Simply not true. grid power was about 500 MW peak, but the great majority of that was not "input power for the reactor." It was power to maintain reactor conditions, mostly the magnetic field. It does not take power to maintain a magnetic field, a field is stored power. However, ordinary electromagnets require current and with ordinary conductors, there is heat dissipated in them. That power heated the magnets, not the reactor. Superconducting magnets avoid this, and JET's goal was not to demonstrate efficient maintenance of a magnetic field, that is already well-known -- but expensive. The goal was to control the hot plasma. "Input power" in that experiment is not "input to the facility" but energy actually added to the plasma, to maintain it against cooling losses.Krivit is, once again, insisting on his own definitions in claiming that others are wrong.

It was not difficult to find public information about ITER power supply. Plasma power is about 50 MW. They are hoping for a Q of 10, so fusion power is 500 MW. Those are not continuous values, those are "shots," i.e., short experiments. That is well in excess of available grid power at about 300 MW peak. If ITER functions as hoped, it will, while running the plasma, be generating more power than the entire facility could bring in from the grid, and there are no flywheel generators, apparently. About 100 MW is allocated to the cooling system (which will handle the 500 MW!) and to cryogenics (that will keep the superconducting magnets cold). Krivit has not researched the real story, a shame, so focused is he on his story of deception and what he originally called "lies."

Krivit is treating the total power requirements for the JET facility as if it is news. From Wikipedia, Joint European Torus -- if it is on Wikipedia, it's hardly hidden or secret:

JET's power requirements during the plasma pulse are around 500 MW[4] with peak in excess of 1000 MW.[5] Because power draw from the main grid is limited to 575 MW, two large flywheel generators were constructed to provide this necessary power.[5] Each 775-ton flywheel can spin up to 225 rpm and store 3.75 GJ.[6] Each flywheel uses 8.8 MW to spin up and can generate 400 MW (briefly).[5]

The basic input power "during the plasma pulse" is 500 MW, not 700. However, peak input power, reached under some conditions, is over 1000 MW, which is greater than the grid can supply, so energy is stored locally. Notice that to store the energy, only 8.8 MW is used, but the storage can then release up to 800 MW. This shows how power figures can be misleading if durations are not given. Rather, what we would really want to know for assessing power plant performance is not peak power, but average power, for a given time (or energy release, basically the same). The best performance of JET was not the "16 MW," for a tenth of a second, but was covered in this announcement, which Krivit has ignored:

We have however run three tritium campaigns. During the second one, in 1997, JET produced a peak of 16.1 megawatts fusion power, with fusion power of over 10 megawatts sustained for over 0.5 seconds. In other pulses in the same experimental campaign, a more stable configuration was held for nearly 5 seconds, producing continuous power around 4.5 megawatts.

16.1 MW for 100 msec, if that is the actual figure, would be 1.61 MJ, or 0.44 KWh of fusion energy. 10 MW for 0.5 seconds, in the same run, apparently, would be 5.0 MJ, or 1.39 KWh. However, 4.5 MW for 5 seconds would be 22.5 MJ, or 6.25 KWh. Using a figure of ten cents per KWh, roughly what I pay for electricity, that would be 62 cents worth of power. I'm sure that they would emphasize this to Congress (right?), but is Congress so dumb as to not know the meaning of power and energy? Krivit is making these mistakes, not Congress and their staff. Krivit is good at looking up facts that prove he is right. So ... was anyone actually misled?

The neutron issue is not "belief," it is a very well-known technology. High neutron flux is easily obtained in a fission reactor. They will mostly be thermalized, losing their kinetic energy to heating, and we know well how to convert heat to electricity. "Efficiency" is not necessary, unless the heat is marginal. This is, quite simply, not an issue. If the reaction can be maintained, which boils down to controlling the plasma, this is not a particular problem. Most power plants generate heat, which is then converted to electricity using various methods. There is waste heat in this process which can be harnessed in other ways, if the power plant is located close to some uses for heat. Krivit has in his head that the heat must be converted to electricity (which is inefficient, generally), to "keep the magnets ... working." He's focused on the magnets, because he thinks they are the major usages of plant power. However, no energy is required to keep superconducting magnets working, but they must be kept cool. Depending on insulation, and, as well, any heating of the magnets by the reactor itself, that power will vary. But it is nothing like the power used at JET. Heat can be used to drive refrigeration, it is common. That would avoid electrical conversion inefficiency.

