Is the ITER (Tokamak) Hot Fusion Project Running out of Steam and Support ?

The following post was submitted by Doug Marker

This link was highlighted by Peter Gluck at Ego Out and is a very significant commentary of the over-priced, over-hyped, under-delivered and under-performing ITER Tokamak project.

The writer raises the prospect of the USA pulling out of the ITER project due to excessive cost overruns and lack of clarity as to the goal. I can see why some people could be very worried about any LENR success right at the time new funding for US role in ITER is being reviewed.

https://www.technologyreview.com/s/601388/why-the-worlds-largest-nuclear-fusion-project-may-never-succeed/

This issue of ITER funding, bites deeply into interest in LENR and the need for investment there.

Doug Marker

  • Zephir

    Senate panel already ordered US
    withdrawal from ITER IMO it’s a good move in general from many reasons:

    The socialistic EU projects tend to be overblown, adventurous, poorly organized and notoriously ineffective waste of tax payers money (the comparison with many failed
    astronomical projects of ESA comes on mind here).

    Russia already withdrawed its participation
    on ITER project too due to sanctions of EU for annexation of Crimea.

    The cold fusion projects based on LENR already provide much more viable route for nuclear fusion, despite their actual mechanism and relation to hot fusion is still
    unclear. By Widom-Larsen theory their energetic yield of LENR should be lower by few orders of magnitude than the hot fusion, but still at least 100.000-times higher than any
    chemical reaction.

    From this reason it’s important not to stop the fusion research completely – but to throw the existing money into research of cold fusion.

    The ITER would follow the destiny of NIF facility anyway, as the hot fusion is economically infeasible in this moment.

    The tokamak version of hot fusion in particular is probably the most dirty variant of hot fusion with respect to neutron activation of huge amount of reactor material.
    Many other ways of hot fusion (like the focus fusion) still appear more clean and scalable from this perspective.

    Additional points are collected here https://www.reddit.com/r/Physics_AWT/comments/4a3q12/iter_fusion_project_to_take_at_least_6_years/

    • literate-R

      I would like to ask You, where Do You have the information from, that there were several esa space fails. ESA does not belong to russia.
      The russian space programme is failing all the time, except last launch.

      • Zephir

        IMO you’re confusing arguments of different types. The Russia is used as an example of withdrawal from ITER project from political reasons – not as an example of failed EU projects.

      • giovanniontheweb

        failure is the essence of evolution

    • Pekka Janhunen

      What are failed astronomy projects of ESA?

      • Zephir

        /* Fusion (H –> D) whether hot or cold therefore always requires the same input energy and delivers the same reaction energy. */

        Not at all. It would be like to say, that the trip from one city to another one across mountains would consume the same amount of gasoline, like this one along flat route. The fast overcoming of high activation energy (Coulomb barrier) of reaction requires sharp acceleration and subsequent deceleration of its reacting particles, in which substantial portion of energy will get wasted.

        • Zephir

          The low introductory energy is not the only anomaly of LENR. The
          absence of production of energetic particles is the same anomaly of it.

          This is because the process which slows down the merging of atom nuclei is essentially symmetric and it also helps to slow down (thermalize) the products of reaction. The hot fusion means, that always at least one half of resulting energy will get wasted. So that in essence, the energy wasted in overcoming of activation energy can be estimated like the energy of energetic products of fusion (gamma ray, neutrons, muons, etc) – no matter if we manage to utilize them later (with using of molten lithium blanket or another way).

        • hunfgerh

          /*Not at all. It would be like to say, that the trip from one city to another one across mountains would consume the same amount of gasoline, like this one along flat route./*
          In both cases, the same amount of fuel is consumed.
          When route over the mountain, at the highest point just stop the engine and transpose the potential energy in the downhill ride into kinetic energy.

          • DrD

            NO, Zephir is correct, not all routes are equal in terms of energy consumption. That is an eroneous understanding of the 1st law.

