Talk:Fusion power/Archive 2

Totally Inaccessible
This article is totally inaccessible to any person without a good understanding of physics. At least one section needs to address the fundamentals of fusion power in a way that can introduce a novice to more advanced information contained later in the article. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 205.211.168.17 (talk) 17:28, 29 January 2010 (UTC)

The other fusion power?
I was just re-reading the intro, and I was struct by what appears to be a missing definition. The article currently talks about the "technical term", which is basically "the amount of energy being produced by a fusion reaction". But when I think of the term "fusion power", I normally think of something very different, a non-technical term that means "the entire concept of using fusion reactions as a commercal source of power". I'm not sure the body of the article doesn't cover the two terms in enough depth already, but am I wrong in thinking there is a missing intro paragraph that clearly defines this other use of the term? Maury 04:14, 4 January 2007 (UTC)

Bussard Presentation at Google TechTalks
Hi, just watched this rather interesting talk (Google Video) by Bussard at Google. He presents a non-grid-based ECF system that his team has been developing for the last 12+ years under a DOD contract. I'm no expert, so I dont know how credible the claims are in the presentation. However, he makes what appear to be rather controvercial statements, (related perhaps to thread above concerning Tokamak) and his views don't seem to be addressed in this entry. (first 20 or so minutes are fusion background, then talks about his recent work) --JulieKilo 04:11, 8 January 2007 (UTC)

I'm not sure how controversial the statements are -- I'm watching it now, and everything he's presenting seems to be on the up and up as far as physics is concerned, though he does quite a bit of humorous tokamak/mirror machine bashing. However, I'm not sure what place this should have in a general encyclopedia. It's quite cutting edge research at the moment.

I would really like to see some expert comments on the talk, since this can be a revolutionary discovery, thanks 202.82.238.30 08:01, 11 October 2007 (UTC)

Unsolved tag
I suggest that this tag should be removed. It short circuits and minimizes the major effort that is underway ( ITER ) to answer this complex question. ClaudeSB 22:34, 24 January 2007 (UTC)


 * I'm not even sure what section it was on! The article is a hotbed of undiscussed changes.


 * If the tag was on anything to do with materials or radioactive waste, it probably should have stayed. See IFMIF, and note that there is no mention of where it will be built, if it is. There's been a lot of silence lately, possibly because people are reluctant to ask for money for IFMIF until they are quite certain that it won't be at the expense of ITER, which is an enormous financial commitment already. Even worse, if IFMIF were to be cancelled as too expensive, that might mean ITER would be cancelled too, as pointless without IFMIF. So there's every reason to tread gently.


 * But IFMIF is critical to building DEMO, of course. Every delay to IFMIF means DEMO is also further away. Andrewa 19:44, 16 July 2007 (UTC)

tritium
I included the link for tritium to the article since it is relevant. --209.244.30.237 20:24, 10 May 2007 (UTC)

Fuel Cycles
Should someone put the 3He-3He or the D-3He fuel cycles into this? Matholomew 08:06, 15 April 2006 (UTC)
 * Should the letters in the fuel cycle equations have links, or explanations to what they are? For Example, the p in the The D-D fuel cycle equation. Is it representing proton or protium? Duncan Hill 05:16, 17 June 2007 (UTC)

It is actually irrelevant as protium is an atom with one proton and no neutrons. It is thus apparent that it can stand for both proton and protium. 72.1.206.17 (talk) 13:20, 15 December 2008 (UTC)

Future plans and predictions of development
I can't find future plans for fusion power and predictions of it's usage development in entire article. Can somebody add plans (which are referenced) and add some notable predictions of how long will it take to reach some level in development of fusion power, possible years or similar. I cant't find any future years in the article. It would be good if article gives reader a little sense of speed of research on this fields. Thanks. --83.131.77.136 10:36, 14 July 2007 (UTC)

The recent addition saying fusion is "not practical" seems to be an opinion based purely on an editorial in New Scientist and IMHO should be undone or relegated to a simple POV reference. Editorials often present a strongly biased viewpoint to stimulate discussion, so should not be presented as evidence.