Krivit likes, in general, to talk about what people, including scientists "believe." Scientists, however, have opinions based on their experience and knowledge. Let's look at each of these alleged "beliefs."

Krivit likes, in general, to talk about what people, including scientists "believe." Scientists, however, have opinions based on their experience and knowledge. Let's look at each of these alleged "beliefs."

"Ignite a self-sustaining plasma." No. Where did they say that? Krivit does not understand what is going on, his understanding is shallow, but eager to attack. Krivit has confused ignition with COP and breakeven and the rest. At ignition, COP becomes infinite, one can shut off plasma input energy and the reaction will continue, and this is dangerous unless some other fast control method is used (and it is not easy to imagine). However, there is no specific limit to the power that can be released short of ignition. Most of the power will show up, not in self-heating of the plasma, but carried by neutrons into the confinement, which it will heat.

No, that would be quite incorrect. Fusion power is simple: power released by fusion. There is no other meaning.

The public also expects this from journalists.

Krivit is arguing for an ideal. Part of this is utterly inaccurate in a sense. Scientists are not trained to "explain" things to the public as described. It takes a certain skill, and it's rare. The public might expect this or that, but the public isn't paying for that by providing scientists with training in public communication. That takes other experts, who may or many not have the same ideals. From this point of view, the public gets what it deserves from the stands it takes, and the support provided for the education of scientists. When a scientist testifies in court, as an expert, some expert witnesses are highly skilled at presenting fact such that it will not be misunderstood, but others may have an agenda, and any jury must know this; the attorneys involved will take pains to ensure that communication is understood -- or, sometimes, that it is misunderstood the way the attorney wants for client benefit.

So, perhaps -- Krivit has not established the fact yet -- the language has been used to imply something not true. I would say, in the other direction, that if someone doesn't understand what is meant by ordinary language, and the language as used, they are unqualified to make any decisions regarding funding. And that is a political problem, how is it that the government, responsible to the public, has allowed this to happen? But first, we want to know if it has happened or not. Does Krivit show evidence for actual misunderstanding on the part of funding decision-makers? [Answer after review: No, not in the least!]

It appears that Krivit may have, himself, misunderstood "fusion power," though one had to be quite ignorant of the history of fusion research to be confused, and then, when he found what appeared to him as contrary evidence, was outraged at the "deception."

Bottom line, why didn't they spoon-feed him with perfect information, with all terms precisely and clearly described in his personal lay language? Bottom line: because they were not paid to do that. Krivit's complaint is not about the scientists, but about organizational managers or representatives, who are often not scientists at all, or who are chosen for other reasons.

In other words, when the words are defined as used, it's accurate as to design intention. Anyone presenting a research goal as if it were a fact is being misleading. Krivit is here contradicting himself. "Ambiguous terminology allows the representatives to claim ..." means that the claim is a representation of truth, with the words defined as used. Where is the ambiguity? I have known the claim for years, and never interpreted it as Krivit seems to think the "public" interprets it. People who think shallowly, which is common, might indeed interpret it incorrectly, from the brief statements that Krivit cites. But fusion power means power produced from fusion, and it is not ambiguous at all. Only someone who interprets it as "net power generation" -- which isn't claimed -- would be confused. Further, the real issue is always, in the end, energy generation, peak power is irrelevant unless we know for how long such power is generated. Generating high peak power is not terribly difficult. What is difficult is generating significant power, continuously, for extended periods of time. Krivit doesn't seem to realize the importance of time, and he misses other aspects of these issues, I think we will see.

"Have led" implies, though it does not state, that the misinformation is deliberate. The idea is that this was done to increase support, to maintain or increase funding. I doubt it, and I doubt that any serious decision-maker has been misled on this point. Rather, the strong points of JET and ITER have been communicated, and JET, in particular, set records for "fusion power," which has almost nothing to do with "net power," i.e, power produced in excess of the power consumption of the entire facility (which is an arbitrary measure, because any power produced is "net"). As has been pointed out, the former is electrical power, from the grid, whereas the latter is heating power, almost entirely, but it is not clear to me at this point exactly how it was measured, it may have, instead, been calculated from measures of the reaction rate, because the reaction is well-understood. The record rates were with D-T fusion, which is easier than ordinary D-D fusion.