          • Zephir

            This is correct at macroscale with neutral objects. The microscopic charged objects always radiate synchrotron radiation into outside during their acceleration/deceleration. This energy will therefore get always wasted.

      • Zephir

        Beagle 2 or Rosseta missions for example. The European projects suffer by lack of coordination.

        • Hi all

          The main thing that ESA fails at is: putting in backups, the cost of making three Beagle probes or Rosseta missions is not much different from making one.

          The real cost of such missions is the research and development, the manufacturing is only a small factor in the costs.

          Sending one probe on a mission is putting all your eggs in one basket. Far better to send a swarm of probes.

          Kind Regards walker

    • Zephir

      The socialism doesn’t imply the ownership of means of production, the communism does (I know something about it, as I experienced the socialism for three decades). But the contemporary society is driven by state capitalism: i.e. with lobby of private companies, which work mostly for governmental projects, like the ITER or renewable technologies. Without massive governmental subsidizes these companies wouldn’t survive at free market. This form of capitalistic socialism is more dangerous, than the obviously decadent socialism in its classical form, as it brings an illusion of free market and competetion.

  • Zephir

    Senate panel already ordered US withdrawal from ITER project http://scitation.aip.org/content/aip/magazine/physicstoday/news/10.1063/PT.5.1022

    IMO it’s a good move in general from many reasons:

    The socialistic EU projects tend to be overblown, adventurous, poorly organized and notoriously ineffective waste of tax payers money (the comparison with many failed astronomical projects of ESA comes on mind here).

    Russia already withdrew its participation on ITER project too due to sanctions of EU for annexation of Crimea.

    The cold fusion projects based on LENR already provide much more viable route for nuclear fusion, despite their actual mechanism and relation to hot fusion is still unclear. By Widom-Larsen theory their energetic yield of LENR should be lower by few orders of magnitude than the hot fusion, but still at least 100.000-times higher than any chemical reaction.

    From this reason it’s important not to stop the fusion research completely – but to throw the existing money into research of cold fusion.

    The ITER would follow the destiny of NIF facility anyway, as the hot fusion is economically infeasible in this moment.

    The tokamak version of hot fusion in particular is probably the most dirty variant of hot fusion with respect to neutron activation of huge amount of reactor material. Many other ways of hot fusion (like the focus fusion) still appear more clean and scalable from this perspective.

    Additional points are collected here https://www.reddit.com/r/Physics_AWT/comments/4a3q12/iter_fusion_project_to_take_at_least_6_years/

    • invient

      There is also a Google tall on a new variant of hot fusion, polywell IIRC.

      It was developed by a military research group, foundto be viable, and then dropped funding because the economy tanked.

      The lockheed martin project i believe to be following this idea.

      As for the socialost eu, let me know when the workers own the means of production. This is the common definition across all socialist tendencies, without it the economic system can’t be socialist.

      • E.M.Smith

        Um, ownership is not necessary. Look up “3rd way socialism” and Lange Type socialism. Central Athority directing buinesses nominally privately owned.

      • Zephir

        Polywell IIRC is just NIF or tokamak in disguise – just another brute force approach, which is advancing the needs and possibilities of human civilization by many decades. We don’t need such a concentrated source of power for anything useful today – with the exception of central governments, the power of which depends on monopoly in redistribution of energy.

      • Zephir

        The socialism doesn’t imply the ownership of means of production, the communism does (I know something about it, as I experienced the typical socialism for two decades). But the contemporary society is driven by state capitalism: i.e. with lobby of private companies, which work mostly for governmental projects, like the ITER or renewable technologies. Without massive governmental subsidizes these companies wouldn’t survive at free market. This form of capitalistic socialism is more dangerous, than the obviously decadent socialism in its classical form, as it brings an illusion of free market and competetion.

    • literate-R

      I would like to ask You, where Do You have the information from, that there were several esa space fails. ESA does not belong to russia.
      The russian space programme is failing all the time, except last launch.

