Regarding "Building Trust in Fusion Energy"
Commonwealth Fusion System’s (CFS) CEO Dr. Bob Mumgaard recently published an open letter titled “Building Trust in Fusion Energy”. In the letter, he asks his fusion colleagues for greater accountability. His LinkedIn post also invited feedback. My comments to his post went nowhere. In this article we will go over his letter in detail and I will provide similarly detailed feedback.
Why?
Why was this letter even written? Its title implies that fusion energy has a trust issue. The letter's very existence affirms my longstanding contention/concern that the fusion community needs greater scrutiny. Thank you for confirming this, Bob.
Why Now?
The letter’s timing also begs a question. It’s the question that too often goes unasked by fusion communicators, influencers, and editorialists: “Why now?” A clue was perhaps found in Bob’s use of the non sequitur aphorism: “A rising tide lifts all boats”. So true. But so what?
I believe the letter was written because Bob is worried about the converse of the Fusion Industry Association (FIA) slogan: “An ebbing tide drops all boats”. ?Had something happened that could turn the recent tide of fusion mania?
Just days after Mumgaard’s open letter, ITER (the largest fusion energy project in the world) announced a 10-year delay, and a cost overrun > $5,000,000,000. In a July 3rd press conference ITER's director general Pietro Barabaschi said:
"Barabaschi said that he was “very skeptical” that any startups promising commercial operation by 2040 would hit that time line."
That quote is a shot over the bow of private fusion. Dr. Mumgaard’s company still claims that it will deliver power to the grid in early 2030’s. Helion Energy plans to be selling electricity by 2028. Who to trust?
All Aboard?
Dr. Mumgaard will someday helm what I consider to be the most promising vessel in the fusion energy research fleet. CFS is building the good ship “SPARC”, the latest in a line of very high magnetic field tokamaks pioneered at the MIT Plasma Fusion Center. I am proud to have been one of the many hands that assembled and launched SPARC’s predecessor: the ALCATOR C-Mod tokamak. In 2021, I wrote an article describing why SPARC might beat the supertanker sized ITER tokamak in obtaining “first plasma” despite the latter’s huge head start and huger budget. Both projects then claimed this milestone would occur in 2025. While the good news for Dr. Mumgaard is that CFS will almost certainly win the head-to-head regatta, the bad news is that the tide may have turned. The press has not reacted mildly:
Fusion Dead-Ends
Dr. Mumgaard’s post said, "every fusion concept naturally passes milestones...". Whoops. I disagree already. This is neither natural nor guaranteed in any way. More accurate would be "any fusion concept with a scientific chance of succeeding might eventually pass milestones..."
This may seem like I am nitpicking but the difference cuts straight to the core of the trust issue that motivates Bob’s letter. You see, it is an open secret that the fusion community knows many of the approaches getting hype lately can’t possibly work. Don’t take my word for it. Thanks to decades of good plasma science, many fusion energy concepts are known to be impossible.
What of Milestones on Dead-End Roads?
Dr. Mumgaard's letter proposes that a set of standardized milestones be established so all fusion companies can be measured fairly. In principle, I approve although there is immediately and obvious problem. Who gets to decide where the mile markers are placed?
But there is a more important and less obvious problem with Dr. Mumgaard’s milestones. Such linear steps are meaningless for fusion concepts known (see above) to have no chance of achieving commercial fusion energy.
When this is known in advance, intermediate milestones are irrelevant. It is like saying that solution B in the children’s maze game has made more progress than solution A, even though all attempts at solution B are hopeless.
Passing the "Zeroth" Milestone
I propose a zeroth (0th) milestone that must be met before any subsequent milestones apply. All Fusion companies must credibly demonstrate that their fusion concept is not impossible & that they are on a scientific path that scales to a commercially viable reactor.
For example, Mumgaard ranks NIF's laser fusion work has having achieved his 4th milestone. But many would argue that only direct-drive approaches to inertial fusion have a path to a reactor. Direct-drive laser research has yet to achieve Mumgaard's 3rd milestone.
Say Who?
Dr. Mumgaard’s letter is generally well written/intentioned. But I was baffled when he began explaining who should do what.
Early on the letter says: “I want all fusion companies, research organizations, and partners to hold each other accountable in constructive ways.” That’s straightforward. I’m all for it.
I became baffled when Dr. Mumgaard suggests “we shouldn’t expect the companies to fact-check each other". Wait. Who’s 'we' here? I certainly expect this.
I thought the whole idea of this private fusion “industry” was to use the powerful forces of the free market to drive fusion progress. But since no fusion company has a product (net power) yet, the only way fusion companies can compete is by fact checking each other’s science and engineering.
I agree that this competition should be “constructive” … no bareknuckle brawling. If only the fusion arena had its own version of boxing’s Queensbury rules ?? . Oh wait. It does!
领英推荐
Of course they are the rules and flows of the scientific method.
Tempered Advocacy
To be clear, I consider myself a fusion advocate. I agree with most of what Dr. Mumgaard says in his letter. For example, I agree with every word of the following:
Fusion is hard. It is deeply technical, progress takes time, and results require diligent interpretation. We must all work to move away from every advance being a breakthrough, and toward a common understanding and language about where we are and where we’re heading. The industry can reduce the uncertainty and confusion by publishing research plans and results and allowing for the best minds in the world to scrutinize and criticize the findings.
