Jump to content

Talk:ITER/Archive 2

Page contents not supported in other languages.
From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
Archive 1Archive 2

cost of €10 billion

isn't that low enough for individual countries doing various versions? i'm not sure, i'm asking. --87.194.72.129 00:30, 22 November 2006 (UTC)

Well, sure, but no one wants to foot the entire bill. So they split it up. And $12 billion is still a lot of money, even on a national scale. Phædrus 00:47, 22 November 2006 (UTC)
Indeed that is a lot of money. To put that dollar figure into scale, the CBC reports that Canada's budget surplus at the beginning of the next financial year is expected to be about $5.3 billion. And a lot of fuss is made here about how to spend that money. -- WGee 01:24, 22 November 2006 (UTC)
The US, for example, could certainly afford to build its own fusion project on this scale. ITER would require $12.1 billion over thirty years. The NASA budget, at $19.6 billion in 2005, is over half again as much annually.--Pharos 05:43, 22 November 2006 (UTC)
ok so i guess it would be affordable for usa and eu and probably a couple of other countries or unions. well, it looks that way that not only one or a few powerful are doing it, even though if it was the only reason, it'd look a bit fishy since it wouldn't be necessarily the same for production grade reactors. maybe the reason is to ensure sharing scientific results. --87.194.72.129 16:25, 22 November 2006 (UTC)

At the top of the article is says, "ITER was originally expected to cost approximately €10bn (£9bn), but the rising price of raw materials and changes to the initial design may see that amount double." This comes from a guardian article. Farther down, the article says, "As it stands now, the proposed costs for ITER are € 5 billion for the construction, maintenance and the research connected with it during its lifetime." So, initially it was €10bn, then prices increased to €5bn? I also found "http://www.nature.com/news/2009/090527/full/459488a.html" which says that €5bn was the estimate in 2006 (i.e. "initially"). It seems like something is amiss. 128.233.95.199 (talk) 18:25, 10 June 2009 (UTC)

I changed the intro to say 5 billion euro. A recent article seems to confirm that the original "plan was to build the world's most advanced fusion experiment within 10 years for a budget of $6bn (£3.6bn)", and that the cost is now "expected to be in excess of $16bn (£10bn). " btw, we seem to have three currencies here. we should probably pick 2 and stick w/them. Kevin Baastalk 17:34, 18 June 2009 (UTC)

There's plenty of legitimate criticism of Tokamak fusion and ITER in particular...

... Do we really need to quote Greenpeace and other anti-nuclear blowhards?

They keep getting caught with their pants down making shit up and have no particular credentials that would make anyone take them more seriously than some random guy down the street. I would suggest swapping them out with any of the numerous scientists that have legitimate, well-reasoned criticisms against ITER. 213.114.195.238 (talk) 15:53, 24 October 2008 (UTC)

I would have to agree. A short few sentences about opposition, most of which appears to be non-scientific, should be sufficient to outline the negative reception the project has. After all, it has gotten next to zero publicity here in the U.S., so how would people oppose something they don't even know about? Besides, the second item, although cited, gives uninformed readers the idea that the project could literally explode, which later in the article is soundly refuted. HuntingTarg (talk) 01:05, 6 May 2009 (UTC)

Construction update?

It says in the article: "Construction of the ITER complex is planned to begin in 2008". It's February 2009 now. Does anyone have any updates? Ron g (talk) 17:17, 6 February 2009 (UTC)

Yes work at the site has begun, such as earth moving. http://www.iter.org/newsline/pages/archive.htm —Preceding unsigned comment added by 137.205.125.78 (talk) 10:56, 18 February 2009 (UTC)

Amount of Seconds active?

I see that the article says that the Reactor will; "produce approximately 500 MW (500,000,000 watts) of fusion power sustained for up to 1,000 seconds". But I seem to remember when looking at this before, that the figure was 400 seconds, so has it been increased recently or something? I thought this sounded wrong and so I went to look at the citation that was given for the sentence (here http://www.iter.org/a/index_nav_4.htm), but I can't see any mention of 1,000 seconds there. The only figure stated on that site is "Burn Flat Top = >400 s", this matches with the pervious figure (the DEMO article also says 400 s), so where does the 1,000 s come from? Because, at the moment it doesn't seem to have any citation, so I'd appreciate if someone in the know could clear this up, is the burn time expected to be 400 s or 1,000 s and where is the citation for this? --Hibernian (talk) 22:30, 26 February 2009 (UTC)

We're getting pretty subtle here. The entire discharge time during which there is a plasma (and fusion is occuring during almost this entire time) is 1000s. The 400s flat top is the period of optimal plasma performance with steady peak current density and power output that has the target conditions of the particular scenario. We have to nail down the particular ITER scenario to get more specific about what the flat top power output is compared to the average ramp up power output. Details that seem to be beyond the scope of the article. The numbers as given accurately convey the duration of the plasma burn and the approximate rate of energy production during that burn. JohnCWright (talk) 18:38, 19 November 2009 (UTC)

Has construction started?

Article says nothing about whether construction of ITER has started or not. If it has started, then information about when exactly it has started should be added. If it has not started yet, then information about when it is currently scheduled should definitely be included in the article on an easy-to-find place.

Also, article says that it would take 10 years to build, and that it would be turned on in 2018, which implies that construction has already started in 2008. --93.139.81.170 (talk) 08:27, 28 April 2009 (UTC)

construction started in 2008.U5K0 (talk) 12:44, 28 April 2009 (UTC)
I have added details of construction progress, giving citations. Fusion Power (talk) 14:16, 28 April 2009 (UTC)
Well, they are meeting today, and my scale down or even cancel the project. 74.250.162.67 (talk) 13:51, 17 June 2009 (UTC)

NEWS: construction costs of Iter more than doubled

An international plan to build a nuclear fusion reactor is being threatened by rising costs, delays and technical challenges.

Emails leaked to the BBC indicate that construction costs for the experimental fusion project called Iter have more than doubled.

Some scientists also believe that the technical hurdles to fusion have become more difficult to overcome and that the development of fusion as a commercial power source is still at least 100 years away.

At a meeting in Japan on Wednesday, members of the governing Iter council reviewed the plans and may agree to scale back the project

BBC NEWS: http://news.bbc.co.uk/2/hi/science/nature/8103557.stm Kevin Baastalk 14:45, 18 June 2009 (UTC)

It looks like the leaked information may have been a false alarm -- http://blogs.knoxnews.com/knx/munger/2009/06/iter_council_meets_in_japan.html

This article does not say much, but it certainly doesn't hint at the possibility of a scale back. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 74.250.162.67 (talk) 03:58, 20 June 2009 (UTC)

Fusion distance

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/DEMO and most other sources I can find say fusion requires nuclii to be of the order of 1 femtometer apart, not 100 femtometers as stated here. However, http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Tritium#Controlled_nuclear_fusion says the D-T reaction has a peak at 5 barns cross section [an area equivalent to a radius of about 600 femtometers]. What is the right number (or wording)? At least this and other Wikipedia articles, such as the DEMO article, ought to be consistent.

John Newbury (talk) 21:59, 6 July 2009 (UTC)

IFMIF is not a nuclear fusion reactor

In bottom of the webpage IFMIF is given as an example of another nuclear fusion reactor. Isn't this wrong?

Guelao (talk) 09:50, 8 September 2009 (UTC) Miguel

Yes, seems so. JET and DEMO shouldn't be on the list of other fusion reactor designs either as they are just different iterations of the same design (past and future). —Preceding unsigned comment added by 83.150.115.48 (talk) 08:47, 22 April 2010 (UTC)

I have moved IFMIF to the "see also" section instead. I didn't quite know what to do with the reference though - so it's still there. It looks a bit funny, but at least it's an information-conserving half-solution ;-) Trolle3000 (talk) 13:12, 16 July 2010 (UTC)

Construction information

a lot of info and pictures here [1]. Have sent an email asking about the copyright of the pictures... response pending. --U5K0 (talk) 12:54, 28 November 2009 (UTC)

Can this effect environment?

Some issues haven't been discussed in the effects of fussion on nature, first of all the fusion changes the material characteristics, i.e. Hydrogen is changed to helium, There may be alot of hydrogen on earth but not a lot of isotopes, usually hydrogen will be extracted from water, this water is changed to helium and oxygen, to note that although helium theoretically can be changed to hydrogen by fission (which would require electricity because Hydrogen binding energy is bigger) but it would be pointless to fuse and then fission the same element, so some effects must be noted: 1- the Amount of water that will be changed permenantly to generate a big amount of energy (10 TeraWatt), the world uses average of 13 TW of energy. and the effect of this on the globe. 2- The amount of helium generated from fusion and the effect of this in atmosphere, it is noticeable that helium will travel to outer atmosphere, so toxicity of it might not be an issue. 3- The effect of increase of oxygen concentration on the atmosphere. 4- Helium is noble gas and is unlikely to be part of any living organism activity (chemical activities). 5- Hydrogen is active element and vital in any living organism either in water, hydroxide or hydrocarbons, and much more vital activities for all living organisms

The mass of a deuterium nucleus = 35 x 10-27 kg, the energy released from D-T Fusion 17.6 MeV ,the figure might be wrong, this is about 28.2 x 10-13 joule/Fusion, i.e. to generate one joule this would require 3.55 x 1011 Fusion, the mass of Duetrium needed to do this is 3.55 x 1011 x 1 x 3.3435 x 10 -27 kg. i.e. 11.87 * 10 -16 kg, water includes 2D- and one Oxygen so the amount of water needed would be about 5 times the amount of hydrogen in it with means that 5.9 * 10-15 Kg of water to generate one joule .. i.e. to generate 10 TW this would require about 0.6 Kg/s of water supply assuming that all power generated are absorbed and no power is needed to be used in the reactor, so lets assume that 1/4 of the power generated is wasted this would mean about 0.75 Kg/s of water is converted. i.e. 68.4 Tons/day are needed for a year about 23,668.2 Ton of water is used releasing about 18,934.56 Ton of oxygen into air and about 3 Tons of Helium in to the air, I really don't know if this is a big or small amount , but I think that this might affect the environment some way or the other on long or short run but the figure about can be multiplied by 100 if this energy resource is adapted for 100 years with same consumption of energy as now ! —Preceding unsigned comment added by Bibo1978 (talk • contribs) 07:22, 28 December 2009 (UTC)

An Olympic-size swimming pool is at least 50m by 25m by 2m, holding about 2500 tonnes of water. So, by your numbers, you'd be using about ten swimming pools' worth of water per year. This is unlikely to affect the environment. The main environmental concern from fusion reactors is disposing of reactor components that become radioactive due to neutron activation. --Christopher Thomas (talk) 01:49, 30 December 2009 (UTC)
Uranium is one of the rarest minerals in the Earth's crust, but fission still works perfectly fine because it's so efficient that it takes very little of it. Because fusion is much more efficient even than fission, you will require even less of the mass of the source material (hydrogen) for fusion than we currently require of uranium for fission. Also, helium is so light that it generally floats into space once released. It doesn't stick around in the atmosphere.65.0.96.247 (talk) 13:17, 22 July 2012 (UTC)

The Question I wanted to inform about was other side effects rather than the ones obviously stated in the article, which includes the radio activity from neutron activation. and I agree that resources consumption is very low, what about gas emission is it alse very low? Can this affect the nature someway or another —Preceding unsigned comment added by Bibo1978 (talk • contribs) 10:29, 13 January 2010 (UTC)

Fusion power doesn't produce enough waste gas to be significant. Helium is about 5 ppm in the atmosphere, giving a total of about 25 billion tonnes present. Adding 25 thousand tonnes per year wouldn't affect this. The only gaseous product to be concerned about would be the tritium being bred within the reactor, and that's burned as soon as it's made (that's why it's being bred in the first place). If reactor damage occurred that caused the tiny amount of tritium present at any given instant to be released, the gas release still wouldn't be a concern, because tritium has a half-life of 12 years (wait a century and it's gone, almost completely transformed into helium). The main concern with any such accident would be the broken reactor materials itself (which would have been activated per above, and so would be a royal pain to repair or dispose of). I'd also like to stress that any such physical damage would come from a non-nuclear source (either a magnetic quench causing stored magnetic energy to tear the reactor apart, or a failure in pressurized plumbing causing damage the old-fashioned way). The plasma within a fusion power plant's vessel is already fusing as fast as it can, so there's no way for it to "run away" (any more than a car's engine can run away without being given more fuel). --Christopher Thomas (talk) 18:57, 13 January 2010 (UTC)

What is this about a "Molten Salt Reactor"?

If one looks at the recent editing history of this article, many - in fact, most - of the edits are from one IP address repeatedly inserting the (exact) following text:

Molten_salt_reactor had the very same goals, achieved between 1964-1969 in the Molten-Salt_Reactor_Experiment (see page for details and references, not to be repeated here) with U-233 (bred from Thorium). Actually a bit more were achieved than ITER's targets:: Molten_salt_reactor was shown to be operable even as small as 7 MW-thermal (significantly smaller than 500 MW-thermal ). Unfortunately - partly because MSR was confidential military technology back than - energy researchers today know almost nothing about Oak_Ridge_National_Laboratory's working safe/clean/cheap energy solution.