The main issue raised, containment, might be solved soon - for example by measuring deviations and applying compensating magnetic fields. Relaxed stability algorithms as applied to unstable aircraft like the Grumman X-29 could be relevant here.


 * I can't find it this minute, but a few years back the electrical generation industry group published a report stating quite clearly that even if fusion were made to work in the short term they would be unlikely to deploy it commercially. The size of the reactors has to be quite large to make them economically viable, but large reactors have supply and demand effects on the electricity market that make them difficult to pay for. I'll see if I can dig it up. Maury 19:12, 26 July 2007 (UTC)

I wanted to comment on this paragraph:


 * The recent addition saying fusion is "not practical" seems to be an opinion based purely on an editorial in New Scientist and IMHO should be undone or relegated to a simple POV reference. Editorials often present a strongly biased viewpoint to stimulate discussion, so should not be presented as evidence.

Please see WP:NPOV, which is about representing fairly and without bias all significant views that have been published by reliable sources. This is non-negotiable and expected on all articles, and of all article editors. New Scientist is certainly a reliable source, and so should be included as part of NPOV. There can be no question of excluding this reference. -- Johnfos 21:14, 26 July 2007 (UTC)


 * New Scientist? Oh yes there can! Its the "reliable sources" bit that's at issue. Maury 12:36, 27 July 2007 (UTC)


 * How so? The only parts of New Scientist I've considered as not being reliable are the advertisements. (anonymous user who isn't registered here but has an interest in fusion, 12:26pm, Tuesday 31st July 2007)


 * New Scientist often publishes articles that have no scientific merit and are printed primarily because they are controversial. It is a news magazine, remember. For instance there was the NASA programmer who was going around telling everyone that aerospace engineers were all wrong and that lift is actually really simple. This topic comes up over and over, I believe the editors of NS are aware of this and find it somewhat amusing. There's ample examples of the debates that result of using NS as a source here on the wiki. Maury 12:33, 31 July 2007 (UTC)

I agree, an editorial is largely based on opinion, thus making it POV. Also, even reputable and reliable sources will often vary in opinions. I guarantee that those men working on ITER believe fusion to be practical, and they are equally knowledgeable compared to "New Scientist". We need to argue both sides to stay neutral. Intense adolescent (talk) 13:53, 15 December 2008 (UTC)

Updated diagram to SVG
I've created to replace. Please someone check it and replace the old one with the new one IF it is correct. Otherwise, notify me on my talk page. Thanks. wykis 17:10, 15 October 2007 (UTC)


 * Isn't the DT Gain scale odd in that it lacks 1 (10^0)? --81.216.218.158 (talk) 23:56, 7 January 2011 (UTC)

Accident potential, needs sources
I rewrote a bit of the accident potential section. It really isn't the fuel inventory that is the problem in fission reactors, but rather the physics of the reaction, which can ( in some designs ) cause it to run out of control, or lead to a meltdown. In particular, fission gives rise to very neutron-rich fission products that continue to produce heat through beta-decay for a long time after the reactor has been shut down ( and this was part of the problem in the three mile island accident ). A Chernobyl style runaway reaction really is an impossibility in most modern designs as they are designed with strong negative temperature coefficients, thou I guess you get that behaviour "for free" in a fusion reactor. I tried to clarify this. In either case the section is horribly short on sources, thou many should be easy to find in other articles on nuclear safety. I don't feel very confident with the reference system, so I won't try to do it myself. 85.230.195.192 03:06, 23 October 2007 (UTC)


 * Perhaps look into http://www.iter.org/safety, this is the official safety page of the ITER project. I'm also new-ish to references, anddon't know how best to break this down. LightRobb (talk) 13:27, 19 April 2012 (UTC)

Question on sustainability
I see no problem with this passage:

