This is the talk page for discussing improvements to the Fusion power article. This is not a forum for general discussion of the article's subject.

Put new text under old text. Click here to start a new topic. New to Wikipedia? Welcome! Learn to edit; get help. Assume good faith Be polite and avoid personal attacks Be welcoming to newcomers Seek dispute resolution if needed Article policies Neutral point of view No original research Verifiability

Find sources: Google (books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL

Archives: 1, 2, 3Auto-archiving period: 2 months

This  level-5 vital article is rated B-class on Wikipedia's content assessment scale. It is of interest to the following WikiProjects:

‹See TfM› Physics High‑importance This article is within the scope of WikiProject Physics, a collaborative effort to improve the coverage of Physics on Wikipedia. If you would like to participate, please visit the project page, where you can join the discussion and see a list of open tasks.PhysicsWikipedia:WikiProject PhysicsTemplate:WikiProject Physicsphysics articles High This article has been rated as High-importance on the project's importance scale. Energy High‑importance This article is within the scope of WikiProject Energy, a collaborative effort to improve the coverage of Energy on Wikipedia. If you would like to participate, please visit the project page, where you can join the discussion and see a list of open tasks.EnergyWikipedia:WikiProject EnergyTemplate:WikiProject Energyenergy articles High This article has been rated as High-importance on the project's importance scale. Environment Low‑importance This environment-related article is part of the WikiProject Environment to improve Wikipedia's coverage of the environment. The aim is to write neutral and well-referenced articles on environment-related topics, as well as to ensure that environment articles are properly categorized. Read Wikipedia:Contributing FAQ and leave any messages at the project talk page.EnvironmentWikipedia:WikiProject EnvironmentTemplate:WikiProject EnvironmentEnvironment articles Low This article has been rated as Low-importance on the project's importance scale. Science Policy Top‑importance This article is within the scope of WikiProject Science Policy, a collaborative effort to improve the coverage of Science policy on Wikipedia. If you would like to participate, please visit the project page, where you can join the discussion and see a list of open tasks.Science PolicyWikipedia:WikiProject Science PolicyTemplate:WikiProject Science PolicyScience Policy articles Top This article has been rated as Top-importance on the project's importance scale. International relations Top‑importance This article is within the scope of WikiProject International relations, a collaborative effort to improve the coverage of International relations on Wikipedia. If you would like to participate, please visit the project page, where you can join the discussion and see a list of open tasks.International relationsWikipedia:WikiProject International relationsTemplate:WikiProject International relationsInternational relations articles Top This article has been rated as Top-importance on the project's importance scale.

Section sizes Section size for Fusion power (62 sections) Section name Byte count Section total (Top) 5,520 5,520 Background 654 12,190 Mechanism 2,000 2,000 Cross section 2,235 2,235 Lawson criterion 1,621 1,621 Triple product: density, temperature, time 3,646 3,646 Energy capture 2,034 2,034 Plasma behavior 2,366 2,366 Methods 390 19,132 Magnetic confinement 6,057 6,057 Inertial confinement 3,479 3,479 Magnetic or electric pinches 3,671 3,671 Inertial electrostatic confinement 1,398 1,398 Other 4,137 4,137 Common tools 282 22,605 Machine learning 1,112 1,112 Heating 4,282 4,282 Measurement 6,672 6,672 Power production 3,190 3,190 Confinement 1,262 7,067 Magnetic confinement 31 2,076 Magnetic Mirror 1,474 1,474 Magnetic loops 571 571 Inertial confinement 1,222 3,729 Electrostatic confinement 2,507 2,507 Fuels 923 12,943 Deuterium, tritium 4,823 4,823 Deuterium 2,967 2,967 Deuterium, helium-3 1,140 1,140 Proton, boron-11 3,090 3,090 Material selection 4,511 17,478 Superconducting materials 1,088 1,088 Containment considerations 1,217 1,217 Plasma-wall surface conditions 965 965 Selection of materials 9,697 9,697 Safety and the environment 33 17,903 Accident potential 4,157 4,157 Magnet quench 2,824 2,824 Effluents 881 881 Radioactive waste 5,622 5,622 Nuclear proliferation 3,023 3,023 Fuel reserves 1,363 1,363 Economics 22,097 22,097 Regulation 6,773 6,773 Geopolitics 12,672 12,672 Advantages 4,634 4,634 Disadvantages 2,247 2,247 History 99 34,211 Early experiments 2,536 2,536 First tokamak 2,621 2,621 First inertial confinement experiments 2,063 2,063 1980s 1,834 1,834 1990s 1,776 1,776 2000s 2,971 2,971 2010s 11,125 11,125 2020s 9,186 9,186 Records 9,693 9,693 See also 304 304 References 1,501 1,501 Bibliography 2,635 2,635 Further reading 463 463 External links 654 654 Total 208,021 208,021

I believe that this article about "Fusion power" would be more complete if there was a reference to Lawrence M. Lidsky and his article from 1983 "The trouble with fusion". This is mentioned in L.J. Reinders work "The fairy tale of nuclear fusion" published by Springer.