Clearly, in this form it is entirely unsuitable for use in the article, but I am determined to get to the bottom of the motives behind this user's actions. What, if anything, is the core of truth behind the above text? -RadicalOne---Contact Me 01:40, 30 December 2009 (UTC)

Near as I can tell, they're trying to push their favourite fission reactor design as a panacea that solves the problems ITER is nominally trying to solve regarding power generation. This subject is not appropriate for the ITER page, because the page is about ITER, not fusion power in general. The way it's presented is not appropriate for Wikipedia, because it's this IP's synthesis/interpretation (they'd have to instead find a reliable source stating that fission via this type of reactor is a more attractive/cleaner method of power generation than fusion, and cite that source). This is aside from all of the style problems in the text they're including ("see this other wikipedia article" is not a valid substitute for proper referencing).
As for the reactor itself, it was an early, experimental breeder reactor engineered for ease of operation. As a breeder, it has nearly-unlimited fuel (depends on how much thorium you assume you can mine before the cost of extraction becomes prohibitive). As a so-called "inherently safe" reactor, it doesn't have the ability to melt down (the reaction self-quenches/self-regulates instead; the SLOWPOKE reactor tried this too, and it's a workable approach). Unlike ITER, it would produce high-level waste in the form of fission products extracted from spent fuel, and would require reprocessing of spent fuel to extract unused material and newly-bred material for reuse. It's historically noteworthy and relevant as a breeder reactor design, but is not terribly relevant to articles about fusion power. --Christopher Thomas (talk) 02:08, 30 December 2009 (UTC)
So it is an antifusion rant. -RadicalOne---Contact Me 05:21, 30 December 2009 (UTC)
No, I wouldn't call it that. "Anti-fusion rant" implies an irrational hatred of fusion, whereas this person just feels that a better solution exists and that this should be noted in the article. I don't feel it needs this level of prominence, or should be in this particular article, but I agree that it's a relevant issue (perhaps deserving a short paragraph at fusion power listing published comparisons of fission and fusion for power generation). This person's edits seem to be in good faith; their problem isn't the material they're trying to include, so much as the fact that they've ignored all of the requests to discuss it on the talk page instead of repeatedly re-inserting it in this article. --Christopher Thomas (talk) 06:07, 30 December 2009 (UTC)
Just a though: I suspect the editor strives for recognition of the old research in this direction, kind of usual remark on that "this was done before" (especially if the editor was personally involved in that past research); I'm not sure they fully understand (or wish to discuss) the drawbacks of the past fusion approaches. Materialscientist (talk) 06:17, 30 December 2009 (UTC)

National Receipt of Industrial Contracts

The following sentence should be removed as it is misleading:

As for the industrial contribution, China, India, Korea, Russia, and the U.S. will contribute 1/11th each, Japan 2/11th, and EU 4/11th.

The participants are receiving the stated shares of industrial contracts, as is made clear by the cited reference. As written it appears that ITER is partly funded by industry. The sentences which follow correctly convey the proportion of industrial contracts:

Although Japan's financial contribution as a non-hosting member is 1/11th of the total, the EU agreed to grant it a special status so that Japan will provide for 2/11th of the research staff at Cadarache and be awarded 2/11th of the construction contracts, while the European Union's staff and construction components contributions will be cut from 5/11th to 4/11th.

The article might also acknowledge that Japan received this additional perk as a compromise for not being allowed to host the cite. —Preceding unsigned comment added by Heuristo (talk • contribs) 20:38, 3 January 2010 (UTC)

Photo Scale

The model, I think it would be of some use if we knew what scale it is.Cs302b (talk) 09:36, 17 February 2010 (UTC)

I agree that scale on the photo (and more dimension information in general) would be useful. However, the text gives a rough idea already: it says the reactor assembly is 11.3 metres high, and the model looks like it's about 30 cm high. So, it's somewhere in the range of 1:35 to 1:40, I think. --Christopher Thomas (talk) 18:41, 17 February 2010 (UTC)

reads like an advertisement

As a lay reader who has no particular stake either in the environmentalist or pro-nuclear camp I must say I still feel that this article reads a bit like an advertisement for ITER, especially the early sections stating its benefits, and the response to criticism section. Few articles I've seen on Wikipedia have such a section, and I'm sure a response to the response could be written, and so forth, all the way down... 69.116.203.143 (talk) 14:59, 15 September 2010 (UTC) R.E.D.

"Response to criticism" sections are actually pretty common on articles where there are significant political issues surrounding the subject. I agree that the article could stand to be edited for tone, but I'm not in a position to do it at present. --Christopher Thomas (talk) 17:38, 15 September 2010 (UTC)

something that has not been achieved with previous fusion reactors.

This statement (subject headline) is not true. The first tokamak experiment to achieve positive energy generation occurred in 1994. Suggest research all the worlds tokamak's or similar. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 96.29.180.163 (talk) 16:26, 12 February 2012 (UTC)

Numbers not adding up

"The EU, as host party for the ITER complex, is contributing 45% of the cost, with the other six parties contributing 9% each."

45 + (9 x 6) = 99.

Presumably this is a rounding error... what's WP policy on this? Is the largest figure rounding up, approximation lines (~) added, or do we simply leave the sentence as it is? — Preceding unsigned comment added by 109.154.60.112 (talk) 19:41, 22 February 2012 (UTC)

The EU provides 45.5% with the other 6 parties providing just under 9.1% each — Preceding unsigned comment added by 109.175.189.44 (talk) 12:57, 3 March 2012 (UTC)

Yes, it's a rounding error. And in terms of significant figures, it's not an error at all, just an apparent error. The phrase rounding error in these cases is perhaps a misnomer likely to mislead, but it's the standard technical term.

So the figures are accurate. Andrewa (talk) 08:10, 8 September 2012 (UTC)

15 billion euro

"the total price of constructing the experiment is expected to be in excess of € 15 billion"

I think there is ambiguity about meaning of term "billion". Is it mean 15E9 (15 000 000 000) or 15E12 (15 000 000 000 000) ? --Zomby5178 (talk) 21:31, 17 October 2012 (UTC)

15E9. The short-scale billion is the one most commonly used on Wikipedia. The long-scale billion is usually referred to as "trillion" here. Michaelmas1957 (talk) 23:38, 17 October 2012 (UTC)

Name Change

From the article: "ITER was originally an acronym for International Thermonuclear Experimental Reactor, but that title was eventually dropped due to the negative popular connotations of the word "thermonuclear", especially when used in conjunction with "experimental"." Anyone know where this gem comes from? I want to use it in a talk, but I need a source. Thanks a bunch! -Jack (15:43 UTC, 27 November 2012) — Preceding unsigned comment added by 2001:630:12:10CE:FCCC:9B6C:F9C4:281F (talk) 15:43, 27 November 2012 (UTC)

Positive Energy Output

In the second paragraph, it states that "The machine is expected 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. " From what I understand, this isn't true any longer. On October 7 2013, the National Ignition Facility, or NIF successfully achieved this milestone. I didn't change the article because I am not an expert in nuclear physics and may have this wrong. Can anyone clarify? -Fogelmatrix (talk) 22:48, 6 March 2014 (UTC)

The NIF generated more energy than was *delivered into the fuel*. But that doesn't take into account various other things like:
1) The lasers that delivered that energy to the fuel pellets in the NIF experiment used about 50 times more energy than was delivered into the pellets. Only about 1 to 3 percent of the energy that went into powering the inefficient lasers made it into the pellets.
2) Not all of the energy derived from the fusion process can be captured and converted into a useful form. At present, only about 35-40% of the energy released by any given thermal power plant (using any power source like coal, uranium, etc) can be converted into a useable form. The rest is wasted.
3) It takes a great deal of energy to create the highly refined fuel pellets that the NIF experiment needed.
Now those things all apply ITER as well (more or less). ITER is none-the-less expected to generate more useable energy (slightly) than the total amount that goes into making the fuel, heating the fuel, maintaining the fuel at the necessary temperatures and pressures, and then converting that energy into useable power. If ITER can be made to work, that will be its big breakthrough. DEMO (the plant after ITER) will take the breakthroughs ITER makes and refine them, while also applying them to on a larger scale. If successful, it would be the first commercially viable fusion plant. — Gopher65talk 00:54, 7 March 2014 (UTC)

Meltdowns, better or worse?

So if the plant meltdown, would it be any worse than if todays typical reactor melted down?

-G — Preceding unsigned comment added by 70.52.133.32 (talk) 11:22, 22 June 2013 (UTC)

ITER can't melt down, so better. Firstly, nuclear fusion is such a difficult thing to achieve that the slightest disturbance and it stops immediately. Secondly, nuclear fusion reactors have gaseous fuel injected into them, while fission reactors have solid fuel loaded into them; thus fission reactors have to be stopped, unloaded of spent fuel, reloaded with several month's worth of new fuel, and closed back again; fusion reactors are only loaded with enough gaseous fuel for the next few seconds of burn.TheAMmollusc (talk) 07:44, 24 June 2013 (UTC) (I should have added, I say this here, in case this text is useful to a more qualified editor than I to integrate something like this explanation into the main article.) TheAMmollusc (talk) 07:56, 24 June 2013 (UTC)
A "melt down" refers to when the core of a fission power plant is insufficiently cooled (for several possible reasons), which causes the fuel rods to melt and breach their containment vessel. It doesn't necessarily mean that radioactive material is released into the environment, nor does it mean that a nuclear power plant explodes, al la The Simpsons. Not how that works:P.
That said, I'll assume that you're talking about a worst case (or at least bad case) scenario release of radioactive material into the local environment, like at Chernobyl. As TheAMmollusc mentioned above, a fission plant contains months or years of fuel at a time. That means that when something goes wrong, it can go very wrong, and it can go very wrong for a very long time(as we've all seen with Fukushima). With a fusion power plant only a very small amount of fuel is in the reactor at any given time, so even the worst case scenario (the plant blows up like on The Simpsons) would release only a tiny amount of dangerous material into the environment. The danger from such a release is almost below significance. — Gopher65talk 01:32, 7 March 2014 (UTC)

Other meanings of Iter

In addition to the acronym ITER, 'iter' is the Latin word for road or journey. 'Iter' is the title of a poem by Julius Caesar. The names of various main roads in the Roman Empire were prefaced with 'Iter' as in 'Iter Francorum'.Penelope Gordon (talk) 19:31, 22 June 2014 (UTC)

KSTAR

Should KSTAR be mentioned somewhere under "Similar projects"? 86.136.150.143 (talk) 02:14, 23 January 2015 (UTC)

Posssible Gains? Always 20 years away

Absolutely worth reading. E.g.:

"The scientists at PPPL are promising a billion-watt demonstration fusion power plant in the 2030s (20 years away!), without using any data from ITER. Since the whole point of ITER is to assist in the design of a demonstration fusion power plant, the implication seems to be that the $20-billion project is pretty much superfluous. (Without any sense of cognitive dissonance, even ITER's website suggests that scientists will complete the design of a demonstration power plant in 2017, two years before ITER gets plugged in, at the same time they emphasize how crucial ITER is to the prospect of a future fusion power plant"


1) K-Demo is two stage the one built in 2030 will be a test bed for components first then it will be upgraded (after iter test have been completed and will defiantly be using data from that considering the wider range of its experiments) to the billion watt power plant. Design will probably be around based on iter (so as not to reinvent the wheel) but with alterations to allow for the upgrades so most of the design work is done. (NB a few countries with a link to iter are building research reactors with capabilities to be upgraded to a DIY power plant should the iter get to the Q=10 mark)
2) seem to have got iter demo concept design (e.g. roughly how big, list of materials we might want to use, should it be 500 or 600MW etc) with final design (e.g. this is how we going to build it) final design is roughly 2030 after iter has been running for 10 years.
article seems to have a negative angle to it (maybe told to 'slate' fusion?) could put it in criticism but to easy to take apart for the main article. Been seeing more negative articles appear of late appears to be a trend but so far nothing that contains real show stoppers for fusion. Might be iters current (2012-2016) transition from foundations to functional buildings is convincing people its a real project and people want to say that they don't like it — Preceding unsigned comment added by 86.137.46.161 (talk) 00:46, 10 January 2013 (UTC)
Indeed. The climate change guys aren't the only ones to suffer from 'Denier' propaganda. It is also worth noting that $15 billion is quite a small amount by the standards of the world energy markets. Currently the annual global expenditure on renewables alone is around 30 times that amount (Guardian) and projected to rise to double or treble that by 2020. Then, you have the fossil fuel subsidies. At $15bn if we want to avoid serious climate change then we cannot afford NOT to investigate all fusion approaches, and we should do so as soon as possible. --Anteaus (talk) 23:17, 20 March 2015 (UTC)

Economics of electric energy production have changed

Amory Lovins makes a point in a recent article http://www.forbes.com/sites/amorylovins/2015/01/16/even-if-lockheed-has-made-a-breakthrough-in-fusion-power-the-hard-part-will-be-the-economics/ which seems very clear to me and cuts short any argument on the desirability of nuclear fusion The key point is as follows: The competitors to beat are, in order of increasing market price today, end-use efficiency at 1–3¢/kWh delivered (or less); windpower at under 4¢/kWh unsubsidized; solar power at under 7¢/kWh unsubsidized (or under 8¢/kWh delivered); and cogeneration at roughly 2–5¢/kWh delivered, net of credit for its recovered and reused heat. (“Delivered” is an important advantage because delivering the average kWh from a central power station to retail meters adds costs and losses averaging around 4.3¢/kWh.) It is really hard to imagine that any new kind of generating technology based on a steam cycle could beat these empirical prices. Any source of neutrons would have to be better than free to beat these KWh prices. Plus an extra large generator, as a magnetic fusion plant would be, makes it undesirable because of reliabilities issues. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 79.7.3.9 (talk) 16:02, 31 March 2015 (UTC)

Remote handling

Not quite sure where to raise this, but here seems as good a place as any, as will seem clear below. This is partly a note to myself but feel free to join in of course.

We have no article on remote handling (RH to its friends), much to my surprise. A quick Google search [2] gave me over 8 million ghits, and the first page all looked relevant, and a search within Wikipedia for articles that might link to it [3] gave about 20 articles that could just be Wikified for an immediate incoming link. A look at what already links [4] gave four articles (including this one, ITER) already redlinked, plus a few user and/or talk pages.

So it seems a good subject, and relevant to understanding ITER and IFMIF, both of which like JET will need significant remote handling facilities. RH is also a major component of all existing nuclear facilities of course.

From my first page of ghits:

  • https://www.iter.org/mach/remotehandling Remote handling will have an important role to play in the ITER Tokamak. When operation begins, it will be impossible to make changes, conduct inspections, or repair any of the Tokamak components in the activated areas other than by remote handling.
  • http://www.ipfn.ist.utl.pt/rh/ IST has been working in ITER Remote Handling (RH) related projects since 1996. Since 2013, IST is also participating in the development of the design concept and perform prototype testing of ex-vessel transfer casks and servo manipulators in DEMO, under the EUROfusion consortium.