"Fusion power has been touted as a "renewable" energy source. This is incorrect - any scaled-up use of fusion power would consume more deuterium than the Earth would receive from cosmic sources. Heavy water is the only sizable natural source of deuterium on Earth. Over time, a stable fusion economy would slowly but steadily deplete the concentration of heavy water in the planet's water bodies from the natural ratio of one deuterium atom for approximately every 6400 protium atoms (i.e. one heavy water molecule per 3200 water molecules) as depleted stocks of water return to the planet's water bodies. Unless total energy consumption on the planet was increased by several orders of magnitude, then this would not pose a serious problem for millennia as the total amount of deuterium in the planet's oceans is estimated to contain at least fifty million times the equivalent energy content in the planet's remaining fossil fuel supplies. If the entire planet scaled up its per-capita energy consumption to the level of Qatar (which consumes almost three times the energy consumed per capita compared to the United States) using fusion power, then even with a world population exceeding ten billion the planet's deuterium reserves would still last for thousands of years at least. However, this does not take into account the tendency of the human population to grow exponentially. Nonetheless, over many centuries the energy costs related to extracting deuterium would steadily increase as the concentration of deuterium in natural sources steadily decreased (assuming no improvements were made to the extraction technology and methods). In the hypothetical event that humanity sustains itself for several millennia primarily on fusion power, then deuterium depletion could potentially create major challenges for our distant descendants."

Why shouldn't we include this? Yes, the fusion fuels on Earth won't last infinitely, but neither will the hydrogen in the stars.

Anyone care to discuss the worthiness of this section?

AWeishaupt (talk) 00:38, 18 December 2007 (UTC)
 * The above as presented is just straight WP:OR, it has no sources, it is just an essay, and is fatally flawed in two respects, one it talks about "would still last for thousands of years", a blink of an eye compared to the billion years we will be here, and it states "the tendency of the human population to grow exponentially", yet fails to observe the finite area of the surface of the earth. We are already close to what we expect the final population of the planet (within 50% or so), however it doesn't include populations expanding into outer space, in earth orbit, within the solar system, and beyond the solar system. The only way you can continue to project exponential population growth is to expand beyond the solar system at some point, and once you have left the earth you continually open up new sources for energy. At this point I think the article should discuss the hypothetical possibility of obtaining any energy at all from nuclear fusion, not the hypothetical possibility of sustainability of nuclear fusion. A short indication of the potential supply of availability of fuel is all that is needed. The way technology changes so rapidly it is difficult to speculate beyond about 300 years. Or even 30 years. 199.125.109.134 (talk) 04:01, 18 December 2007 (UTC)


 * Isn't there a section in this article that says that fusion power could last for billions of years, not just thousands? —Preceding unsigned comment added by 65.34.82.144 (talk) 18:56, 29 August 2008 (UTC)


 * I know this is an old discussion, but it seems to still be relevant, so I would like to note that fusion power might be possible using regular hydrogen, not deuterium. However, it is a lot easier with deuterium, which is why all the research uses it.  Second, Deuterium can be produced.   I don't know the specifics, but you need a neutron generator, liquid hydrogen, and some additional non-expended components to conduct the neutrons into the liquid hydrogen.  Anyways, deuterium CAN be generated, it's just a lot cheaper and more efficient to gather it. --Robert Wm &#34;Ruedii&#34; (talk) 20:44, 18 May 2012 (UTC)
 * It could in principle be produced, but only in miniscule quantities compared to those existing naturally (since there are no mass-scale "neutron generators"), and possibly losing more energy than the deuterium can later produce itself, so that makes no sense at all. --Roentgenium111 (talk) 20:24, 26 July 2012 (UTC)

Waste (helium and oxygen)
How much waste would a large scale implementation of fission-technology produce? At what point would it make an impact on the atmospheric conditions? MX44 (talk) 13:16, 12 February 2009 (UTC)
 * A fusion reaction produces about 10^7 times more energy per atom than a chemical reaction. If it takes hundreds of years to produce enough CO2 to influence the climate by burning coal, then it would take billions of years to produce the same quantity of helium. Of course, helium isn't a green house gas, and it is lost to space from the atmosphere on a scale of millions(?) of years. Not a problem. --Art Carlson (talk) 15:23, 12 February 2009 (UTC)