Quote p.495: "The first criticism that aroused some attention goes back to a 1983 paper (Lidsky 1983) by the fusion insider Lawrence Lidsky (1935–2002), at the time a professor of nuclear engineering at MIT and associate director of the MIT Plasma Science and Fusion Center. He also was the founding editor of the Journal of Fusion Energy. Lidsky wrote a paper, called “The Trouble with Fusion” in the MIT Technology Review. At the time he said that he wrote it because “I couldn’t get an internal discussion going. Some didn’t care and some didn’t want to know.” I am afraid that is still the case. He actually was of the opinion that the fusion programme had come prematurely under the sway of machine-builders and that as a consequence science was suffering. An explicit goal was established, generating commercially competitive electricity from D-T fusion early in the twenty-first century. Once such a goal has been set, it is not easy to change. Producing net power from fusion is a valid scientific goal, but generating electricity commercially is an engineering problem, Lidsky said."

L. J. Reinders The Fairy Tale of Nuclear Fusion, Springer ISBN 978-3-030-64343-0 ISBN 978-3-030-64344-7 (eBook)

https://newenergytimes.com/v2/sr/iter/Lidsky-The-Trouble-With-Fusion-1983.pdf MIT Technology Review, October 1983

¨¨¨¨ 123johanlindeberg (talk) 16:09, 26 October 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Well, given the state of affairs with ITER, this appears true. What I would be interested in is how early is 'early in the 21st century'? First quarter? Johncdraper (talk) 10:27, 12 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]

A simple way to adress this issue could be to include information in the History-section:

In 1983 Lawrence Lidsky (1935–2002), at the time a professor of nuclear engineering at MIT and associate director of the MIT Plasma Science and Fusion Center, wrote a critical article called “The Trouble with Fusion” in the MIT Technology Review. He said he wrote it because “I couldn’t get an internal discussion going. Some didn’t care and some didn’t want to know.”

In 2021 L.J. Reinders work "The fairy tale of nuclear fusion", a scientific overview of fusion research, was published by Springer.'

The new 5 year delay of ITER has been discussed in media a lot lately, but delays are not uncommon in large scale building projects. That is not what above mentioned critique is about, is my impression. Lidsky and Reinders was targeting a problem within academia, relevant to the concept of fusion power.

All fusion experiments have failed to deliver the goal of fusion power. I believe that "lack of funding" cannot be the only explanation of why that is so.

Steven Krivits 2021 - "ITER, The Grand Illusion: A Forensic Investigation of Power Claims", could well be mentioned in a similar manner. But it is specifically about ITER. 123johanlindeberg (talk) 12:40, 30 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]

I also see this as an academic echo chamber problem more relevant to ITER and the one big machine issue than to the more serious recent (since around 2018) commercial companies, where they are deliberately not shooting directly for a fusion pilot plant but are using multiple steps iteration, common in the space and wider tech industry. Many articles have been written that higlight the successful use of an iteration process at companies like TAE, Tokamak Energy, and Commonwealth Fusion and the setting of goals, and how they trigger staged funding - and how this is all very different from ITER. So, all these companies have been successful, using the hard currency of replicable results, in persuading a wide variety of investors that this stepwise approach is worth investing in - as opposed to, say, a strategy of partnering up with the DoE, like GA. Now, what we do not know if whether or not there will be some ceiling to all this - whether or not very high temperature aneutronic fusion will ever be viable at commercial levels, for example. Insufficient data. So, I'd be in favour of inserting an echo chamber para for ITER and indeed for much of the public sector approaches, but not for the leading edge commercial companies - yet?!? Johncdraper (talk) 12:55, 30 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Yes. And you can use the references.

Prognostic information about startups is not historic fact. That is, it probably isn't suitable for Wikipedia, is my guess. An article on "Fusion power", on the other hand, is suitable, because of its cultural significance. 123johanlindeberg (talk) 14:18, 31 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]

One question that this article leaves me with is how fusion energy can be stored for long periods of time after the process is done and how we can transfer that to the renewable energy industry? Norah b17 (talk) 18:30, 15 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]