From that last site:

Watch this space. Andrewa (talk) 22:08, 10 April 2015 (UTC)

I've created the Remote handling page, but just as a redirect to Telerobotics which covers this topic Adlhancock (talk) 09:53, 27 May 2015 (UTC)

Hmmm. Unless RH is significantly different than telerobotics, I'd start by creating a new section in the telerobotics article with as many good sources as you can find. From there, it might be expanded to get its own article (as well as a summary section in telerobotics that links to the main article) if enough people think it is worth doing (and they might... or not). I don't know anything about the topic myself though. — Gopher65talk 02:50, 28 May 2015 (UTC)

Conflicting information on total project cost

The introduction section states the cost has risen to US$16 billion. The first section, Background, states that the cost has risen to €16billion.

Which one should I believe?

197.36.113.117 (talk) 14:24, 4 June 2015 (UTC) BeemerGuy

Last estimate from the people at ITER was 13 billion Euros. That's less than 16 billion dollars now, but it probably wasn't when the conversion was done in the article. — Gopher65talk 03:21, 5 June 2015 (UTC)
Also, one source was an older version (2014) of the ITER website, and the other was an even older (2010) BBC figure. I took the newest version from their website and used that instead. The cost is still a bit variable, so we'll see what happens over time. — Gopher65talk 03:33, 5 June 2015 (UTC)

Plasma parameters

Plasma parameters are hard to find - no infobox or conceptual design section. What Major/minor diameter, what field at core of plasma, what beta (ratio of magnetic to plasma pressure) ? (Will try to find and add one day) - Rod57 (talk) 20:36, 5 December 2015 (UTC)
ITER is intended to operate in H-mode (eg. [5]) - would be nice to say if this was decided in the ITER Conceptual design phase. - Rod57 (talk) 12:56, 6 December 2015 (UTC)

Is it already obsolete

Article seems to say that the conceptual design was done by mid 1981 - eg well before results from Spherical tokamak MAST - Which of the discoveries since it was originally designed have been taken into account and which ignored ? - Rod57 (talk) 02:58, 24 January 2015 (UTC)

Highly unlikely, I can't see over a dozen countries signing on to this plan if the tech were so - I also can't see multiple in-depth journalistic pieces being written about the project and not turning up that particular issue. If you can turn up a reputable source pointing this out then we can revisit, but until then I'm wary of taking up armchair nuclear physics. Jacotto (talk) 02:34, 9 March 2015 (UTC)
Well, the conceptual design for DEMO is already done, but the finalized design won't be completed until the results from ITER have been analyzed. Changes to the design will be make after ITER has finished its run. It was the same when ITER was being designed as well. Generalized conceptual designs for Tokamak reactors have been around for a very long time. — Gopher65talk 02:19, 21 March 2015 (UTC)
I don't think they think the conceptual design for DEMO is done - the euro-fusion website says that would include eg the selection of blanket fluid and diverter materials, and probably selection of plasma parameters. - Rod57 (talk) 03:55, 6 December 2015 (UTC)

My mistake : '1981' in timeline refers to the conceptual design by INTOR re an EPR (not ITER). Timeline of nuclear fusion (and A Design for ITER) says ITER Conceptual Design Activity starts 1988, ends 1990, and Engineering Design Activity starts 1992 and ends in 2001. - MAST results ~ 1997 - years after ITER conceptual design complete and presumably accepted/approved. - Rod57 (talk) 19:38, 8 December 2015 (UTC)

Possible influence of recent JET results

New JET results tick all the boxes for ITER. Oct 2012 says "From the first test in August 2011, the beryllium and tungsten lining enabled more reliable plasmas to be produced. ... the amount of fuel being retained in the wall is at least ten times less than in the previous, carbon-based, configuration. The results achieved may lead ITER to drop plans for an initial phase of operation with carbon and adopt a beryllium-tungsten wall from the outset, bringing a significant saving in time and cost for the project." Undated [JET: Research suggests it will. - Rod57 (talk) 14:03, 11 December 2015 (UTC)

Grid connection and power requirements.

(replaced) [6] says of 400 KV grid connection : " up to 620 MW for peak periods of 30 seconds during plasma operation" ... "A second pulsed power system will be used during plasma operation to provide the superconducting magnet coils and the heating and current drive systems with the large amount of power that they need." Sounds like grid will provide up to 620MW - not clear how much the pulsed power system will provide. - Rod57 (talk) 08:32, 15 December 2015 (UTC)

Was tokamak assembly started in 2015

@Kiwi128: Timeline says so with a ref but the ref itself does not seem to identify any part of the tokamak that has yet been assembled on site. It is not clear if any of the cryostat or coils are in-situ on site, or if any delivered components have been joined ("assembled"). - Rod57 (talk) 00:40, 25 January 2016 (UTC)

Suggested improvement: Clarify the role of Japan

The article says:

Although Japan's financial contribution as a non-hosting member is one-eleventh of the total, the EU agreed to grant it a special status so that Japan will provide for two-elevenths of the research staff at Cadarache and be awarded two-elevenths of the construction contracts, while the European Union's staff and construction components contributions will be cut from five-elevenths to four-elevenths.

Nothing in the article explicitly states why it is that Japan is getting more for contributing the same as the other parties. I think I can read between the lines later in the article:

Japan is pursuing its own research program with several operational facilities that are exploring several fusion paths.

That the reason is probably that Japan has a lot of fusion know-how that the other parties wanted access to, but this needs to be explicitly clarified. --Ævar Arnfjörð Bjarmason 16:46, 25 October 2015 (UTC)

The reason why Japan is getting special consideration is that Japan was the perfect site for ITER. It was probably going to win the competition. Right near the end, when Japan was expected to win, France threw a giant hissy-fit and said that they were going to derail the entire project if ITER wasn't built in France. This is a common political maneuver by the French government. They've used it before and they'll use it again in the future. Anyway, with France holding decades of work hostage in order to get a project that they didn't have the knowledge and expertise to run (this issue very nearly killed ITER a few years ago until international partners took over the management of the project), eventually everyone else just relented. Japan was pissed off though. So now *they* "pulled a France" (so to speak) and threatened to kill the project unless it was built in Japan as had originally been planned. The various international partners compromised, and agreed that the EU would give up part of its share of the industrial contracts and scientific prestige to Japan in order to keep their participation and fusion expertise within the project. The whole thing was a giant shitshow because France can't stand anyone building a large international project unless it's on their soil. — Gopher65talk 12:59, 7 December 2015 (UTC)
Fascinating - do you have sources for that ? - Rod57 (talk) 21:43, 7 December 2015 (UTC)
There were originally four contenders for the site to build ITER: in Canada, Spain, France and Japan. Canada withdrew, the EU/Euratom compromised to France above Spain. After that arose a stalemate between Cadarache and the site in Japan. This has been solved by offering some privileges to Japan and the commitment to build DEMO, the intended successor of ITER, in Japan. Otto (talk) 16:07, 7 December 2015 (UTC)
Do you have a source for the DEMO site commitment ? Is it explicit in the Feb 2005 "Broader Approach" ? - Rod57 (talk) 14:14, 8 December 2015 (UTC)
It is implied by the last line of The roles of the Host and the non-Host for the ITER Project. June 2005 - Rod57 (talk) 01:19, 16 February 2016 (UTC)

Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just added archive links to one external link on ITER. Please take a moment to review my edit. If necessary, add {{cbignore}} after the link to keep me from modifying it. Alternatively, you can add {{nobots|deny=InternetArchiveBot}} to keep me off the page altogether. I made the following changes:

When you have finished reviewing my changes, please set the checked parameter below to true or failed to let others know (documentation at {{Sourcecheck}}).

This message was posted before February 2018. After February 2018, "External links modified" talk page sections are no longer generated or monitored by InternetArchiveBot. No special action is required regarding these talk page notices, other than regular verification using the archive tool instructions below. Editors have permission to delete these "External links modified" talk page sections if they want to de-clutter talk pages, but see the RfC before doing mass systematic removals. This message is updated dynamically through the template {{source check}} (last update: 5 June 2024).

  • If you have discovered URLs which were erroneously considered dead by the bot, you can report them with this tool.
  • If you found an error with any archives or the URLs themselves, you can fix them with this tool.

Cheers.—cyberbot IITalk to my owner:Online 04:24, 28 February 2016 (UTC)

Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just modified 7 external links on ITER. Please take a moment to review my edit. If you have any questions, or need the bot to ignore the links, or the page altogether, please visit this simple FaQ for additional information. I made the following changes:

When you have finished reviewing my changes, please set the checked parameter below to true or failed to let others know (documentation at {{Sourcecheck}}).

This message was posted before February 2018. After February 2018, "External links modified" talk page sections are no longer generated or monitored by InternetArchiveBot. No special action is required regarding these talk page notices, other than regular verification using the archive tool instructions below. Editors have permission to delete these "External links modified" talk page sections if they want to de-clutter talk pages, but see the RfC before doing mass systematic removals. This message is updated dynamically through the template {{source check}} (last update: 5 June 2024).

  • If you have discovered URLs which were erroneously considered dead by the bot, you can report them with this tool.
  • If you found an error with any archives or the URLs themselves, you can fix them with this tool.

Cheers.—InternetArchiveBot (Report bug) 01:24, 9 November 2016 (UTC)

Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just modified one external link on ITER. Please take a moment to review my edit. If you have any questions, or need the bot to ignore the links, or the page altogether, please visit this simple FaQ for additional information. I made the following changes:

When you have finished reviewing my changes, you may follow the instructions on the template below to fix any issues with the URLs.

This message was posted before February 2018. After February 2018, "External links modified" talk page sections are no longer generated or monitored by InternetArchiveBot. No special action is required regarding these talk page notices, other than regular verification using the archive tool instructions below. Editors have permission to delete these "External links modified" talk page sections if they want to de-clutter talk pages, but see the RfC before doing mass systematic removals. This message is updated dynamically through the template {{source check}} (last update: 5 June 2024).

  • If you have discovered URLs which were erroneously considered dead by the bot, you can report them with this tool.
  • If you found an error with any archives or the URLs themselves, you can fix them with this tool.

Cheers.—InternetArchiveBot (Report bug) 03:19, 8 April 2017 (UTC)

Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just modified 3 external links on ITER. Please take a moment to review my edit. If you have any questions, or need the bot to ignore the links, or the page altogether, please visit this simple FaQ for additional information. I made the following changes:

When you have finished reviewing my changes, you may follow the instructions on the template below to fix any issues with the URLs.

This message was posted before February 2018. After February 2018, "External links modified" talk page sections are no longer generated or monitored by InternetArchiveBot. No special action is required regarding these talk page notices, other than regular verification using the archive tool instructions below. Editors have permission to delete these "External links modified" talk page sections if they want to de-clutter talk pages, but see the RfC before doing mass systematic removals. This message is updated dynamically through the template {{source check}} (last update: 5 June 2024).

  • If you have discovered URLs which were erroneously considered dead by the bot, you can report them with this tool.
  • If you found an error with any archives or the URLs themselves, you can fix them with this tool.

Cheers.—InternetArchiveBot (Report bug) 13:36, 3 September 2017 (UTC)

Timeline section

The timeline section has 2 overlaping parts. One is in list-form and the other one is in table-form. It is unclear if the table is the projected timeline or the actual timeline, or if they are complementary. Will work on that today, so I will appreciate any feedback/corrections. BatteryIncluded (talk) 15:28, 30 September 2017 (UTC)

Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just modified one external link on ITER. Please take a moment to review my edit. If you have any questions, or need the bot to ignore the links, or the page altogether, please visit this simple FaQ for additional information. I made the following changes:

When you have finished reviewing my changes, you may follow the instructions on the template below to fix any issues with the URLs.

This message was posted before February 2018. After February 2018, "External links modified" talk page sections are no longer generated or monitored by InternetArchiveBot. No special action is required regarding these talk page notices, other than regular verification using the archive tool instructions below. Editors have permission to delete these "External links modified" talk page sections if they want to de-clutter talk pages, but see the RfC before doing mass systematic removals. This message is updated dynamically through the template {{source check}} (last update: 5 June 2024).

  • If you have discovered URLs which were erroneously considered dead by the bot, you can report them with this tool.
  • If you found an error with any archives or the URLs themselves, you can fix them with this tool.

Cheers.—InternetArchiveBot (Report bug) 11:42, 10 November 2017 (UTC)

Delay anounced

Delay announced: [7]. Cheers, BatteryIncluded (talk) 00:24, 6 May 2016 (UTC)

but no data on cost due to delay, or cost per megawatt produced compared to other sources?Juror1 (talk) 17:25, 21 November 2017 (UTC)

Proposed Edit to Paragraph Two

The ITER fusion reactor has been designed to produce a fusion plasma equivalent to 500 megawatts of thermal output power for around twenty minutes while 50 megawatts of thermal power are injected into the tokamak, resulting in a ten-fold gain of plasma heating power.[8] Thereby the machine aims to demonstrate the principle of producing more thermal power from the fusion process than is used to heat the plasma, something that has not yet been achieved in any fusion reactor. Total electricity consumed by the reactor and facilities during peak periods of plasma operation will be as much as 620 MW. [9] The reactor is only designed to produce a fusion plasma, and the emitted heat from the fusion reaction will be vented to the atmosphere. The heat will not be captured and converted to electricity.
StevenBKrivit (talk) 00:14, 22 November 2017 (UTC)
I think we should not mention the net zero energy, since ITER is not going to produce any energy, thus it is misleading. --Ita140188 (talk) 23:47, 23 November 2017 (UTC)
Seems like a smart idea, thank you. I have thus stricken that sentence.
StevenBKrivit (talk) 01:16, 24 November 2017 (UTC)
Revised sentence about total electrical consumption. Added sentence about heat versus electricity production.
StevenBKrivit (talk) 04:58, 25 November 2017 (UTC)

@StevenBKrivit: here is my version with modifications:

The ITER fusion reactor has been designed to produce a fusion plasma equivalent to 500 megawatts of thermal output power for around twenty minutes while 50 megawatts of thermal power are injected into the tokamak, resulting in a ten-fold gain of plasma heating power.[1] Thereby the machine aims to demonstrate the principle of producing more thermal power from the fusion process than is used to heat the plasma, something that has not yet been achieved in any fusion reactor. The total electricity consumed by the reactor and facilities during peak periods of plasma operation will be as much as 620 MW.[2] The reactor is only designed to produce a fusion plasma, and the emitted heat from the fusion reaction will be vented to the atmosphere without generating electricity. ITER's planned successor, DEMO is expected to be the first fusion reactor to produce electricity in an experimental environment. DEMO's anticipated success is expected to lead to full-scale electricity-producing fusion power stations and future commercial reactors.