Good Article
Any objections to listing this article as a WP:Good article candidate? References a sparse, especially in the beginning, so that's something that will need to be addressed. - RoyBoy 800 00:37, 20 February 2008 (UTC)

How will the world look like when the first fusion plant is ready
I think we will have so much photovoltaic, that it's not possible to sell electric power in the summer time. But the high investition for a fusion power plant is uneconomic, when the plant can sell only in winter electric power. Here my study. --Pege.founder (talk) 15:16, 14 April 2008 (UTC)

I would like to hedge the bets for my children future on this planet between as many potential energy sources and technologies as possible. Even if we had a feasible technology today we should still invest into alternatives. Roeschter (talk) 05:25, 3 January 2009 (UTC)

Wrongly interpreted source.
I removed the phrase about "long half-life waste" being generated in a fusion reactor as it states as its source this article from BBC News site. What I found the article states and would match the assertion is: "It has been calculated that after 100 years of post-operation radioactive decay, Iter will be left with about 6,000 tonnes of waste. When packaged, this would be equivalent to a cube with about 10m edges.". As I see it the cube of waste mentioned is non-radiactive in the common sense. What could be misleading is that in fact these materials would be "very long half-life waste" as all so-called stable isotopes are. Please tell me if I've been too hasty with this, I'm a newbie contributor. Preymond (talk) 18:25, 6 July 2008 (UTC)

make the oceans lighter?
seems a rather odd comment i know... but if we started to extract all the "heavy water" from the oceans, wouldn't they get lighter? i am sure that could upset some of the marine ecosystem?--UltraMagnus (talk) 17:15, 31 July 2008 (UTC)

The biological effects of deuterium are well researched, just take a look at the article. Removing it completely has no effect. Increasing concentration to >30% does have an effect. Roeschter (talk) 05:26, 3 January 2009 (UTC)

Since deuterium is naturally present at only about 1 part in 6400 in water (see the Deuterium article), there would be no effect even if all the deuterium was consumed. Gierszep (talk) 02:27, 15 April 2011 (UTC)


 * There probably would be the effect that the oceans would get somewhat smaller (on the order of a sea level decrease of ~0.5 m) if the heavy water is removed without replacement (e.g. the D-T reaction does not produce any hydrogen-1), since no large amounts of elementary hydrogen is available on Earth to replace the missing (heavy) water molecules. --Roentgenium111 (talk) 19:32, 26 July 2012 (UTC)

Image copyright problem with Image:JointEuropeanTorus internal.jpg
The image Image:JointEuropeanTorus internal.jpg is used in this article under a claim of fair use, but it does not have an adequate explanation for why it meets the requirements for such images when used here. In particular, for each page the image is used on, it must have an explanation linking to that page which explains why it needs to be used on that page. Please check


 * That there is a non-free use rationale on the image's description page for the use in this article.
 * That this article is linked to from the image description page.

This is an automated notice by FairuseBot. For assistance on the image use policy, see Media copyright questions. --02:00, 17 September 2008 (UTC)


 * Figure seems to have been removed. Problem solved. Gierszep (talk) 02:27, 15 April 2011 (UTC)

History of research
I thought the sentence "In a hydrogen bomb, the energy released by a fission weapon is used to compress and heat fusion fuel, beginning a fusion reaction which can release a very large amount of energy." is misleading since there is no mention in the section that most of the energy released in a fusion bomb comes from fission rather than fusion. Fusion is utilized because it produces large amounts of neutrons, which promote a much more complete fission reaction.