      • Zephir

        IMO you’re confusing arguments of different types. The Russia is used as an example of withdrawal from ITER project from political/financial reasons – not as an example of failed EU projects.

        • literate-R

          I do not confuse this, You might have mixed up the esa and the russian’s space programme. So, where Did you find the information about a lot of esa fails ? I cannot agree to that statement.

    • hunfgerh

      The first law of thermodynamics says:
      The absorbed or output energy of a system depends only from the initial and
      final states of the system and not by the way it is reached.

      Fusion (H –> D) whether hot or cold therefore always requires the same input energy and delivers the same reaction energy.

      In this context the term LENR (low energy nuclear reaction) is wrong. Correctly it should (low rate nuclear reaction) LRNR be called.

      The way of cold fusion via e- / n-capture by H-isotope was sufficiently described by Hunf / Widom and Larsen in the past.

      • Zephir

        /* Fusion (H –> D) whether hot or cold therefore always requires the same input energy and delivers the same reaction energy. */

        Not at all. It would be like to say, that the trip from one city to another one across mountains would consume the same amount of gasoline, like this one along flat route. The fast overcoming of high activation energy (Coulomb barrier) of reaction requires sharp acceleration components against each other and subsequent deceleration of resulting particles, in which substantial portion of energy will get wasted.

        Occasionally we may imagine the situation, when we compress matter by huge pressure, so that the fusion reaction would run spontaneously: the step involving heating of reactants and cooling the products would be completely eliminated there. The cold fusion is actually high pressure reaction, not high temperature one: it involves the occasional jam of atoms, which are randomly vibrating inside the crystal lattice against each other.

        • Zephir

          The low introductory energy is not the only anomaly of LENR. The
          absence of production of energetic particles is the oddity of the same category.

          This is because the process which slows down the merging of atom nuclei is essentially symmetric and it also helps to slow down (thermalize) the products of reaction. In this sense it behaves like true catalyst, which doesn’t just eliminate the activation energy barrier, but it also eliminates the by-production of metastable products. So that in essence, the energy wasted in overcoming of activation energy can be estimated like the energy of energetic products of fusion (gamma ray, neutrons, muons, etc) – no matter if we manage to utilize them later (with using of molten lithium blanket or another way). The presence of hot products of fusion always means, that at least one half of introductory energy will get wasted.

          • Chapman

            GEEEZ… Enough with the Sci-Fi physics all ready!

            LENR is just a wood chipper for Hydrogen Ions. Why do I see nonsense constantly repeated about Gamma, neutrons, muons, etc? It’s really NOT rocket science! All the nonsense pontifications about exotic matter and bizarre hypothetical energy states just go on and on and on…

            The Widom Larsen theory is a joke, and Edmund Storms is obsessed with an idea linking LENR to Fusion following traditional recipes and cant see the forest for the trees! I don’t mean to be insulting, but all these ameture physicists babbling on about things they obviously do not understand just makes me long for the good old days when universities used to actually teach some real hands-on science, rather than the Wizard-of-Oz smoke and mirror magic that physics has devolved into.

            For the record, if you run a LENR reactor and you see neutrons, you did something wrong…

            VERY WRONG.

            LENR will only produce neutron emissions if you contaminate it with deuterium – which only a fool would do. But, like alchemists trying to create the philosopher’s stone, fools keep going on about deuterium and tritium because they are confusing LENR with Hot Fusion.

            LENR is not Hot Fusion.

            LENR is not Cold Fusion.

            LENR is not Fission.

            And it bloody well ain’t magical dwarf unicorns entangled in a web of superposition activated surface plasmoids. I mean really, scientifically speaking, half the crap you guys spew out is worse than watching an old Red Dwarf episode on BBC!!!

            LENR is a phenomena where Hydrogen Ions are deconstructed in a confined space and at relatively low energy levels. This provides a source of free energetic protons which, depending on your secondary environmental conditions and materials, can be used to initiate desirable transmutations in adjacent atoms. In Rossi’s case, Lithium.