--Ita140188 (talk) 05:29, 25 November 2017 (UTC)

Ok, looks great. I was just about to drop it in, but I noticed that the existing first sentence (how did I miss that before?) does not make sense now. It says "The ITER project aims to make the long-awaited transition from experimental studies of plasma physics to full-scale electricity-producing fusion power stations." I don't get this at all. It looks like public relations jargon. Please advise.
StevenBKrivit (talk) 05:55, 25 November 2017 (UTC)
I think the sense there is that ITER is a testing ground for future technologies that will be used in fusion power plants, as opposed to plasma research reactors. In this sense, ITER can be seen as a stepping stone towards DEMO and future commercial reactors. --Ita140188 (talk) 06:59, 25 November 2017 (UTC)
Thanks for the clarification. Please review the new final two sentences.
StevenBKrivit (talk) 17:15, 25 November 2017 (UTC)

I'm copying the latest proposed revision to the bottom of this thread so it is easier for other people to see it.

The ITER fusion reactor has been designed to produce a fusion plasma equivalent to 500 megawatts of thermal output power for around twenty minutes while 50 megawatts of thermal power are injected into the tokamak, resulting in a ten-fold gain of plasma heating power.[3] Thereby the machine aims to demonstrate the principle of producing more thermal power from the fusion process than is used to heat the plasma, something that has not yet been achieved in any fusion reactor. The total electricity consumed by the reactor and facilities during peak periods of plasma operation will be as much as 620 MW.[4] The reactor is only designed to produce a fusion plasma, and the emitted heat from the fusion reaction will be vented to the atmosphere without generating electricity. ITER's planned successor, DEMO is expected to be the first fusion reactor to produce electricity in an experimental environment. DEMO's anticipated success is expected to lead to full-scale electricity-producing fusion power stations and future commercial reactors.

StevenBKrivit (talk) 17:20, 25 November 2017 (UTC)

Good for me. --Ita140188 (talk) 04:20, 26 November 2017 (UTC)

References

  1. ^ "Facts & Figures". ITER. Retrieved 25 November 2017.
  2. ^ "Power Supply". ITER. Retrieved 25 November 2017.
  3. ^ "Facts & Figures". ITER. Retrieved 25 November 2017.
  4. ^ "Power Supply". ITER. Retrieved 25 November 2017.

"while needing 50 megawatts to operate"

Not true.

  • 50 MW is only the value of the thermal power going in to heat the plasma. See second image on ITER home page, recently updated to clarify this point "50 MW of input heating power." (https://www.iter.org)
  • See the "Facts and Figures" page, recently updated to clarify that the 50 MW is the "power injected into the Tokamak via the systems that heat the plasma." (https://www.iter.org/factsfigures)
  • ITER power supply page explains that "Electricity requirements for the ITER plant and facilities will range from 110 MW to up to 620 MW for peak periods of 30 seconds during plasma operation." (https://www.iter.org/mach/powersupply)
  • Full reactor input power requirement is 300 MW (minimum). (Sources: Hartmut Zohm, head of the Tokamak Scenario Development Division at the Max-Planck-Institute of Plasma Physics, Steven Cowley, former CEO of the United Kingdom Atomic Energy Authority, Daniel Jassby, a former principal research physicist at the Princeton Plasma Physics Laboratory as quoted in http://news.newenergytimes.net/2017/10/06/the-iter-power-amplification-myth

StevenBKrivit (talk) 07:06, 20 November 2017 (UTC)

ITER is not designed to produce any electricity, it is an experiment. Therefore it seems to be that the article linked is a bit biased, since it depicts ITER as essentially a scam. But anyway we should clarify these points. --Ita140188 (talk) 08:01, 20 November 2017 (UTC)
You apparently didn't read the article. The article has nothing to do with making electricity. It's about the consumption of electricity by the reactor. In this case, 300 MW of electricity is consumed by the reactor during peak plasma output rather than 50 MW. And the 50 MW was never in the form of electricity - that was only the thermal value of the injected heat.
Here's what's changed on the ITER Web site on the "Facts and Figures" page, which is designed for members of the news media. https://www.iter.org/factsfigures
Until last month, and for the last seven years according to the Wayback machine, the page said this: "The goal of the ITER fusion program is to produce a net gain of energy and set the stage for the demonstration fusion power plant to come. ITER has been designed to produce 500 MW of output power for 50 MW of input power—or ten times the amount of energy put in."
Now, it says "For 50 MW of power injected into the Tokamak via the systems that heat the plasma it will produce 500 MW of fusion power for periods of 400 to 600 seconds. This tenfold return is expressed by Q ≥ 10 (ratio of heating input power to thermal output power)."
StevenBKrivit (talk) 04:47, 21 November 2017 (UTC)
I did read the article. And I agree with you, we should make clear that ITER is not producing electricity and the 50/500 MW given are numbers valid in the specific context of plasma power amplification and are not the actual consumption/generation of the plant, which depends on the efficiency of the heating device and on many other auxiliary plant loads. --Ita140188 (talk) 23:50, 23 November 2017 (UTC)
Thank you. I would only urge caution about the word "plant." At least in American-English, the word can mean factory, or facility. IMO, a better phrase to represent all of the required power-consuming sub-systems would be "reactor system." I have thus added the word "system" to the last sentence of the proposed paragraph.
StevenBKrivit (talk) 03:06, 24 November 2017 (UTC)
There is nothing wrong with the word "plant" whatsoever. Yes, it might be used to mean "factory" - by a very few people. It has other more common meanings in engineering circles, and this indeed is a plant. Ships have them. Buildings have them. Clearly, the word does not denote a "factory". 98.194.39.86 (talk) 20:20, 8 March 2018 (UTC)
I too think that "plant" is an appropriate and correct term for this entry. Cheers, BatteryIncluded (talk) 00:57, 9 March 2018 (UTC)

ITER DESIGN

Hello Ita140188, I am trying to correct the statement "ITER is designed to "demonstrate the practicality of fusion energy" and the possibility of commercial scale nuclear fusion," which is false. Rather than revert my edits, do you have a better idea on how to do this? Thank you. StevenBKrivit (talk) 15:42, 20 August 2018 (UTC)

@StevenBKrivit: Your edit left an awkward sentence that I modified. Anyway, ITER is intended to demonstrate the feasibility of several key aspects of fusion energy for electricity production in the future. It is not intended as just a futile exercise, but as a step towards nuclear fusion commercialization. I think this should be mentioned in the lead in a way or another. There are numerous reliable sources that back this claim. You may disagree that it will work, but this is your opinion essentially. --Ita140188 (talk) 05:12, 21 August 2018 (UTC)
@Ita140188: Thank you for your help to improve this article. Please take care not to project your personal opinions about my personal opinions, right? :)
I think there is still more work to be done with this phrase "ITER is not intended to produce any electricity." The reason is because it leaves open the implication that, were thermal-electric conversion included in the design, ITER could produce sufficient power for net electrical production, which it won't. Therefore, I propose this change:
"Thermal-to-electric conversion is not included in the design because ITER will not produce sufficient power for net electrical production. The emitted heat from the fusion reaction will be vented to the atmosphere."
Is that fair, neutral and informative?
I also agree with you that the eventual goal of fusion reactors is the commercial production of electricity and that it should be mentioned in the lead. However, I think it is important to inform readers about this goal in context, not just as a public relations piece for the ITER project. The 2009 peer-reviewed paper (NOT the slides) by Dale Meade "50 Years of Fusion Research" is a useful and authoritative reference.
I propose adding this to the end of the lead paragraph:
"Fusion energy research began in the early 1950s with the hope that the research would eventually lead to commercial electricity-producing reactors. ITER will be the lastest and largest of the more than 100 fusion reactors that have been built so far. [1]
StevenBKrivit (talk) 17:11, 21 August 2018 (UTC)
@StevenBKrivit: thank you for your suggestions. I will try to include your sentences in the lead. --Ita140188 (talk) 01:56, 22 August 2018 (UTC)

References

  1. ^ http://iopscience.iop.org/article/10.1088/0029-5515/50/1/014004/meta
@Ita140188: I would like to find a way to disambiguate this sentence: "The final goal of ITER is to demonstrate the scientific and technological feasibility of fusion energy for electricity production." It's clunky and it presents a confusing association between ITER and electricity production. Furthermore I don't believe the direct association between ITER and electricity production is valid.
I draw your attention to page 6 (PDF page 16) of the ITER TECHNICAL BASIS (IAEA, 2002). That page discusses everything that ITER is designed to do. There are 19 bullet points. The only sentence that mentions electricity is bullet #5 which reads "[ITER should] Test tritium breeding module concepts that would lead in a future reactor to tritium self-sufficiency, the extraction of high grade heat, and electricity production."
I'd like to encourage you to draw from that document to more accurately depict the purpose of ITER. If we were to talk about a "final goal of ITER," it would most likely be bullet point #1. Thank you.
StevenBKrivit (talk) 02:42, 22 August 2018 (UTC)
I was paraphrasing this sentence from the document: "The overall programmatic goal of ITER is to demonstrate the scientific and technological feasibility of fusion energy for peaceful purposes." Maybe we can change the mention to electricity to avoid confusion and just mention peaceful use. This sentence is meant to describe the final purpose/aim of a project like ITER in the broader context, not its technical specifications or its direct purpose. --Ita140188 (talk) 02:53, 22 August 2018 (UTC)
I agree with the direction you are going. "Peaceful use" or "peaceful purposes" is good. It is broad and non-specific, as it was intended in the design plan.
StevenBKrivit (talk) 04:58, 22 August 2018 (UTC)

Australia

Article currently reads in part 

 In 2016 the ITER organization signed a technical cooperation agreement with the national nuclear fusion agency of Australia, enabling this country access to research results of ITER in exchange for construction of selected parts of the ITER machine.

This is referenced by https://www.iter.org/doc/www/content/com/Lists/list_items/Attachments/744/2016_ITER_Annual_Report.pdf which is a primary source.

I'm happy to assume that this claim is true, but the phrase national nuclear fusion agency of Australia is a bit strange. There is no body by that name AFAIK, but note the lack of capitalisation, it's a description not a name. Does it mean ANSTO, AINSE, or some other organisatipn? Whoever signed this agreement did so on behalf of an organisation with a name, and probably also a Wikipedia article to which we should link.

I've found a few other primary sources, and will peruse the (large) 2016 ITER Annual Report PDF.

For example, https://fusion.ainse.edu.au/ currently reads in part 

Cooperation Agreement between ITER and ANSTO
For the first time in its history, the ITER Organization has established a formal path to technical collaboration with a non-Member state: Australia. On Friday 30 September 2016, the ITER Organization signed a Cooperation Agreement with the Australian Nuclear Science and Technology Organisation (ANSTO), a national research organization representing the Australian nuclear fusion community for the purposes of the Agreement.

which seems on the money... still a primary source (AINSE is close to ANSTO) but it at least identifies the organisation concerned.

Other interesting links:

but no secondary sources yet. Andrewa (talk) 04:11, 21 February 2019 (UTC)

A framework is now in place for technical cooperation in areas of mutual interest and benefit.

Source

Hi, A useful critics by a nuclear scientist: [10]. Yann (talk) 05:26, 14 May 2019 (UTC)

Hi. Correct representation of the author is former nuclear scientist retired 20 years ago. Correct representation of the source is anti-nuclear propaganda non-profit organization. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 188.35.131.139 (talk) 21:58, 13 June 2019 (UTC)

Tons of sources

https://f4e.europa.eu/understandingfusion/merits.aspx

https://www.newscientist.com/round-up/iter-benign-limitless-energy/

https://www.researchgate.net/publication/245220361_Energy_analysis_and_carbon_dioxide_emission_of_Tokamak_fusion_power_reactors

And much more. Now i'm waiting for an anser for mr NO people.95.246.196.32 (talk) 04:21, 16 June 2019 (UTC)

As already mentioned on your user talk page, you need to more carefully proofread your writing before submitting it, because the prose, so far, has been subpar. El_C 04:26, 16 June 2019 (UTC)
Please state your proposed edit and explain why you wish to make that edit (including, but not only providing references). – Lauritz Thomsen (talk) 04:28, 16 June 2019 (UTC)

Ok, correct me if there's something to change or to better, Thank you for your good will. Ref. are all good and reliable. The why is because in the references.95.246.196.32 (talk) 04:29, 16 June 2019 (UTC)

Look, I don't want to come across as unkind and this isn't to doubt your expertise in the field or your comprehension of the actual science, but: this is the English Wikipedia and we do require a certain level of competence with respect to mastering the English language. This does not mean you can't contribute, but if this isn't your native tongue (hey, it's not mine either, nor is it LauritzT's), you need to work twice as hard to contribute here. Really weigh every word, every sentence. Perhaps submit it here on the talk page first so it can be evaluated and further improved. Does that make sense? El_C 04:37, 16 June 2019 (UTC)
I will use english tanslator to be perfect. Anything else to add?95.246.196.32 (talk) 04:40, 16 June 2019 (UTC)
If you submit your change directly to the page, you may violate WP:3RR and it will seem like you are attempting to skirt consensus. Please propose your change here first. – Lauritz Thomsen (talk) 04:46, 16 June 2019 (UTC)
Do you mean machine translator? Because I don't think a non-human English translator can really do quality prose justice. If you have an actual person fluent in English that can help translate, then yes, that can work out fine. But if you don't, then again, you can submit your proposals on how to improve the article, here, on the article talk page first, then other editors can help with all of that. This is a collaborative project, after all. El_C 04:47, 16 June 2019 (UTC)

Edit you if you like. You know references. I've no time to waste with other guy that is looking only for war. Have a lovely day.95.246.196.32 (talk) 04:50, 16 June 2019 (UTC)

Achievements

Regardless of any criticism, not criticizing the project here, commenting the article. The article should show clearly what has been achieved so far, in terms of physics, engineering, project management, etc. Thanks. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 217.55.144.117 (talk) 08:48, 8 April 2020 (UTC)

Criticism and responses outdated and misleading

The criticism section needs to be updated to reflect the current status.