Isaac 150.243.39.17 (talk) 04:54, 5 October 2008 (UTC)


 * I agree the section states that hydrogen bombs release most of the energy is from fusion, when the pages on nuclear weapons state that the purpose of the fusion is only to release neutrons to increase the rate of fission, were most of the energy comes from. I’m going to go ahead and change it. --Disagreeableneutrino (talk) 07:41, 21 October 2009 (UTC)

Recycling of heat through endothermic fusion of Iron
When Iron fuses with itself, the result is an endothermic reaction. Normally endothermicity absorbs heat and makes it unavailable. However, due to the nature of the strong force - whatever occurs inside a particle having it also occurs in every other particle having it. The absorbed heat in a nucleus of Iron does not have to be shared through normal means in order for its expression. The inherent magnetism of Iron makes heat highly recyclable, and through that releases energy. Invest in Iron-based catalysts for the Oil industries, yes. 74.195.28.79 (talk) 21:28, 25 October 2008 (UTC)

Theoretical power plant design: Materials
This section is taken directly from the IFMIF article on Wikipedia. Considering that IFMIF hasn't been built yet, perhaps it would be wise not to solely include the potential materials for this specific experiment. I'd suggest including information about previously used materials in fusion experiments, how effective or ineffective they were, whether or not their effectiveness was adequately tested base, on realistic situations in a commercial fusion reactor, and the hypothetical reason that they are/were effective or ineffective. Does anyone else agree? Intense adolescent (talk) 13:42, 15 December 2008 (UTC)

volatility and biological activity of waste products
This sentence was recently removed:
 * Furthermore, there are fewer unique species, and they tend to be non-volatile and biologically less active.

with this edit summary:
 * Removing irrelevent sentence. Species in nuclear fission reactions???

I regret that I don't have a source for this, but the sentence does express important differences in the wastes from fusion and fission. Fission products consist of essentially every element from hydrogen to uranium, and many different isotopes of those elements. So you get a lot of nasties, like iodine and cesium and strontium that are both volatile and biologically active. Leaving tritium aside, radioactive waste from fusion is mostly activation products from impurities in the structural material. There are only a handful of these impurity elements, and they tend to be both relatively inactive from a biological standpoint, non-volatile, and locked into the matrix of the structural material anyway. I think the info should be kept in some form. --Art Carlson (talk) 16:28, 18 February 2009 (UTC)

Fusion bomb vs Fusion power
In response to this edit summary, "rm digression - this article is about fusion power, not about the political arrangements of the NIF," you are absolutely correct. This article is about Fusion power. And to mention the information in the disputed section is incredibly misleading. It was developed to aid the US nuclear arsenal. This is mentioned several times in the source. The article says the super laser can produce more power than was put into the system. Hooray, so can nuclear bombs. At this point, literally no steps towards fusion power have been produced by this system. So whether or not it deserves a mention in this article is very much debatable. If it needs to be mentioned, we need to explain that this is part of a weapons system. As the section stands now, it seems to imply that we've overcome the largest technical obstacle and that fusion power is right around the corner.  Azure Fury  (talk | contribs) 11:13, 11 September 2009 (UTC)


 * The whole paragraph is strange! I agree that it talks things up quite a lot - the NIF has only just been completed, it hasn't yet produced results.  But the idea of using laser confinement for fusion power is entirely reasonable.  I'm not sure it's realistic to describe the NIF as a weapons system though - it's a research facility which does research both for civilian (fusion power) and military (nuclear weapons) purposes.  Ultimately, NIF is funded by the US Department of Energy (which also has a split focus between civilian power and nuclear weapons). In any case, I think this is all a digression from the topic. Djr32 (talk) 21:11, 11 September 2009 (UTC)


 * NIF is the first inertial-confinement fusion experiment to stand a chance of reaching ignition (self-sustaining burning), after the Nova laser failed to do this. So, I'd argue that it's relevant to mention it (just as it's relevant to mention ITER in the context of magnetic-confinement fusion). --Christopher Thomas (talk) 21:44, 11 September 2009 (UTC)

This is from the article: "Although it took less than ten years to go from military applications to civilian fission energy production,[3] it has been very different in the fusion energy field; more than fifty years have already passed[4] without any commercial fusion energy production plant coming into operation." This contradicts the implication made in the disputed section that being able to produce weapons and produce usable energy are near equivalent.  Azure Fury  (talk | contribs) 19:43, 12 September 2009 (UTC)