            Lithium 6 to Beryllium 7, then Beryllium 7 decays to Lithium 7 ( the ONLY time neutrons ever come into the discussion ), then Lithium 7 pumps up to Beryllium 8, which promptly decays to two alphas and eventually Helium. You are NOT fusing Hydrogens, of any isotopic flavor, into Helium. Get over it and stop repeating nonsense.

            Nickel is a catalyst, (of sorts..)

            Hydrogen is just “packaged raw materials”.

            Lithium is the fuel.

            Helium is the ash.

            Heat is the product.

            And yes, you put out a lot of photons, of a wide range of energy levels, which get re-absorbed and thermalized.

            There is no Bose-Einstein condensate, no quantum entanglement, no superposition overlaps or quantum tunneling.

            You know, It is exactly THIS reason that university physics departments produce nothing but hot air and dumb-asses with degrees. It takes a MECHANIC like Rossi, an ENGINEER to stop daydreaming about Buck Rogers and Kill-o-Zap Ray-guns and to get his hands dirty, do the hard work of actually BUILDING things and testing them and moving on to the next version with what he learned.

            And for all you folks crying on and on about what Rossi has or has not Proved to your satisfaction, or how he needs to release his secrets to the world, for humanities sake.. Or worse yet, you ASSHATS who go on about him needing to publish his work in a proper “Peer Reviewed Journal” for all you worthless jackals to pick apart and deride, WHO THE HELL ARE YOU???

            What have YOU done for the world today?

            Why don’t you get up from the keyboard, leave your mom’s basement, and go find a job, or a lover, or maybe, if your lucky, a life…

          • Eyedoc

            Wow….a little pent up ??… though you do make some good points

          • Chapman

            Yeah… just a little, I guess.

            I have been an ardent follower of these sites for years but I NEVER post. I enjoy the physics, and the conversation. But the recent explosion of obvious paid trolling and the pollution of the threads with all the FUD just has me going NUTS. I admit it.

            I apologize for any excess on my part.

            Most of the long-term posters are still here, and I see them trying to counter the chaos, and I certainly appreciate that the moderators are trying not to squash valid discussion by over-censoring, but YIKES!!!

            So Thank You for the EXTREMELY COURTIOUS manners check and calling me out without insult. Well done. I will play nice.

          • Eyedoc

            Understandable…….hopefully we’ll hear more from you

        • hunfgerh

          /*Not at all. It would be like to say, that the trip from one city to another one across mountains would consume the same amount of gasoline, like this one along flat route./*
          In both cases, the same amount of fuel is consumed.
          When route over the mountain, at the highest point just stop the engine and transpose the potential energy in the downhill ride into kinetic energy.

          • DrD

            NO, Zephir is correct, not all routes are equal in terms of energy consumption. That is an eroneous understanding of the 1st law.

          • Zephir

            This is correct at macroscale with neutral objects. The microscopic charged objects always radiate synchrotron radiation into outside during their acceleration/deceleration. This energy will therefore get always wasted.

    • Pekka Janhunen

      What are failed astronomy projects of ESA?

      • Zephir

        Beagle 2 or Rosseta missions for example. The European projects suffer by lack of coordination.

        • Hi all

          The main thing that ESA fails at is: putting in backups, the cost of making three Beagle probes or Rosseta missions is not much different from making one.

          The real cost of such missions is the research and development, the manufacturing is only a small factor in the costs.

          Sending one probe on a mission is putting all your eggs in one basket. Far better to send a swarm of probes, on a host of smaller rockets.

          Kind Regards walker

    • Ha

      Ha! EU wasteful spending is a rounding error on US pork.

      The Space shuttle was hands down the biggest and most expensive space failure of all time.

      The F35 project is the largest waste of taxpayer money ever in the history of the world. It’s going to cost 50 ITERS.