On the criticism section:

  1. IFMIF has never really been 'planned' (which I would interpret as someone taking the decision to build it) but various concepts have been proposed, partially designed and strongly supported by many organisations. It is recognised by experts in the field that it is a necessary facility but the costs, technical challenges and other factors have prevented anyone from taking the necessary funding decision. I think it should say 'proposed'.
  2. ADX still hasn't been supported (that I am aware) - perhaps this should be removed? There are many divertor experiments around the world so it seems strange to comment on this one unsuccessful proposal.
  3. The cost estimate should be updated and it needs a reference. It is a controversial topic and probably too complicated for one number. Some estimates (extrapolations based on individual country costs) have been reported as high as $65B (testimony by DOE US for Science http://doi.org/10.1063/PT.6.2.20180416a), although those are strongly disputed by IO and others.
  4. I don't think the polywell needs to be in the section. There are other alternatives that would like to have ITER funding - including ICF, small tokamaks, etc, but people complaining that they didn't get funding isn't really a criticism. It's complaining.
  5. The last two paragraphs are the really important ones and I think should go first. There are technical challenges with neutron damage, waste, tritium, etc., but the main criticism is a high-level one: is it going to help us meet strategic electricity generation objectives in the timescale that matters for current (and very important) objectives?

For the response section:

  1. The first sentence isn't based on a criticism that is made in the previous section - 'inherent danger' isn't meaningfully defined here and it isn't one of the main criticisms of ITER or MCF in general. The next sentences are specific advantages with respect to fission and would make sense if there was some discussion in the criticism section on the advantages of fission (primarily that it generates electricity!).
  2. Last sentence of the first paragraph is confusingly written and actually highlights a very significant issue - tritium handling. There is a lot of work on tritium handling but keep in mind JET had grams and it was a very complex ordeal! Kilograms is going to be a serious challenge! This isn't a response to criticism since there isn't a section really detailing these issues.
  3. Proponents note that large-scale fusion power would be able to produce reliable electricity on demand, and with virtually zero pollution (no gaseous CO2, SO2, or NOx by-products are produced). This is not a response to a criticism (nobody is claiming it makes CO2, say) and it is also confusing. Fusion is not proposed as a variable energy source on demand but baseload (or at least the mainstream proposals are).
  4. According to researchers at a demonstration reactor in Japan, a fusion generator should be feasible in the 2030s and no later than the 2050s. Japan is pursuing its own research program with several operational facilities that are exploring several fusion paths. Please remove. A 15 year old paper for a concept that is not being built is not evidence that a demonstration reactor (the one after ITER!) is going to be built in the 30s. ITER will not have tritium plasmas until the mid-2030s (based on the current plans).
  5. The US figures are really out of date and from different time periods. It is more confusing than useful and I think it really needs to be updated otherwise it is a negative to the overall page rather than a plus.
  6. ...which reduces the projected cost of electricity from such reactors by a factor of two to a value only about 50% more than the projected cost of electricity from advanced light-water reactors.[citation needed] Nobody has a realistic idea about what a commercial fusion reactor will cost. In extraordinarily conceptual studies you would hopefully find a better value than this! I've never done those analyses but I'm certain better results have been published (particularly if they are generated by labs that work on MCF and may be a little biased).
  7. Perhaps take some inspiration from IO: http://www.iter.org/faq#Is_it_worth_spending_billions_on_fusion_or_would_the_money_be_better_spent_in_improving_renewables_like_solar_wind_and_geothermal

Anyway, I would make some quick changes if there was agreement. Let me know if you disagree. I think I was respectful but apologies in advance if you disagree.

--Mikeflem (talk) 12:00, 1 July 2020 (UTC)

Mike, your general ideas seem cogent and well-supported. Your general expertise on these matters surpasses mine, so I can't offer you specific critique on your suggestions. My area of expertise is limited to power measurements and claims. I would suggest you draft your proposed changes and drop them here in the talk page. Wait a few days for response. If none, pop them into the main page.
StevenBKrivit (talk) 15:40, 1 July 2020 (UTC)
I agree with most observations from Mike and support the suggestion from Steven. Otto (talk) 20:41, 1 July 2020 (UTC)

ITER: The Giant Fusion Reactor: Bringing a Sun to Earth

There's a new book by Michel Claessens "ITER: The Giant Fusion Reactor: Bringing a Sun to Earth" that goes into great detail on some of the aspects of ITER mentioned above, including tritium handling. I have added some of the facts and clarifications to the article already, but if you're interested in the topic it's worth reading it (not only as source for Wikipedia). Now regarding the Q calculations as raised by @StevenBKrivit: here[11] I'm not an expert in this field so I have just paraphrased what Claessens wrote because I believe this distinction between "fusion" gain factor and "engineering" gain factor is quite important one. Happy to share quotes from the book if that helps.

By the way, the book also goes into some detail on tritium handling, safety and the licensing process for that part, as mentioned above by @Mikeflem: so I can also share excerpts on that subject. Cloud200 (talk) 06:45, 21 July 2020 (UTC)

Hello Cloud200, thanks for your response. Ok, yes, I know the citation well, it is page 164. You might have noticed that on page 165, Claessens also lists the value of 300 MW that he got from my investigation. I list my sources here: http://news.newenergytimes.net/iter-historical-resources/ I should point out to you that on page 4 of http://news.newenergytimes.net/2020/06/15/the-dark-side-of-iter I have reported that he has now concurred with the 300 MW value. Of course you can't cite my report, but you can cite the Jülich Research Centre and the Max Planck Institute for Plasma Physics on pages 30 and 31 of the Hearing on Nuclear Fusion before the Bundestag Committee for Education, Research and Technology Assessment, Berlin, 28 March 2001, available here: https://fire.pppl.gov/eu_bundestag_english.pdf
StevenBKrivit (talk) 14:47, 21 July 2020 (UTC)
Thanks Steven, I have just realized that my happy edit triggered a whole minefield, especially after reading this whole talk page since 2017! :) As you already reached a consensus about the "thermal power" paragraph which is very carefully worded, I don't think any additional citations from Claessens will add much here, although the details you have provided (and Claessens nicely paraphrased) might serve as a good case study for the article about Q factor itself. What do you think? Cloud200 (talk) 19:59, 21 July 2020 (UTC)
Welcome to the DMZ! I think that almost everyplace were people mention Q it should be shown as either Qfus or Qeng and not left to assumption. You know what happens when you assume, right? ;)
StevenBKrivit (talk) 20:53, 21 July 2020 (UTC)
But then neither Fusion energy gain factor nor this article does that :) Why not fix that then? Cloud200 (talk) 21:30, 21 July 2020 (UTC)
I tried once before and one person fought with me. He said "everybody knows what Q means." I did not wish to spend my time arguing with that person so I left it alone. But I will support you should you choose to seek this improvement.
StevenBKrivit (talk) 21:37, 21 July 2020 (UTC)

Removing LEDE Warning Template

I propose removing the warning template for a long LEDE.Johncdraper (talk) 08:02, 30 July 2020 (UTC)

Agree. I will remove it. --Ita140188 (talk) 09:25, 30 July 2020 (UTC)

seeming error in "Background" section

First paragraph: "1 gram of deuterium-tritium mixture in the process of nuclear fusion produces an amount of energy equivalent to burning 80,000 tonnes of oil.[3]"

I think that should be 8 tonnes of oil, not 80,000 tonnes.

Reasoning: A deuterium/tritium pair should have a combined atomic mass of roughly five.

Avogadro's number divided by five yields 1.2e+23 D-T pairs per gram.

One D-T fusion releases 17.6 MeV or 2.8 x 10e-12 joules [1]

1.2e+23 D-T pairs/gram x 2.8 x 10e-12 joules/pair = 33.6 x 10e+10 joules/gram.

One tonne oil equivalent is approx. 4.2 x 10e+10 joules, [2]

4.2 x 10e+10 joules (one tonne oil) is 1/8 of 33.6 x 10e+10 joules (one gram D-T fusion), so it takes eight tonnes oil equivalent to equal the energy from one gram of D-T fusion. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 96.8.177.156 (talk) 17:28, 30 July 2020 (UTC)

References

  1. ^ https://www.world-nuclear.org/information-library/current-and-future-generation/nuclear-fusion-power.aspx
  2. ^ https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Tonne_of_oil_equivalent

Members

Should the UK be listed as a separate member, as the UK has left the EU, but I believe will still participate as part of the EU–UK Trade and Cooperation Agreement? — Preceding unsigned comment added by 213.205.194.13 (talk) 19:00, 30 December 2020 (UTC)

I would urge caution about the designation of the UK. The seven partners, China, India, EU, Japan, S. Korea, Russia and the US have very specific agreements as Domestic Agencies. I believe that they are all considered equal partners, with equal rights, responsibilities and representations on the Iter Council. I highly doubt that the UK has attained that level, though it certainly has some kind of relationship now, as does Canada. But not partner.
04:05, 23 March 2021 (UTC) — Preceding unsigned comment added by StevenBKrivit (talk • contribs)
Good point. The UK seems to have a similar status as Switzerland. See [12] and [13]. The current article treats the UK like a completely independent member, but it's only part via Euratom. --mfb (talk) 07:24, 23 March 2021 (UTC)

Most Expensive Scientific Endeavor

"Consequently, ITER is considered the most expensive scientific endeavor in history."

A quick search shows the ISS cost around 150 billion.

Would that not make this wrong? is the ISS considered multiple endeavors? 69.60.67.247 (talk) 02:23, 23 March 2021 (UTC)

I changed it to "science experiment", the phrase used by the reference. The ISS is more expensive but it's not a single science experiment. --mfb (talk) 03:39, 23 March 2021 (UTC)
As someone who has written a peer-reviewed article about ITER, yes, the party line is that ITER is the world's largest and most expensive science experiment, whereas the ISS is, young Wikipedian, a fully armed and operational battle station. Mwahahahaha. Johncdraper (talk) 08:32, 26 March 2021 (UTC)
IceCube is far larger. --mfb (talk) 12:34, 26 March 2021 (UTC)

ITER acronym contradiction

There is a contradicting comment in the "fullname" field of "fusion devices" infobox stating that:

<!-- it is NOT International Thermonuclear Experimental Reactor; there is no full name for ITER -->

However, the article itself states twice that ITER stands for International Thermonuclear Experimental Reactor. There are also multiple sources supporting this: IEEE Spectrum, Forbes (note: source mentioned Thermal rather than Thermonuclear, however), and Scientific American.

Either the comment should be removed or the article should be edited. Due to the (albeit "unofficial") sources, the former should probably be correct... thoughts?

--JoeDai (talk) 04:27, 25 May 2021 (UTC)

Hi JoeDai, When the project was first conceived, designed, authorized and funded, it was known by its full and original name, International Thermonuclear Experimental Reactor. At some point in time, people responsible for the project, I don't know who or when, decided that the word "thermonuclear," even though it was the correct and accurate word, was politically disadvantageous. So they made a decision to just call it by its acronym. I do not know any paper trail on this decision. Only by coincidence, and absolutely not by design, does the acronym happen to be the Latin word for "the way." Now, can I prove that this is what happened and this is the explanation for the change? If I put some work into it, maybe. But I don't have the time. Perhaps Michel Claessens' book documents this marketing word shift. But when the Wikipedia editors who are enthusiastic about ITER engage in this topic, they express strongly that the project should only be called by its acronym, because that's what the officials do and what they want. They will say that ITER is no longer officially known by its full name. And they're right. But it doesn't take a rocket scientist to understand the spin and that the project is, in reality, an international thermonuclear experimental reactor. I guess what it boils down to is whether Wikipedia should lean towards explaining this nomenclature history or whether Wikipedia should lean toward forgetting the nomenclature history — and perhaps favoring the marketing strategy of the project's managers.
StevenBKrivit (talk) 20:18, 25 May 2021 (UTC)
Wikipedia does have a standard to use what Reliable Sources call something. For example, the same happened with MRI, which is actually resonating the spins in nucleons and therefore more properly and originally (and in chem labs) called Nuclear Magnetic Resonance, but that was deemed too scary for the public to subject themselves to in medical procedures, so it was renamed, and we in Wikipedia use the now accepted name, with a sentence in the lead explaining the change: "MRI was originally called NMRI (nuclear magnetic resonance imaging), but "nuclear" was dropped to avoid negative associations."
The guardian source in this article after the sentence: "The name ITER stands for International Thermonuclear Experimental Reactor, but the project also uses the Latin definition of the word iter, meaning "the way" or "the path". - talks about the name change, but not WHEN it was done. I'll change that sentence in the lead to clarify the name change. ---Avatar317(talk) 21:27, 25 May 2021 (UTC)
Excellent info and analogy to MRI. Thank you for your help to resolve this.
StevenBKrivit (talk) 23:38, 25 May 2021 (UTC)

Incorrect Tritium Statements and Other Promotional Language

Two sections in the article currently create a misleading impression about ITER and tritium breeding. I'm thinking that the bulk of Wikipedia readers would appreciate a straightforward and transparent explanation about the tritium topic. There are also other components in these sections that read more like marketing hyperbole and I question their appropriateness in Wikipedia.