I agree with all but a single word in this Mumgaard quote:
Fusion energy is the solution at the scale of the climate problem we face.
Dr. Mumgaard should agree that fission energy is another a solution on the same scale and therefore he should have used the word “a” rather than “the”. This may seem nitpicky, but it is critically important. At ITER’s recent bombshell news conference its director general said:
In terms of the impact of nuclear fusion on the problems humanity faces now, we should not wait for nuclear fusion to resolve them. This is not prudent.
While it is shockingly rare to hear such a frank assessment from one of fusion energy's leaders, I actually agree. I believe that fission is a necessary near-term solution to the energy transition. That fusion is only a long-term solution does not diminish its importance. It does however underscore the importance of setting realistic expectations for fusion. This is why I most certainly agree with Dr. Mumgaard when he says:
we need voices that can help distinguish the progress from the hype
Voices? What Voices?
But what voices? Who does Bob feel we should trust to cut through the hype? Here he says:
There is a growing role for communicators, for influencers, and for editorialists to track the progress and check the claims.
I vigorously disagree. Wasn't it the kowtowing popular press that got fusion into its 'trust' mess? With only a few notable exceptions, I haven’t seen the technology press trying to hold the fusion PR machine accountable.? A recent NYT article cheerfully listed the explosion of private laser fusion companies that popped up like mushrooms following NIF’s impressive PR campaign. The article noted that six private laser fusion companies was a “small” number and casually observed that: “For now, the competitors are largely rooting for each other.” This sounds more like a free lunch than a free market.
An excellent 2016 Vanity Fair article supports my point. It describes the broken dynamic between the technology press and high-tech companies:
The system here has been molded to effectively prevent reporters from asking tough questions. It’s a game of access, and if you don’t play it carefully, you may pay sorely. Outlets that write negatively about gadgets often don’t get pre-release versions of the next gadget. Writers who ask probing questions may not get to interview the C.E.O. next time he or she is doing the rounds. If you comply with these rules, you’re rewarded with page views and praise in the tech blogosphere.
Reluctant Critics
While, again, I consider myself a fusion advocate, the “hype” (Bob’s word) surrounding fusion of late has compelled me to join the thin ranks of its credentialled critics. I have written dozens of articles trying to help “distinguish the progress from the hype”. My voice has not been welcomed by the fusion community. This is where Bob’s letter falls flat.? The fusion community has never welcomed fusion experts willing to constructively address “The trouble with Fusion”.
YouTube it Is!
While, again, I feel that it should be up to private fusion companies to fact check each other, Dr. Mumgaard disagrees. Fair enough. Bob’s words have nudged this boomer further into the digital age!
I would reluctantly like to announce the pilots for two new podcast platforms! Both seek to encourage constructive dialogue on important issues by asking tough questions of domain experts. One is fusion related; one is more general. ?I would like to officially offer invite Dr. Mumgaard to be the first live guest!
One topic that I will be glad to highlight in my discussion with Dr. Mumgaard is his company’s excellent track record in publishing:
Overstressing publication does miss an important point, however. To fully understand fusion energy's prospects, what is not being discussed is often even more important.
"Small Steps" vs. "Giant Leaps"
Dr. Bob Mumgaard’s open letter is a call to action for his peers. It asks that they take meaningful steps to earn the trust of the public. I applaud this. It is a step in the right direction.
But, using the same (problematic) space exploration analogy that Bob himself uses, it is only a “small step”, and fusion needs a “giant leap”. That leap will come only after the fusion community not only heeds Dr. Mumgaard’s call for broader publication, but also fullly embraces and rewards thoughtful questions and fact checking.
Thank you Dr. Mumgaard for validating my longstanding request to all parties interested in seeing fusion energy become a reality: Keep asking questions!
Your reluctant fusion critic, Peter O’Shea
Project Controls
7 个月I worked on the project, in planning. I also worked in a components factory to build the biggest items, and if commissioning should start by 2024, it would've taken a lot more manpower to achieve it.
Laboratory Manager - FIFO
7 个月I might have a simplistic view of this, but isn't "fact-checking" the other players just peer review? Perhaps there is a fine line between healthy debate about the validity of claims and disparaging your competitor for the sake of petty point scoring?
Architect, leader and builder.
7 个月When Dr. Mumgaard is saying that "we shouldn't expect the companies to fact-check each other" there are two ways to interpret what he is saying. The first, is that he is saying that companies shouldn't need to fact check each other. The second interpretation is that due to the way companies operate companies won't fact check each other (but maybe in a perfect world they would) so we need another approach. Even if companies were to fact check each other, how could it be trustworthy? If the industry was interested in fact checking, maybe sponsoring a third party, arms length, panel of experts could be an approach. However, it doesn't seem like there would be a lot of incentive for that and all it would take is one or two unscrupulous companies to mess that up pretty bad. Your approach of youtube seems like a good one. It's a pretty noble cause and may well be thankless but it seems that it will add a lot of value. Best of luck.