now, this is true of essentially every power plant. A coal-fired plant or a hydroelectric dam require electric power for the lights, the offices, and the power-generating machinery. But it is a trifle compared to the power that is produced, so there is no harm. The problem with fusion is the challenge to attain "net" power production---power in excess of that required to sustain the reaction.
So, it is not really a lie---it was a mistaken statement. Unless it was made with deliberate prevarication, which would have to be proven. The devil is in the details. According to energy accounting, maybe they did, maybe they didn't. It is easy to get misled by enthusiasm.
There is this, its not complete proof that they lied but it look quite likely that some of them did.
https://newenergytimes.com/v2/sr/iter/The-Dark-Side-of-ITER-20200615.pdf
I tip my hat. I got only 7 pages into the 37, but this fellow seems to have caught them red-handed. Sadly, as I said, the devil is in the details---and they chose to cook the books.
What I think is more telling, however, is the desperation for funding that this reveals, the willingness of scientists to be corrupt and dishonest, and the huge distance fusion is from any practical application. Truly, it will always be 30 years away. Fusion proponents need to digest this prevarication and learn a lesson.
Thanks for proving your point. Most excellently done.
Thanks, have a great Christmas!
You also. Is it too much to hope for a Merry Quistmas?