SECTION #1
EXISTING: The purpose of ITER is to demonstrate the scientific and technological feasibility of safe, clean, and unlimited fusion energy for peaceful use.[4][3] It will also test new technologies such as tritium breeding in a real fusion environment[5] and its results are intended to bolster the global nuclear fusion industry.

PROPOSED:

According to the final report of the ITER Engineering Design Activities, the overall programmatic objective of ITER is to demonstrate the scientific and technological feasibility of fusion energy for peaceful purposes." (https://www-pub.iaea.org/MTCD/Publications/PDF/ITER-EDA-DS-21.pdf) ITER is not designed to breed the tritium it will require and will need to rely on tritium produced in nuclear fission reactors, primarily the heavy-water CANDU reactors in Canada, for its deuterium-tritium operation.

DISCUSSION
SENTENCE #1: "The purpose of ITER is to demonstrate the scientific and technological feasibility of safe, clean, and unlimited fusion energy."
Comment: My intention with the proposed replacement is to help Wikipedia appear more objective and appear less like a tool for marketing hyperbole. I think any of these words "safe, clean, and unlimited" — as directly associated with ITER could be challenged — although they are certainly associated with the broader purpose of nuclear fusion research.

SENTENCE #2: "It will also test new technologies such as tritium breeding in a real fusion environment."
Comment: I'm rephrasing my comment. Depending on interpretation, it could be true. But let's try to avoid ambiguity. ITER is not designed for tritium breeding. The only relevance to tritium breeding in the project are a set of experiments that will take place in the reactor that are intended to test a "mockup" of tritium breeding. On the other hand, breeding tritium is one of the major objectives of the DEMO-class reactors.

SENTENCE #2: "and its results are intended to bolster the global nuclear fusion industry"
Comment: I cannot figure out any value of this phrase and I propose its removal.


SECTION #2
EXISTING: Nuclear fusion has many potential attractions. Firstly, its hydrogen isotope fuels are relatively abundant. ITER will use a mix of deuterium-tritium for its fusion because of the combination’s high energy potential.[32] The first isotope, deuterium, can be extracted from seawater, which means it is a nearly inexhaustible resource.[33] The second isotope, tritium, only occurs in trace amounts in nature and estimates are the world’s supply is just 20 kilograms.[34] However, ITER will be testing tritium breeding blanket technology that would allow the fusion process to create its own tritium and thus be self-sufficient

PROPOSED:

Nuclear fusion has many potential attractions. After preliminary tests with deuterium, ITER will eventually use a 50/50 mix of deuterium and tritium. The first isotope, deuterium, can be extracted from seawater, which means it is a nearly inexhaustible resource.[33] The second isotope, tritium, a radioactive isotope of hydrogen which has a half-life of 12.32 years, is not available as a resource in nature. The world’s supply is just 20 kilograms, which is produced mainly by the heavy-water CANDU fission reactors. [34] A deuterium-tritium mixture is required to approach practical power output levels. [32] However, future DEMO-class reactors are designed to incorporate tritium breeding blankets to test whether the fusion process can create enough tritium to be self-sufficient. A set of experiments will be performed in ITER to test what are called "mockup" modules, which will simulate a tritium breeding blanket. The tritium produced from these modules will be used in ITER, but the purpose of the modules is to test the breeding process, not to supply fuel. These four modules will cover less than one percent of the plasma-facing surface area inside the reactor. For this reason, the mockups cannot produce more than 1 percent of the tritium ITER will need.

DISCUSSION
SENTENCE #2: "Firstly, its hydrogen isotope fuels are relatively abundant."
Comment: This is simply not true. Only half of the intended 50/50 DT fuel mixture is abundantly available and even that, deuterium, requires costly extraction from seawater. I propose removing the sentence entirely.

SENTENCE #3: "ITER will use a mix of deuterium-tritium for its fusion because of the combination’s high energy potential."
Comment: The current sentence puts a rosy spin on the matter. ITER will use DT, not because of its high energy potential, but because scientists long ago realized that DD cannot possibly work as a practical fuel for fusion.

SENTENCE #5: "The second isotope, tritium, only occurs in trace amounts in nature and estimates are the world’s supply is just 20 kilograms."
Comment: It's questionable to assert that tritium occurs in nature even at trace levels, particularly when there is no natural source (key word) for tritium in nature.

SENTENCE #6: "However, ITER will be testing tritium breeding blanket technology that would allow the fusion process to create its own tritium and thus be self-sufficient."
Comment: This is more counterfactual than factual; ITER is not designed to test a tritium breeding blanket. Considering that the mockup modules (which are not designed as fuel sources for ITER) can provide no more than one percent of the tritium fuel ITER needs to operate, the phrase "self-sufficient" should in no way be associated with triitum in the context of ITER. It should only be associated with the DEMO-class reactors. Also, the breeding blanket idea, since it doesn't and has never existed physically, is not a "technology." It is a component of the fusion scientific research.


StevenBKrivit (talk) 20:21, 23 May 2021 (UTC)

@StevenBKrivit: tritium does indeed form naturally in trace quantities, from high-energy cosmic ray reactions in the atmosphere. It would be impractical to harvest this source, though. In your summaries above, you call CANDU fusion when I think you meant fission. Probably just a typo since you only do it once. Please see WP:BRD and WP:ONUS regarding your edit summary here, though some sort of explanation of the revert by Zurkhardo would have been nice. Overall, I don't take any exception to your proposed improvements. VQuakr (talk) 20:31, 23 May 2021 (UTC)
Hello VQuakr. Thanks for your review. Thanks for pointing out the typo (now fixed). I'm confused about BRD and ONUS. I'm certainly not a major contributor to Wikipedia and I'm certainly not up to speed on policies. My understanding was that major or critical changes should be discussed in TALK first. Q1: Has this Wikipedia protocol been replaced by BRD and ONUS? Q2: Does the current Wikipedia protocol actually prefer me to avoid discussing major changes in advance?
Regarding your point about tritium, "tritium does indeed form naturally in trace quantities." Yes, I certainly agree. What I object to in the current phraseology is the extant ambiguity that because tritium "only occurs in trace amounts in nature" there is a linkage to "the world’s supply is just 20 kilograms." There is no such linkage. Thus, my proposed language "is not available as a resource in nature." Q3: I welcome any suggestion you might have for greater precision and clarity. There are two footnotes that apply to some other section. I don't know how to relocate them properly. Do you?
StevenBKrivit (talk) 21:49, 23 May 2021 (UTC)
BRD/ONUS/Talk pages: Discussing major changes is still encouraged first; I was addressing the specific edit summary which I linked in my previous post.
Tritium: seems a fine phrasing for now, I was just clarifying.
Relocation of footnotes: you can use the {{reflist talk}} template, as I did here, to move those to the appropriate section. VQuakr (talk) 23:26, 23 May 2021 (UTC)
okay, thank you for the clarification about BRD/ONUS. Regarding the specific edit summary. I didn't think it was practical to go into the required detail in the edit summary. Instead, I created a section here under the heading "Major Deletion in Lede Restored." Was that good Wiki-etiquette?
thanks for the clarification on tritium
thanks for the info on relocation.
StevenBKrivit (talk) 03:36, 24 May 2021 (UTC)
Section 1: Testing tritium breeding is absolutely one of the ITER goals. Read the reference please. The proposed replacement for section 1 is blatantly false in that aspect. ITER won't breed nearly enough tritium to be self-sufficient, that's not the goal, and the article doesn't claim that so arguing against that is pointless. No objection concerning the rest of the proposed change there.
Section 2: The proposal has an odd jump between sentence 1 and 2. I propose to add a transition sentence: "Nuclear fusion has many potential attractions. The fuel is relatively abundant or can be produced in a fusion reactor. After preliminary tests with deuterium, ... then continue as suggested. Tritium exists in traces in nature, so I suggest changing "not available as a resource" to "not available as a practical resource". The world's supply needs a time frame for the 20 kg (per year?). "future DEMO-class reactors" are not expected to be a thing. There will (hopefully) be one DEMO, and commercial reactors will look different because they will include lessons learned from DEMO. And again you are missing that ITER will test this while DEMO will use this. Proposal: "Tritium is required to approach practical power output levels.[32] ITER will test breeding tritium using neutrons released in the fusion reactions. Future reactors are expected to incorporate enough tritium breeding blankets to be self-sufficient." And remove the last sentence of the proposal.
--mfb (talk) 11:25, 24 May 2021 (UTC)


Hello MFB,
TRITIUM BREEDING: ITER is not designed for and is not intended to breed tritium for its operation. It will, however, have what is called a "mockup," a simulation of a blanket module that is about 1 square meter facing the plasma. There will be four of these. These are just modules designed to test parts of the breeding process. ITER has about 600 square meters of surface area. So the combined tritium produced by the test mockups cannot produce more than 1 percent of the tritium ITER will need. Although the tiny amount of tritium will be used by the reactor, these are test modules, not intended to supply the reactor with tritium. The purpose of the test modules is to determine whether the amount of tritium bred can be predicted accurately by neutronics calculations. These experiments will have no effect on the amount of tritium that must be purchased by the ITER project. It would be a significant exaggeration, therefore to say that ITER will breed tritium. Tritium breeding, and thermal-to-electric conversion are the two primary objectives of DEMO-class reactors.
ABUNDANT FUEL: The idea that fusion fuel is "relatively abundant" is also a gross exaggeration. Only half of the fuel, deuterium, is relatively abundant. Making tritium in an experimental fusion reactor - in sufficient quantities to use as fuel - has never been done and won't be done until midcentury when the DEMO-class reactors are built and are operating. Therefore, in this Wikipedia page, it would be inappropriate for us to say that tritium "can be produced in a fusion reactor." All we can say is that fusion researchers plan to breed tritium in future reactors.
TRITIUM RESOURCE: Your proposed wording "not available as a practical resource" implies that tritium is available as a natural resource, but that it's just not practical. This too, I think, is stretching things a bit too far. Consider the fact that its existence in nature only occurs in the atmosphere as a result of cosmic ray interactions and residue from weapons tests. Consider that tritium decays quickly. Can you point to any kind of reference or example to indicate that tritium is ever acquired from the atmosphere as a natural resource? I've never heard of such a thing.
DEMO(s): There has never been a plan for a single DEMO reactor by the 7 ITER partners. The partners involved in ITER all have designs for their individual DEMO-class reactors. The EU DEMO design activity started at least a decade ago. The EU and Japan may collaborate. Part of the reason for the confusion about this is because EUROfusion and the European fusion researchers all know that when they talk about "DEMO," they are talking about *their* DEMO, and when you see the EUROfusion Web site or read the team's scientific papers, they just say "DEMO." If you were in China or South Korea, you would hear about their DEMOs.
Given this information, could I ask you to please revise/restate your suggested changes to my proposals?
Thanks,
StevenBKrivit (talk) 02:42, 25 May 2021 (UTC)
This source says: "for tritium, unlike deuterium, is radioactive and exists only transiently in nature." which might be the best way to phrase it: "exists only transiently in nature." ...or "on earth". ---Avatar317(talk) 22:11, 25 May 2021 (UTC)
I think if we are to head in the direction of suggesting to readers that tritium "exists in nature," we must make it very clear that it exists not only transiently because of its decay rate, but that it exists at trace levels only in the atmosphere, and at a level below the ability to harvest, and that it does not exist on earth. Anything less than that and we might find that promoters of ITER will use an inference from Wikipedia to spread the idea that tritium "exists" although rare, as a natural resource. I think its accurate to say that tritium does NOT "exist" on earth or in the heavens above as a resource.
StevenBKrivit (talk) 23:32, 25 May 2021 (UTC)
First of all, it's bad style to sneakingly edit the proposal and text others have commented on. Make a new comment for revised proposals or at least make clear what has been edited please. It's also bad style to randomly capitalize usernames.
ITER is planned to test tritium breeding. That's a qualitative statement, it cannot be a "significant exaggeration". It is an important science goal of ITER and absolutely needs to be mentioned.
Concerning the fuel, please read the full sentence I proposed, not just the first half: "The fuel is relatively abundant or can be produced in a fusion reactor." As explained in the following sentences, deuterium is relatively abundant while tritium can be produced in a fusion reactor. Both are obviously true. A discussion about the tritium breeding to tritium use ratio and the associated engineering challenges can be added but I don't think we need that level of detail at this place. Add a sentence if you think otherwise.
Concerning tritium in nature: It exists. It's not practical to extract any of it, as I already wrote, so why do you ask me for a place where this would have been done? That doesn't make sense. Your proposal sounds like there wouldn't be any tritium naturally, which is wrong. There are many possible ways to phrase this without misleading readers. "Natural tritium is by far too rare to be used as a resource" if you want to keep the "resource" maybe? Or shorter "Natural tritium is by far too rare to be used". Or "The second isotope, tritium, only occurs in trace amounts in nature and cannot be extracted in useful/relevant/sufficient/... quantities". Or whatever. I'm not picky. As long as the statement doesn't suggest tritium would not occur in nature.
If you think we'll see many national DEMOs instead of another international collaboration, that's your private speculation. But that's not even the main point here. ITER tests, DEMO is planned to demonstrate it on a large scale. You shifted everything by one generation.
To summarize: You removed a statement that was completely wrong but the new statement is still not telling readers what ITER will do, it just tells them what it won't do. You did nothing to address my other points. --mfb (talk) 06:39, 26 May 2021 (UTC)