      • giovanniontheweb

        failure is the essence of evolution

  • Curbina
  • Curbina
  • SG

    Let the hot fusion boondoggle go bust. I for one–as a conscientious taxpayer–will not shed a single tear. Tens of billions of dollars have been wasted. Elements within the hot fusion scientific community have done more to delay LENR than any other group. They have been hostile from the start, dating back to the initial F&P announcement in 1989, as is well-documented by the Infinite Energy magazine. Had we as a society devoted even 1% of the ITER budget to LENR, the energy problem would have likely been solved by now.

  • SG

    Let the hot fusion boondoggle go bust. I for one–as a conscientious taxpayer–will not shed a single tear. Tens of billions of dollars have been wasted. Elements within the hot fusion scientific community have done more to delay LENR than any other group. They have been hostile from the start, dating back to the initial F&P announcement in 1989, as is well-documented by the Infinite Energy magazine. Had we as a society devoted even 1% of the ITER budget to LENR, the energy problem would have likely been solved by now.

  • Zephir

    At the very end, the primary reason of ITER project failure is just plain physics – the ineffectiveness its brute force strategy of Coulomb barrier breaking. The scientists collide the isolated particles by high speed and such an energy will get always wasted.

    • GreenWin

      True Zephir. Same applies to collider “science” the equiv of hitting atoms with a BFHammer and interpreting each fragment as” a breakthrough discovery” in sub-atomic physics.

  • Zephir

    At the very end, the primary reason of ITER project failure is just plain physics – the ineffectiveness its brute force strategy of Coulomb barrier breaking. The scientists collide the isolated particles by high speed and such an energy will get always wasted, in form of radioactive penetrating particles in addition. Why to collide the low number of particles by high speed if we can collide long lines of many particles, but with low speed? Why to strip the electrons from atoms in hot plasma, if just these electrons would shield the atom nuclei against Coulombic repulsion? Why to collide small atom nuclei, if these larger ones merge more easily in similar way, like the mercury droplets? And so on.. – always work smarter, not harder.

    But in contemporary society the brute force approach has an undeniable appeal: it can bring an occupation and drag more funds into research. The higher energies, the more public money must be spent, the larger devices and research basis must be built, the more people could get a reliable job for decades. Who could resist it? Definitely not the jobs seeking scientists and private companies involved. The establishing of adventurous but futile projects like ITER, NIF or LHC is social analogy of gravitating black holes: the concentration of money at single place attracts another money into it automatically. This is the primary reason, why the distributed research projects suffer by lack of interest and funding – the cold fusion is not an exception here.

    http://www.theguardian.com/higher-education-network/2015/may/27/how-can-we-stop-big-science-hoovering-up-all-the-research-funding

    • GreenWin

      True Zephir. Same applies to collider “science” the equiv of hitting atoms with a BFHammer and interpreting each fragment as” a breakthrough discovery” in sub-atomic physics.

  • Zephir

    Polywell IIRC is just NIF or tokamak in disguise – just another brute force approach, which is advancing the needs and possibilities of human civilization by many decades.

  • Alan DeAngelis

    Is this a validation of the E-Cat?

    • doug marker

      I don’t see it as so, but what it does tell us is that $Billions are being fought over by scientists whose fusion careers may go no where if the US Govt finally pulls the plug on US involvement in ITER.

      The question we can ask is where would LENR be today with just 10% of what has been wasted on ITER.

      Doug Marker

      • SG

        The self-proclaimed hot fusion scientists on Reddit are extremely vocal and even shrill in their opposition to LENR. Even mentioning the topic is like stepping into a UFC cage with them. They are worried.

        • Alan DeAngelis
          • SG

            This man speaks the truth. One of the nice long-term benefits of LENR, is that jobs will have less importance in the lives of the people. In other words, people will be less willfully blind for the sake of self-preservation of employment. The world will ultimately become more forthcoming.

        • GreenWin

          They should be ashamed to have so narrow a vision.