 * You seem to be making very strange assumptions about what the National Ignition Facility is and does. It is a large laser system that zaps a small pellet of hydrogen isotopes, trying to get significant amounts of fusion to occur. The weapons-related application of this is to allow better study of hydrogen plasma at fusion conditions (which is important for designing better fusion bombs). This is enough for it to get military funding, as the US military likes being able to design improved weapons without having to conduct nuclear tests. NIF itself produces no weapons of any kind (it's a prototype inertial confinement fusion reactor).


 * There is no implication, in the disputed section or elsewhere, that producing fusion weapons and producing fusion power are equivalent. That is, in fact, the core of the dispute (you seem to feel that NIF is a weapons plant of some kind). --Christopher Thomas (talk) 20:33, 12 September 2009 (UTC)


 * The comments in the source about the applications of this technology state that it will be used to aid the US nuclear arsenal. So I guess that isn't an implication.  It's an explicit statement.  The source also labels the NIF as a "weapons lab."  Don't know where I got that crazy idea.  I admit I'm not an expert on the subject matter.  All I have to go on is the article and the source.  This is what the source says, "a US weapons lab has new technology that will be used to improve fusion bombs."  This is what the article says, "a scientific lab has made a fusion reaction that produces more energy than was put in."  These are not the same statements.  Azure Fury   (talk | contribs) 20:53, 12 September 2009 (UTC)


 * I direct you to the large number of references and sources cited at National Ignition Facility. You may also wish to read the National Ignition Facility article itself. --Christopher Thomas (talk) 00:22, 13 September 2009 (UTC)


 * I see nothing contradicting the statement made in the source that it is a weapons lab that created this technology. I'm re-adding that.  Azure Fury   (talk | contribs) 16:15, 13 September 2009 (UTC)


 * Neither of the sentences you put in quotes above are actually direct quotes - the second one is not even an accurate paraphrasing (the news article relates to the end of construction of the NIF, they haven't yet demonstrated ignition). But most of what you're asking for is already covered in the section on Laser inertial devices above: "Most research in this field turned to weapons research, always a second line of research, as the implosion concept is somewhat similar to hydrogen bomb operation. Work on very large versions continued as a result, with the very large National Ignition Facility in the US..."  I propose replacing the whole discussion in the "Current status" section with a simple statement along the lines of "construction of the NIF has been completed, and it is hoped to demonstrate ignition in 2010".  Djr32 (talk) 17:50, 13 September 2009 (UTC)


 * That would force interested people to research the NIF in more detail, which I think would be a fair compromise.  Azure Fury  (talk | contribs) 18:45, 13 September 2009 (UTC)

I have re-worked the paragraph in question, only mentioning that LLNL is primarily a weapons lab. I agree that the weapons connection is of peripheral relevance in the context of an article on fusion power. The temperatures needed for controlled fusion do not occur in planetary cores, and such cores are irrelevant to the subject of this article. It is also silly to talk about the laser having "the ability to strike a hydrogen atom", so I dropped that; only hydrogen plasmas are relevant here (hydrogen atoms cannot even exist as atoms at the temperatures required for fusion). Wwheaton (talk) 20:09, 13 September 2009 (UTC)


 * I endorse your rewritten version . --Christopher Thomas (talk) 02:05, 14 September 2009 (UTC)

Tritium decay energy
Regarding this change, does tritium's low decay energy actually make it less harmful? It certainly reduces the penetration distance, but since it's acting from within the body either way, that shouldn't be an issue. I can see an argument for it scattering fewer electrons and ions and producing fewer secondary showers as it passes, so it could very well cause less damage, but higher-energy beta radiation has a lower interaction cross-section, so should produce fewer events per unit distance travelled. I'm leaving it in, but I'd feel more comfortable if a reference for this change could be dug up. --Christopher Thomas (talk) 06:44, 21 September 2009 (UTC)