SECTION 1 & TRITIUM BREEDING
You are missing the distinction between testing tritium breeding mockups and concepts (ITER) and testing tritium breeding (DEMOs).
ITER is not designed to breed tritium. The DEMOs are. ITER will not have a tritium breeding blanket. The DEMOs will. Here are two references:
"ITER will provide a unique opportunity to test mockups of breeding blankets"
https://www.iter.org/mach/TritiumBreeding
"The device should ... Test tritium breeding module concepts that would lead in a future reactor to tritium self-sufficiency, the extraction of high grade heat, and electricity production."
https://www.iaea.org/publications/6492/iter-technical-basis
I believe my revised proposal for SECTION #1 is solid. Certainly anybody who edits Wikipedia knows how to look at the changelog and can clearly see the revisions.I don't believe there's anything further I can add to the discussion about tritium breeding. At this point, I will plan to implement the change in that section after waiting to see if other editors have commments.
SECTION 2 & TRITIUM IN NATURE
Diamonds are rare. Rare-earths are, uh, rare. They both exist in nature and are available as a resource, but they are scarce.
Would you be agreeable to this wording: "The second isotope, tritium, a radioactive isotope of hydrogen, exists in the atmosphere as a result of cosmic ray interactions but, because of its half-life of 12.32 years, is ephemeral and is therefore not available as a natural resource."
SECTION 2 & DEMOs
Here is a reference that explains the plans for DEMO-class reactors from a) China, b) EU/Japan c) India, d) South Korea, e) Russia, f) US
https://www.iaea.org/newscenter/news/charting-the-international-roadmap-to-a-demonstration-fusion-power-plant
Here (page 92) is a reference that explains the plans for DEMO-class reactors from a)US, b) South Korea, c) European Union, d) Japan, e) China
https://www.nap.edu/download/25331
SECTION 1 & PURPOSE
You mentioned that my proposal (I believe you are referring to section 1) "is still not telling readers what ITER will do." The second paragraph in the article, as it is now, as it is proposed, is a high level overview.The primary measurable objective of the ITER, as identified in the IAEA Technical Basis, is described in the existing third paragraph of the article.
https://www.iaea.org/publications/6492/iter-technical-basis)
Thank you for the discussion.
StevenBKrivit (talk) 18:11, 26 May 2021 (UTC)
Everyone can look at revisions, but (a) many users don't know that and (b) no one will do that for a normal talk page section because people assume comments are not altered after someone replied (unless they are clearly marked as modified). It would also be far more effort to follow a talk page discussion revision by revision instead of just reading it on the page.
What will ITER do ?: "4) Test tritium breeding". The source is unambiguous (and it's trivial to find many more sources if you need more than one). You keep claiming ITER wouldn't do that. It's a key science goal, it needs to be mentioned. Your proposal is missing that and in addition it is misleading - readers would assume ITER won't make any tritium. You say it's a high level overview, and yet you want to add less relevant parts than the key science goal you want to remove. Contested changes to the article need a consensus on the talk page. There is obviously no such consensus at the moment. Not to mention that your proposed change is deliberately ignoring and removing a referenced science goal.
Tritium in nature: That sounds good.
Your own reference talks about a DEMO, probably in the expectation that these proposals merge to become an international project again. Anyway, not that important. Note that my proposal avoids that question completely. The more important part here is testing vs. using tritium breeding. See above: ITER tests, DEMO uses. See also here ("In a DEMO reactor, the tritium will be extracted and used as fuel") and here and here. --mfb (talk) 07:44, 29 May 2021 (UTC)

TRITIUM

Hi folks. Editor mfb insists on maintaining the sentence "It will also test new technologies such as tritium breeding in a real fusion environment[5] and its results are intended to bolster the global nuclear fusion industry." At this point, I've lost interest in fighting them and their thin arguments to support their POV, and I've lost interest in trying to improve this part of this Wikipedia page. I will not be requesting arbitration. I will leave the matter in the hands of the other fine editors here.

ITER is not designed to have a tritium breeding blanket. ITER is instead, designed to test tritium breeding concepts. These may be minor wording differences but in practice, they are significantly different. ITER is designed have "mockup" modules that will test tritium concepts. These are concepts, not technologies, as mfb seeks to push in their POV. Yes, the tiny amount of tritium produced by these test modules will be used as part of the startup-inventory for DT operations. But at a maximum capacity of 1% of the needed tritium fuel, the tritium produced by these test modules is quantitatively irrelevant.

I leave you with this recommended text "ITER will never breed tritium for its own consumption. However, it will test tritium breeding blanket concepts through the use of mockup modules. Four such modules, totaling about 4 square meters of surface area facing the plasma, will simulate a tritium breeding blanket" This is, actually, almost directly what the ITER organization says.
source: https://www.iter.org/newsline/-/3447

And to give you a sense of perspective, I will also leave you this piece of information: ITER will consume so much tritium that - if successful - "it will exhaust most of the world's supply of tritium. No DT fusion devices other than ITER can be operated without a breeding blanket." In other words, for ITER to succeed, it will use up so much of the world's supply of tritium that no other fusion devices will be able to run DT experiments during that decade.
source: https://nucleus.iaea.org/sites/fusionportal/Technical%20Meeting%20Proceedings/4th%20DEMO/website/talks/November%2015%20Sessions/Abdou.pdf

An no, this statement in the current article is just a combination of hopium and marketing hype: "ITER will be testing tritium breeding blanket technology that would allow a future fusion reactor to create its own tritium and thus be self-sufficient."

Tritium self-sufficiency in future reactors is a major uncertainty: "A primary conclusion of this paper is that the physics and technology state of the art will not enable DEMO and future power plants to satisfy these principal requirements. We have defined specific areas, ideas, and goals for physics and technology R & D to meet these requirements. However, our analysis shows that a successful outcome of this R & D cannot be assured."
source: https://doi.org/10.1088/1741-4326/abbf35

Good luck. Feel free to DM me if you need any help.

StevenBKrivit (talk) 16:59, 31 May 2021 (UTC)

You are misrepresenting what I said. Removing "and its results are intended to bolster the global nuclear fusion industry." is perfectly fine (it has been removed in the meantime). You write "ITER is instead, designed to test tritium breeding concepts" - exactly! We should keep such a statement in the article. You wanted to remove it completely. You didn't want to discuss specific phrasing, no, you wanted to remove any mention that ITER will do anything related to tritium breeding, which is just wrong. The fact that ITER will test tritium breeding is not my point of view, it's a statement by the ITER collaboration. One that you slowly start to accept now, if I interpret your most recent comment correctly. The current sentence that ITER's tests would allow future self-sufficiency is bad and should be changed, sure. Your proposal did that, and I never objected to that change either. So why do you bring it up again? --mfb (talk) 19:00, 2 June 2021 (UTC)
Hi mfb. You're right. I have come around a bit to agree a little more with your POV. Yes, I do agree that keeping some text about tritium breeding should be in there. But I think the text should be very precise. And yes, the ITER organization does say on some of its pages that ITER will test tritium breeding and so you will have the support you need for your POV.
But its far from accurate. The peer-reviewed fusion papers I've read are all careful to say that ITER "will test tritium breeding mockup modules." I am well-aware that I can't use OR but, just so you have a broader understanding, this is what one of the world's top experts in fusion tritium breeding research wrote to me:
"ITER is not designed to breed tritium and it will not breed tritium. ITER has only limited mockup testing of some breeding blanket concepts. The amount of tritium to be produced in these mockups is small and cannot provide a significant fraction for ITER to use. The mockup is a simulation of a blanket module about one square meter of surface area facing the plasma. There will be only four of these. ITER has about 600 square meters of surface area. So, all the test mockups cannot produce more than 1 percent of ITER's tritium consumption, at the best conditions."
Again, I am well-aware that I can't use OR but I offer the above to help anyone here who wants to help this page be as accurate and independent from the subject of the article as possible. I suppose if some WP editors were inclined to read some of the peer-reviewed papers on tritium breeding, they might find those to be an equal, or perhaps more credible source than the Web pages produced by the public relations department of the ITER organization.
StevenBKrivit (talk) 02:43, 3 August 2021 (UTC)
That email still describes that ITER will test tritium breeding (and will produce a tiny bit of it), so I don't see your point. --mfb (talk) 06:48, 3 August 2021 (UTC)
It's causing a conflation and exaggeration. The DEMO reactors are designed to test tritium breeding. They are designed to have a tritium breeding blanket. They are designed to produce all the tritium they need. ITER will not have a tritium breeding blanket. Instead, ITER will only have a few tritium breeding mockup test modules, which are not intended to supply the tritium fuel for the reactor operation.
StevenBKrivit (talk) 22:17, 3 August 2021 (UTC)
StevenBKrivit given we're talking of an under construction project, ITER public relations department webpages are the most reliable source about what they'll build or test in their reactor. --Pippo skaio (talk) 11:03, 3 August 2021 (UTC)
Pippo, what would Wikipedia be if every Wikipedia page about a person, company, or project was based solely or primarily on the PR pages of that person, company, or project?
StevenBKrivit (talk) 22:17, 3 August 2021 (UTC)
Let's try to remain centered on the argument: we're talking about if they'll try tritium breeding in the ITER reactor or not. As in previous discussion we can improve the explanation of the tritium breeding operations but at the moment ITER itself is the only reliable source on what'll try in their reactor. Let's make an example: the Jeddah Tower will be 1000 m tall as in their PR department advertisment? Being under construction there's no easy way to disprove them so their height remain as "official height" in the article together with criticism of their WP:BIASED declarations. Only when the project will be complete (or cancelled) we can cite a height measurement and use it to tag WP:FAIL and WP:OLDSOURCES on PR department sources.
There is no sense to challenge statement that tritium breeding blankets will be tested in ITER. It is specified not only on iter.org website (as one of the main objectives) but also on other sites[1][2]. Also from logical point of view, ITER is very good candidate for this because it will produce appropriate neutrons. Also they are called test breeding blanket, they are still breeding blanket. Yes, sure, ITER is not targeted to be self sufficient on tritium, because the main purpose of ITER is testing... Experiments are not run continuously but as necessary for testing purpose in many different regimes... For ITER it is enough to show that we could build power plant that will be self-sufficient on tritium. I.e. for example if ITER will use 1% of the surface for tritium breeding blankets and will get as result 1.5% of tritium used in reaction (i.e. in one specific experiment) than everything is OK. Vasyl Shcherban (talk) 23:07, 30 November 2021 (UTC)

References

  1. ^ https://www.sciencedirect.com/topics/engineering/breeding-blankets
  2. ^ http://www-fusion-magnetique.cea.fr/gb/cea/next/couvertures/blk.htm

Major Deletion in Lede Restored

I have restored a major deletion made by user Zurkhardo. The deletion was performed without any discussion or debate. Zurkhardo's deletion (temporarily) removed the primary measurable objective of the project and left, in its place, a sentence that said nothing about the technical goals. That sentence: "The primary goal of ITER is to demonstrate the scientific and technological feasibility of safe, clean, and unlimited fusion energy for peaceful use" appeared more like a statement from the public relations department of the organization. In fact, that sentence, modified slightly, was originally placed into the article by the same user on 16 Oct. 2020.
StevenBKrivit (talk) 02:47, 17 May 2021 (UTC)

I like this statement and would like to see it in the text of the article. Every word in this statement is truth and nothing is just AD:
The primary goal of ITER is to demonstrate the scientific and technological feasibility of ... fusion energy ... - I hope it is clear and nobody will challenge this
... safe - it means that fusion plant can't blow up as nuclear plant
... clean - no CO2
... unlimited - there are a loooot of deuterium and nickel - fuel for fusion plants (I.e. there are much more fuel for fusion power plants than for fossil and nuclear power plants)
... for peaceful use - it means that (by)products of fusion plant can't be used for creating weapon (as opposite to nuclear plants - good source for nuclear bombs)
And we already have all this stuff explained in Background section.
Vasyl Shcherban (talk) 23:48, 30 November 2021 (UTC)

Clean up the lead part of the article

I suggest to remove "ITER's thermonuclear fusion reactor will use over 300MW of electrical power to cause the plasma to absorb 50 MW of thermal power, creating 500 MW of heat from fusion for periods of 400 to 600 seconds.[10] This would mean a ten-fold gain of plasma heating power or, as measured by heating input to thermal output, Q ≥ 10.[11] The European STOA Fusion Project cautions that this figure refers only to the energy of the plasma itself, and that practical capture of this energy for electricity production would introduce significant inefficiencies which ITER is not designed to overcome.[12] As of 2021, the record for energy production using nuclear fusion is held by the National Ignition Facility reactor, which achieved a Q of 0.70 in August 2021.[13] Beyond just heating the plasma, the total electricity consumed by the reactor and facilities will range from 110 MW up to 620 MW peak for 30-second periods during plasma operation.[14] As a research reactor, the heat energy generated will not be converted to electricity, but simply vented. " from lead part of the article. I think it is too detailed for intro and just duplicate info in other parts of the article.