  • Alan DeAngelis

    Is this a validation of the E-Cat?

    • doug marker

      I don’t see it as so, but what it does tell us is that $Billions are being fought over by scientists whose fusion careers may go no where if the US Govt finally pulls the plug on US involvement in ITER. There has been a long suspicion by many of us that the anti LENR (and anti Rossi) tirades, are possibly funded by those seeking to protect the on going funding of ITER. They seem not to be interested in financial waste as much as keeping their personal careers funded.

      One question we can ask is where would LENR be today with just 10% (even 5%) of the billions already lost on ITER.

      Doug Marker

      • SG

        The self-proclaimed hot fusion scientists on Reddit are extremely vocal and even shrill in their opposition to LENR. Even mentioning the topic is like stepping into a UFC cage match with them. They are worried.

        • Alan DeAngelis
          • SG

            This man speaks the truth. One of the nice long-term benefits of LENR, is that jobs will have less importance in the lives of the people. In other words, people will be less willfully blind for the sake of self-preservation of employment. The world will ultimately become more forthcoming.

        • GreenWin

          They should be ashamed to have so narrow a vision.

  • otto1923

    In the future materials in plasma form will have many uses such as manufacturing and propulsion, and learning how to store, manipulate, and transport it will be essential. This includes antimatter.
    At present the only known way of doing this is in a closed magnetic bottle, and the tokamak or spheromak are the best configurations. Unfortunately these test machines are necessarily huge and expensive, and offering to produce cheap and unlimited energy with them is a convenient way of getting them built. So much the better if they do just happen to make energy.
    In the same manner, the cold war was a convenient excuse for producing 1000s of tons of the most valuable materials a civilization at our stage of development can possess; fissiles.
    This is how things get done on our planet.

    • Alberonn

      So true ! : the plasmathing… very rare : are you an alien with foresight ? :<))
      With this in mind a few billions dont matter a bit…

      • otto1923

        They matter a great deal. And theyre well-spent on learning how to store, manipulate, and transport materials in plasma form.
        The tech is so important that its worth deceiving the tax-paying public if necessary.
        What, you don’t think this has been done before? You think Obamacare was really about helping sick people rather than protecting insurance companies from collapse during the next pandemic?
        You will be saved against your will. So relax.

  • otto1923

    They matter a great deal. And theyre well-spent on learning how to store, manipulate, and transport materials in plasma form.
    The tech is so important that its worth deceiving the tax-paying public if necessary.
    What, you don’t think this has been done before? You think Obamacare was really about helping sick people rather than protecting insurance companies from collapse during the next pandemic?
    You will be saved against your will. So relax.

  • Eyedoc

    Wow….a little pent up ??… though you do make some good points

  • GreenWin

    Thanks to Doug Marker for bringing this to ECW attention. IF Dr. Rossi has done one sure thing to benefit humanity it has to be to compare the cost of Boondoggle Science e.g. ITER, MIT’s Alcator C Mod, and DOE’s pathetic failure – NIF (National ignition Facility) – all of which have squandered BILLIONS of American tax dollars on their 65 year-old pipe dream called “hot fusion.” — compared to low cost low temp LENR. Dr. Rossi’s work has raised enough interest at the federal level to demand Congressional and DOD hearings.
    ITER has managed to build a lovely dining room for all the over-paid, short sighted, whit collar nerds they’ve hired at huge tax payer expense. The nerd view is “eff the tax payer, we are doing futuristic plasma physics, that will earn us all Nobel prizes!” What’s taking money out of your pocket compared to these brilliant Big Boondoggle Theorists magnetic bottle wanking??
    Forget we have 2.5million human beings living without food or water daily, or devastating drought, robbing the land of productivity. Or that millions live below federal poverty lines in each country that sponsors ITER.
    I have long argued on these pages that ITER is a scourge from ivory tower nitwits, who think they can “put a star in a bottle.” The simple facts are they cannot. They cannot even come close. Since they don’t know how to make the bottle. What these well-meaning nincompoops CAN do is hang their swelled heads and admit to the planet they failed and were overwhelmed by grandiosity, ego and hubris. A very hard lesson for the Richard Dawkins sycophants.
    This is a very good revelation. And yet another reason for American taxpayers and the President to demand the ineffectual Secretary of Energy Ernie Munoz resign his office immediately.