 * Good question. I think it depends on whether you are interested in the damage per decay (less) or the damage per energy (more). I have often been guilty of mentioning the low energy as a plus, but it is in fact a poor measure of biological damge potential. The short half-life could be viewed in a similar way. The problem is not around as long, but the damage done by each atom released is higher. --Art Carlson (talk) 07:54, 21 September 2009 (UTC)


 * Continuing this train of reasoning, it looks like it depends on whether we're reporting release of radioactive materials in terms of decays per second per unit mass/volume of contaminated material, or in terms of power per unit mass/volume of contaminated material. Tritium would have a much lower dose per decay but not per unit energy. I seem to recall that waste activity levels are reported one way (Becquerels) and dosage of people exposed another (Grays). Presenting this accurately in the text will be a challenge. --Christopher Thomas (talk) 08:32, 21 September 2009 (UTC)

More info on Polywell Fusion
This recent blog post was an incredibly enlightening source of links to resources on Polywell Fusion. I don't see it in the article external links but will place it here for other editors to consider if it is article linkworthy. N2e (talk) 14:32, 5 October 2009 (UTC)


 * I'm not sure if there actually a policy against it, but I am uncomfortable with linking to a collection of links. If the target links are really such high quality, then we should sift out the best of those and link directly. --Art Carlson (talk) 15:09, 5 October 2009 (UTC)

Levitating Dipole Experiment
Here is an interesting news article about a "Levitating Dipole Experiment" that might be an interesting addition to this article. I'm not sure if Live Science would be regarded as a reliable source. Would anyone object to me adding a brief mention of this development? One runs the risk of yet another "fusion is just around the corner" pep rally, I know. CosineKitty (talk) 19:24, 28 January 2010 (UTC)

help with old reference
many years ago, Science magazine, published by the AAAS, and widely regarded as one of the most prestigous science magazines in the world, published an editorial or comment by an engineer on fundamental problems with fusion power, which addressed real practical engineering issues like heat transfer. does anyone have a citation, or, better a PDF ?Cinnamon colbert (talk) 17:23, 29 January 2010 (UTC) http://www.sciencemag.org/cgi/pdf_extract/199/4336/1403 —Preceding unsigned comment added by Cinnamon colbert (talk • contribs) 17:26, 29 January 2010 (UTC)
 * Any AAAS member can download a pdf out of the Science archives, as part of their AAAS membership. I am a member, and have just looked into their archive, where I find: "Engineering Limitations of Fusion Power Plants", by W. E. Parkins, Science, Vol 199, pp 1403-1408. 31 March 1978.  The author was the Director of Research and Technology at Atomics International in San Diego, CA.  The two problems highlighted were (1) non-competitive capital costs of proposed plant designs, and (2) the operational limitations from the effects of radiation on the first wall of the containment vessel for D-T reactors or others producing high-energy neutrons.  Of course after 33 years, I presume some progress has been made on these issues, but I cannot say to what extent Parkins's concerns have been addressed.  The article is the second of two in that issue of the journal; although I have not downloaded the first, the concluding paragraph ends, "... nevertheless, the strategy outlined here suggests that tokamak fusion power could be demonstrated with reasonable expenditures of money." Wwheaton (talk) 02:46, 5 March 2011 (UTC)

This Article lacks Citations
Nuff said. 173.75.234.3 (talk) 23:17, 22 July 2010 (UTC)

Confinement methods mixup
Magnetic confinement - ok

Pinch devices - there should be a clear distinction between pinching the fusing plasma itself or pinching plasma in order to hit the fusion target. The latter (as in Z-machine) is a subtype of inertial confinement (fast moving mass hits the target).

Inertial confinement - should be Inertial electrostatic confinement or maybe just electrostatic confinement. It is very different from other inertial confinement methods (laser, ion/electron beam, z-pinch, etc) —Preceding unsigned comment added by 89.77.86.97 (talk) 19:16, 15 August 2010 (UTC)

Assessment comment
Substituted at 20:35, 2 May 2016 (UTC)