Talk:ITER/Archive 2

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. 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. 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)

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)

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)

@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)

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:

• https://www.iter.org/newsline/-/2546
• https://www.iter.org/doc/www/content/com/Lists/list_items/Attachments/704/2016_09_ITER-ANSTO.pdf The ITER press release

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.

Hi, A useful critics by a nuclear scientist: . 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)

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)

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)

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)

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 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 Q_fus or Q_eng 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)

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)

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)

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 and . 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)

"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)

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)

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)

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)

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)

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)

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

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)

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)

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)

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)

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)

Article seemed to ignore the 2022 construction problems and effect on timescales - eg . - Rod57 (talk) 23:21, 15 June 2023 (UTC)

There was a brief mention in Manufacturing (using an older ref) - now also noted in Introduction and Timelines and status. - Rod57 (talk) 23:48, 15 June 2023 (UTC)

I wrote the whole comment in the title InterGraphenic (talk) 19:31, 2 February 2024 (UTC)