    • doug marker

      Tēnā koe – Mauruuru koe – whakaae tatou e pā ana ki tenei aamu . faaite tatou i te wairua ano i roto i tenei mea
      Doug Marker

      • GreenWin

        E manako ki a koutou toku hoa I roto I te wairua!

  • doug marker

    Hoa mihi . whakaae tatou e pā ana ki tenei aamu . faaite tatou i te wairua kotahi .

    Doug Marker

    • GreenWin

      E manako ki a koutou toku hoa I roto I te wairua!

  • Eyedoc

    Understandable…….hopefully we’ll hear more from you

  • GreenWin

    BIG SCIENCE SKEPTICS WIN: (from AIP Science Policy News) The ITER discussion was confined to brief remarks by Feinstein, but
    signaled that the appropriators’ concerns about the project remain
    strong. “It’s behind schedule and over budget” she said,
    commenting that the preliminary cost estimate made in 2005 for the U.S.
    contribution was $1.122 billion with completion expected by 2013. That
    figure has increased to $4.1 billion with completion projected for 2034
    and 2035, with one review suggesting the total US contribution to ITER
    could increase to $6.5 billion with further delays. Said Feinstein, “I
    don’t believe that fusion will be developed during my lifetime, and
    perhaps not the lifetime of the younger members of this [Senate] body
    .
    It’s building a facility in another country that we may never see
    benefits from. So I have some question about continuing this,
    particularly continuing it at the amount that it is budgeted to be.”
    Next Senate challenge is to eliminate the $B “nuke waste storage boondoggle” Already years delayed and hundreds of billions over-budget. This may be the last money pit created by the fossil-fission cabal to bilk billions from the US taxpayer.

  • GreenWin

    BIG SCIENCE SKEPTICS WIN: (from AIP Science Policy News) The ITER discussion was confined to brief remarks by Feinstein, but
    signaled that the appropriators’ concerns about the project remain
    strong. “It’s behind schedule and over budget” she said,
    commenting that the preliminary cost estimate made in 2005 for the U.S.
    contribution was $1.122 billion with completion expected by 2013. That
    figure has increased to $4.1 billion with completion projected for 2034
    and 2035, with one review suggesting the total US contribution to ITER
    could increase to $6.5 billion with further delays. Said Feinstein, “I
    don’t believe that fusion will be developed during my lifetime, and
    perhaps not the lifetime of the younger members of this [Senate] body
    .
    It’s building a facility in another country that we may never see
    benefits from. So I have some question about continuing this,
    particularly continuing it at the amount that it is budgeted to be.”
    Next Senate challenge is to eliminate the $B “nuke waste storage boondoggle” Already years delayed and hundreds of billions over-budget. This may be the last money pit created by the fossil-fission cabal to bilk billions from the US taxpayer.

  • greggoble

    “Hot and Cold Fusion at MIT” Cold Fusion Now May 30, 2012 Gregory Goble
    http://coldfusionnow.org/hot-and-cold-fusion-at-mit/

    This is an action initiated by Contributor Gregory Goble, poet and clean energy advocate. He felt pity for the hot fusioneers who have lost their largesse due to budget cuts, and who might now consider taking help from their poor ole cousins in the cold fusion community who have the ability to save their programs by providing clean, affordable power to probe plasma science. Ironic, huh? – Ruby Carat

    Follow This

    We are biting our fingernails waiting for commercialization of cold fusion and the hot fusion folks are sweating out their own issues.