I have reworded part of Background section that contained the same info as "One of the ITER objective is to achieve Q ("fusion gain") = 10. Q ("fusion gain") — measures the ratio between the (thermal) power produced by the fusion reactions, and the external (thermal) heating power that must be injected in a tokamak (in order to warm up plasma) to sustain the reactions. With input thermal energy used for heating plasma 50MW it is planned to get output (thermal) energy from fusion reaction 500MW. Q = 1 is called a breakeven. There are no fusion device that achieved Q = 1 as of end of 2021. Best result achieved in tokamak is 0,67 - on JET tokamak.[43] The best result achieved for fusion in general, is result achieved in inertial confinement fusion (ICF) reaction type by the National Ignition Facility of Q = 0,70.[13] For commercial fusion power stations, engineering gain factor is important. Engineering gain factor takes into consideration all of the plants systems—not just external heating systems, but also secondary systems such as electromagnets, cryogenics plant, diagnostics and control systems—in the evaluation of the input/output power balance of an electricity-producing fusion power plant. Commercial fusion plants will be designed with engineering breakeven in mind. Some nuclear engineers consider a Q of 100 – a hundred-fold energy output – is required for commercial fusion power stations to be viable.[44]

ITER will not produce electricity. Producing electricity from thermal source in well known process (used in many power stations), so there are no sense to add it to ITER that is designed for experiments with plasma. Also experiments will not be run continuously, so is not stable source of energy. Adding this stuff to ITER would just raise the cost of the project and bring no value for experiments on tokamak work. The DEMO-class reactors that follow ITER are intended to demonstrate the net production of electricity.[45]", so I suggest to keep only this part. Vasyl Shcherban (talk) 23:57, 30 November 2021 (UTC)

I disagree. Per WP:LEAD: "...The average Wikipedia visit is a few minutes long.[1] The lead is the first thing most people will read upon arriving at an article, and may be the only portion of the article that they read. It gives the basics in a nutshell..." There is no reason to bury the most vital stats about ITER, being as the article is so big.---Avatar317(talk) 01:24, 1 December 2021 (UTC)
I see. So maybe at least let's make it more clear? a) Why we need to have duplication inside this part itself? It starts with "ITER's thermonuclear fusion reactor will use over 300MW of electrical power..." and also contains "... the total electricity consumed by the reactor and facilities will range from 110 MW up to 620 MW peak for 30-second periods during plasma operation.". b) Let's use reference to online version of STOA report [1] not just name of the report? c) actually this report is from 1988 that is very old (i.e. we have significant progress in the field since then). Is there any sense to refer to it at all? d) I can't find specified claim in this report at all. Could somebody bring up real quote from report? Or let's remove it? Vasyl Shcherban (talk) 06:49, 1 December 2021 (UTC)
I agree with removing the sentence "The European STOA Fusion Project cautions that this figure refers only to the energy of the plasma itself, and that practical capture of this energy for electricity production would introduce significant inefficiencies which ITER is not designed to overcome.[12"...that sentence rather gets in the way of the fusion gain numbers statements, and adds nothing in my opinion; it is clearly stated already by that point that ITER is an EXPERIMENTAL reactor to learn about production possibilities.---Avatar317(talk) 06:59, 1 December 2021 (UTC)
Make sense. I will wait a bit, maybe somebody else would like to add something on this report.
But I want to make additional note about "ITER's thermonuclear fusion reactor will use over 300MW of electrical power to cause the plasma to absorb 50 MW of thermal power..." also technically it is correct, it is quite misleading. ITER (and future power plant) will operate on burning plasma [2]. And for burning plasma the main source of heating thermal energy is fusion reaction itself. Reader has no idea about this (at this point of the article). So he probably will just tries to linear scale up this figures for commercial power plant and will get totally wrong impression about heating system (and it's power consumption) in commercial power plant. And it is totally wrong, because main source of energy will be fusion reaction in plasma itself[3]. So, I do suggest to remove this part. Vasyl Shcherban (talk) 08:48, 1 December 2021 (UTC)
I have explained this point about burning plasma in background section. So if somebody gets to it, he will have a chance to understand what's going on. But first impression is important.
I could also move this part "ITER's thermonuclear fusion reactor will use over 300MW of electrical power to cause the plasma to absorb 50 MW of thermal power..." from the Lead section to the Background section instead of just removing it. So readers will get full picture.Vasyl Shcherban (talk) 10:30, 1 December 2021 (UTC)
I.e. for example we could keep "ITER's thermonuclear fusion reactor will cause the plasma to absorb 50 MW of input thermal power, creating 500 MW of heat output from fusion for periods of 400 to 600 seconds.[10] This would mean a ten-fold gain of plasma heating power as measured by heating output to heating input, Q = 10.[11]" in the Lead section and move "In order to cause the plasma to absorb 50 MW of thermal power ITER's power plant will use over 300MW of electrical power" to the Background section (after explanation about burning plasma and engineering gain). Vasyl Shcherban (talk) 13:23, 1 December 2021 (UTC)
I have removed sentence "The European STOA Fusion Project cautions that this figure refers only to the energy of the plasma itself, and that practical capture of this energy for electricity production would introduce significant inefficiencies which ITER is not designed to overcome.[12]". Vasyl Shcherban (talk) 08:39, 2 December 2021 (UTC)

References

  1. ^ http://aei.pitt.edu/38681/1/A3601.pdf
  2. ^ http://www.iter.org/faq#What_is_a_burning_plasma
  3. ^ http://www.iter.org/faq#Will_ITER_be_the_first_burning_plasma_device_in_the_world

United States $ over Euros

It would be helpful to add the ISS cost $150 billion and will eventually burn up. ScientistBuilder (talk) 19:26, 9 February 2022 (UTC)

Add clarification that ITER is not designed to be perfectly efficient

I am in favor of adding a note that Iter will demonstrate fusion but emit some heat.

@Vasyl Shcherban There are videos on Youtube criticizing ITER for not meeting plasma efficiency requirements and this should address those criticisms in the lead.

I am going to add this sentence to the lead again.

"Criteria for the Assessment of European Fusion Research". Scientific and Technological Options Assessment (STOA) Fusion Project. I: 3–12. May 1988 ScientistBuilder (talk) 22:27, 9 February 2022 (UTC)

New map needed

This map is inaccurate the UK and Switzerland should not be dark blue I suggest make a new map and make these countries along with Canada, Australia, Kazakhstan, and Thailand light blue to differentiate between them and the dark blue countries Black roses124 (talk) 03:13, 11 March 2022 (UTC)

The UK and Switzerland are not non-members though. They operate through the EU signatory (Fusion For Energy) which is a member. Therefore I don't think the map needs changing- and if it is changed, the UK and Switzerland should not be put in the same category as non-members. Mark63424 (talk) 17:42, 13 April 2022 (UTC)
The UK and Switzerland are in a unique position where they operate through the EU signatory. This is very different from the non-members. Mark63424 (talk) 19:41, 23 April 2022 (UTC)
ITER do not list the UK as a non-member on their about page and instead reference it in a separate paragraph saying "The United Kingdom will continue to participate in ITER post-Brexit through its membership in Fusion for Energy, the European Domestic Agency for ITER.".
Since the UK is operating through the Fusion for Energy signatory it is in the same position as an EU member state (despite no longer being in the EU). Mark63424 (talk) 15:40, 24 May 2022 (UTC)

Thank @Afiaki Black roses124 (talk) 22:58, 20 March 2022 (UTC)

new particle or a big bang theory

sorry for asking, i just wonder iter and tesla almost the same, just like old time energy using sun and heat. sorry afaik QuaMbear (talk) 09:57, 11 June 2022 (UTC)

POWER GAIN

This statement "ITERs goals are: to achieve enough fusion to produce 10 times as much output power as input" is false. I have attempted to correct it but two other editors, for what seem to be to be arbitrary reasons, insist on keeping the sentence in, and as is.

If Wikipedia itself is assumed to be a Reliable Source, then a decade of this same false/misleading claim on the English, French, and Chinese Wikipedia ITER pages (until I corrected them) should be sufficient evidence of the importance of being accurate and precise on this matter now. http://news.newenergytimes.net/2019/02/10/a-decade-of-false-and-exaggerated-iter-power-claims-on-wikipedia/

I have run out of time. For now, this Wikipedia page will mislead readers who either fail to read the third paragraph or get confused at the apparent inconsistency. This is likely to cause non-experts, students, and journalists to think, citing Wikipedia, that is okay to say that one of "ITER's goals is to achieve enough fusion to produce 10 times as much output power as input." That phrase, as is, if published by people who are informed on the subject, is a lie and is an abuse of the spirit and purpose of Wikipedia.
StevenBKrivit (talk) 02:35, 5 August 2021 (UTC)

1) The source you cite is YOUR OWN website. WP:SPS
2) Wikipedia is NOT a Reliable Source. From WP:CIRC: "Do not use articles from Wikipedia (whether this English Wikipedia or Wikipedias in other languages) as sources since Wikipedia is considered as a user-generated source. Also, do not use websites that mirror Wikipedia content or publications that rely on material from Wikipedia as sources. Content from a Wikipedia article is not considered reliable unless it is backed up by citing reliable sources. Confirm that these sources support the content, then use them directly.[10]"
3) You still have not provided ANY Reliable Sources WP:RS to support your CLAIM that anyone will misunderstand this (other than you). ---Avatar317(talk) 03:43, 5 August 2021 (UTC)
If you think everyone apart from you is driving on the wrong side of the road... you might re-evaluate who is misunderstanding things. --mfb (talk) 08:08, 5 August 2021 (UTC)
@StevenBKrivit:@Avatar317:@Mfb: Incidentally, Sabine Hossenfelder talks about this very issue in her latest Youtube video. That video itself is not a reliable source, of course (the author is a physicist though). But maybe it can help to locate better sources and improve the neutrality of the Wikipedia article. Some reliable sources are linked in the video description. It seems like the issue raised above is actually a very real one, but most WP:RS get it wrong. Renerpho (talk) 18:01, 2 October 2021 (UTC)
@Renerpho:, yes most "WP:RS" sources got it wrong. I made this very clear in my film, https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=xnikAFWDhNw&t=1s released on April 11, 2021. I also made it clear in my book Fusion Fiasco, published in 2016. My work has been cited internationally for many years in many reputable sources. http://newenergytimes.com/v2/about/in-the-media.shtml.
StevenBKrivit (talk) 17:00, 5 October 2021 (UTC)
I understand that Steven Krivit and his New Energy Times Web site are not considered by most Wikipedia editors as reliable sources and that my conversation with Nick Holloway, the UKAEA/CCFE spokesman, as I published in my 2016 book Fusion Fiasco http://news.newenergytimes.net/2021/10/05/uncovering-the-700-mw-input-needed-for-the-joint-european-torus-reactor/ cannot be cited by Wikipedia. You can cite this one instead for a RS for the 700 MWe input that JET required: It's a EURATOM document in the University of Pittsburgh Archive http://aei.pitt.edu/94542/1/jet_joint..__50695.pdf
Oh, and reliable sources to show that people have misunderstood fusion power gain?
June 15, 2021, New Scientist: "The plan is to create 500 megawatts of usable energy from an input of 50 megawatts."
Oct. 21, 2020, World Nuclear News: "Iter is a major international project to build a 500MW tokamak fusion device requiring an input of 50MW."
Nov. 11, 2019, Nuclear Engineering International: "Iter, a 500 MW tokamak fusion device, requires an input of 50MW."
March 27, 2017 New York Times: "ITER will benefit from its larger size, and will produce about 10 times more power than it consumes."
HUNDREDS of other examples where people got it wrong http://newenergytimes.com/v2/sr/iter/ITER-fusion-reactor-effects.shtml
@Mfb: "If you think everyone apart from you is driving on the wrong side of the road... you might re-evaluate who is misunderstanding things." You could be right. It's also possible that the Emperor doesn't have any clothes. History will show who was helpful to other people on this matter and who was not.
StevenBKrivit (talk) 15:52, 6 October 2021 (UTC)
You assert that most "WP:RS" sources got it wrong – even if we take this as granted (and you have not provided a compelling reason why we should), the fact remains that all WP can do is echo to its readers what the reliable secondary sources say. There is an essay somewhere (I can't be bothered digging it out) which says something to the effect of "If Wikipedia were around in 1500 it would report the consensus that the Sun orbits the Earth, and that would be A Good Thing". For WP to take any side, even the one that posterity judges to be the correct one, in an ongoing scientific dispute, would be to violate its policy on neutrality – to violate it egregiously, in fact. I would also note that the sources you refer to would typically be considered reliable, and any attempt to put your own personal website on the same level as them is likely to constitute a conflict of interest (in addition to having serious likely problems re undue weight and promoting marginal views). Per mfb above, it might be time to drop this particular WP:STICK. Archon 2488 (talk) 17:43, 6 October 2021 (UTC)
@Archon 2488: I guess you are referring to Wikipedia:Verifiability,_not_truth#"But_I_know_the_truth!". There is a difference here, in that the scientific literature on ITER most certainly has it right; it's just what's reported by the media, in statements made by politicians, and in statements by scientists directed at media/politicians, where the error frequently pops up. So it shouldn't be too hard to find the correct meanings of the reported Q values, hidden in the scientific literature. One just has to be careful taking secondary sources (news reports etc.) as reliable at face value. Renerpho (talk) 16:52, 10 October 2021 (UTC)
I have been attempting to address this issue myself in the last couple of edits. I found a good source for the misleading Q-value problem and added the following sentence to clarify this section: "The European STOA Fusion Project cautions that this figure refers only to the energy of the plasma itself, and that practical capture of this energy for electricity production would introduce significant inefficiencies which ITER is not designed to overcome." It was partially removed by an anonymous editor, but I hope the clarifications are to their satisfaction. Ddevault (talk) 15:30, 4 October 2021 (UTC)


"ITER's thermonuclear fusion reactor will use over 300MW of electrical power to cause the plasma to absorb 50 MW of thermal power, creating 500 MW of heat from fusion " So, it will create 500MW, but consume 300MW. That's not a ten fold gain, that's a barely 50% gain. Using the 500 MW / 50 MW == 10X is the most dishonest creative accounting. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 2001:8003:E41C:1C01:6D77:3D5A:30C:42ED (talk) 10:17, 23 September 2022 (UTC)

Empathy for readers with poor internet connections

Earlier today, I made nineteen modest edits to the "See also" section, where I added brief descriptions and links to a few major research efforts in the United States that were otherwise not referenced (e.g., MIT’s Alcator C-Mod reactor, Princeton Plasma Physics Laboratory’s National Spherical Torus Experiment, and the Helically Symmetric Experiment at the University of Wisconsin–Madison). I also expanded brief descriptions of the advanced tokamak of the Japan Atomic Energy Agency, the stellarator of the Max Planck IPP in Germany, the UK’s concept for an affordable Spherical Tokamak for Energy Production, as well as the extraordinary statistics characterizing Nuclear power in France. I hope these expansions (and several others) meet with the approval of senior editors; I welcome any improvements.

However, a major impetus behind my edits today was empathy for Wikipedia users with slow internet connections — which I myself suffer sometimes, even as a resident of Cambridge, Massachusetts. Merely having internal links without an informative description of what the reader will get if they hit on a link can be frustrating for those with poor interconnectivity, as this ties-up one’s computer unnecessarily to access an inadequately described Wikipedia page that’s ultimately not useful. Thus I added links with brief but informative descriptions, as well as expanded existing links, to better describe what they offer a reader. Theophilus Reed (talk) 23:28, 12 December 2022 (UTC) Theophilus Reed

The informative descriptions are GREAT and useful, Thanks! It is quicker to read an inline description than to click to read the article, no matter how fast your internet. ---Avatar317(talk) 22:37, 14 December 2022 (UTC)
Retrieved from "https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Talk:ITER/Archive_2&oldid=1249724646"