    While a lattice-assisted nuclear reactive (LANR/cold fusion) device is operating at MIT with zero funding, the MIT hot fusion budget has been eliminated (shut down) and hot fusion energy generation research may soon end worldwide. Ironically, Tokamak reactors may be much less costly to operate if powered by low-energy nuclear reaction LENR generated power. Presently the power to create a Tokamak nuclear reaction is magnitudes greater in costs with today’s energy technologies than if supplied by cold fusion generated electricity.

    Primary utility power for the MIT Alcator C-Mod is provided by a 24-MVA peak power, 13.8-kV line. In total, storage and conversion systems have been designed to supply up to 500 MJ at up to 400 MVA to the experiment. Electrical costs are $5,002,000, which is approximately 5% of the run budget.

    Alcator C-Mod MIT Budgets and Schedule (2009 – 2013)

    Incremental costs for 1 run week (at 14 ± 3 weeks) Cost: $2,008,000

    Here is where we “turn substance into accident“.

    This is a medieval term which means “to give new quality to substance; a loose and ironic use of the terms of scholastic philosophy.” –from the glossary of Canterbury Tales by Geoffrey Chaucer translated by A. Kent Hieatt and Constance Hieatt Bantam Books.

    Hot and cold fusion folks can work together to advance science by using cold fusion/LANR/LENR to power hot fusion experiments.

    • cashmemorz

      So if MIT fusion efforts can be substantiated as in “a medieval term which means “to give new quality to substance; a loose and ironic use of the terms of scholastic philosophy” by using LENR then why does Darden also need substantiation. If LENR can help hot fusion why would substantiation for LENR itself be needed?

  • greggoble

    “Hot and Cold Fusion at MIT” Cold Fusion Now May 30, 2012 Gregory Goble
    http://coldfusionnow.org/hot-and-cold-fusion-at-mit/

    This is an action initiated by Contributor Gregory Goble, poet and clean energy advocate. He felt pity for the hot fusioneers who have lost their largesse due to budget cuts, and who might now consider taking help from their poor ole cousins in the cold fusion community who have the ability to save their programs by providing clean, affordable power to probe plasma science. Ironic, huh? – Ruby Carat

    Follow This

    We are biting our fingernails waiting for commercialization of cold fusion and the hot fusion folks are sweating out their own issues.

    While a lattice-assisted nuclear reactive (LANR/cold fusion) device is operating at MIT with zero funding, the MIT hot fusion budget has been eliminated (shut down) and hot fusion energy generation research may soon end worldwide. Ironically, Tokamak reactors may be much less costly to operate if powered by low-energy nuclear reaction LENR generated power. Presently the power to create a Tokamak nuclear reaction is magnitudes greater in costs with today’s energy technologies than if supplied by cold fusion generated electricity.

    Primary utility power for the MIT Alcator C-Mod is provided by a 24-MVA peak power, 13.8-kV line. In total, storage and conversion systems have been designed to supply up to 500 MJ at up to 400 MVA to the experiment. Electrical costs are $5,002,000, which is approximately 5% of the run budget.

    Alcator C-Mod MIT Budgets and Schedule (2009 – 2013)

    Incremental costs for 1 run week (at 14 ± 3 weeks) Cost: $2,008,000

    Here is where we “turn substance into accident“.

    This is a medieval term which means “to give new quality to substance; a loose and ironic use of the terms of scholastic philosophy.” –from the glossary of Canterbury Tales by Geoffrey Chaucer translated by A. Kent Hieatt and Constance Hieatt Bantam Books.

    Hot and cold fusion folks can work together to advance science by using cold fusion/LANR/LENR to power hot fusion experiments.

    • cashmemorz

      So if MIT fusion efforts can be substantiated as in “a medieval term which means ‘to give new quality to substance; a loose and ironic use of the terms of scholastic philosophy’ ” by using LENR then why does Darden also need substantiation? If LENR can help hot fusion why would substantiation for LENR itself be needed?

  • CacheLaPoudre

    The only greater waste of time and money than ITER is LENR.