Probably because Krivit's understanding of power and energy is poor, and also resulting for his search for a dramatic story, "lies!" being dramatic, Krivit apparently does not know the questions to ask to truly understand what is going on. Instead he seizes on what is said whenever it seems to confirm his "story."

It is a crucial part of Krivit's story what the "public" believes. What public? Wikipedia is edited by the public, and I don't see that the misconception Krivit imagines as being widespread is reflected in the relevant articles.

This commentary was posted at coldfusioncommunity.net with full attribution, claiming fair use, but then subject to a DMCA takedown notice from Steve Krivit. I am placing this here and am researching response. Krivit has commonly violated copryight and privacy, so this is ironic. There are more details there, though this commentary is presently wordy for this context.

Because it is using the ordinary meaning, not Krivit's confusion. It means "power from fusion." In LENR, which Krivit started out with, it would be "excess energy." Excess energy, in LENR, is any energy sourced in an anomalous reaction. It is not "net energy." For some purposes, input energy is considered, but that does not change the meaning of "excess energy," or, here, "fusion power."

It was extraneous to the purposes of JET. Even the record JET power may have been difficult to measure as heat, given the conditions, I suspect that fusion power was measured by detecting levels of neutron radiation, thus the level of fusion and thus energy release could be calculated, this all being well-known. But maybe they did have thermometry in the confinement sensitive enough to detect that heat pulse. Krivit does not begin to approach the real issues.

Krivit uses his own definition of the "reactor." Krivit doesn't notice that nobody interprets these words as he does. To these people, the total available grid power, or the operating power of the full facility, is not relevant to the purposes of JET. Information developed from JET, though, can be used to predict performance of a more advanced design, using superconducting magnets, which only need to be kept cool, there is no energy going into the magnetic field, once it is set up.

However, facility power was not secret. Those 500 MW flywheel generators were very special. Krivit's research was shallow because he seeks to prove himself right, instead of to gather organized information.

Krivit assumes an intention to confuse, to "exploit" vagueness, but "fusion power" is not vague at all, to anyone with any knowledge, and it matches ordinary language. It is Krivit who is giving words a special meaning, that he has largely invented. The slide he shows is completely correct, as long as we understand "power input" to mean input to the reactor itself, i.e., the plasma and its containment.

Krivit produces no evidence that anyone was misled, and his own figures are highly misleading. JET was a world record for fusion power for a significant time, indicating substantial success in confinement. It is not remotely close to practical power production, nor was it intended to be. ITER will still be, if successful, a step forward in the demonstration of plasma control.

Highly misleading. Not accurate at all. Krivit is including alleged input power that does not go into the plasma, so his figure do not reveal plasma performance. There is no "loss." He is also using peak power, and not energy balance.This is useless. He includes all inputs to the entire facility in "input power," but then only considers "fusion power" as output, when input power, in fact, generally ends up as heat. In an experimental plant, like JET and ITER, that heat might be ignored, but in a power plant, it would be intensively conserved and used where possible. The actual COP, even using his distorted figures, then, but simply measuring "output" as the heating effect of operation, is 102.3% not 2%.

No, radically incorrect. No power is lost, it all ends up as heat. So the ratio of output to input is 1.54, not 0.65.

How has fusion been "sold"? Reading this article, looking carefully for it, I do not find Krivit showing any evidence that anyone has actually been misled. I have always -- from well before I became interested in LENR -- understood fusion power as a very long-term project, facing enormous challenges, not ready for practical applications in the near future. What the science shows is that "more net power" may be possible, because the issues encountered with JET will be addressed in ITER and ITER may show some periods of "breakeven", if it works as planned and understood by the scientists, but Krivit is steadfastly ignoring that, claiming that the "scientists" -- or somebody -- has been creating a false appearance.

I don't trust any survey run by Krivit, because he asks leading questions and then interprets answers in his own unique way. If he gives the question, how he determined whom to ask, and then shows the actual answers instead of his conclusions about them, I'd be more interested.

His correspondents did explain what they are doing (trying to demonstrate only the physics of a fusion plasma), but that is not why they use the "special meaning," they use it because it's the ordinary meaning they are reporting. It is not misleading, unless context is lost. 16 MW sounds like a lot of power, but it is only for a fraction of a second. In the longer run (at 5 MW for ten seconds), total energy was about 6 KWh, sixty cents worth of electrical energy. However, this was, and remains, a world record for controlled fusion power if LENR is neglected (which has reportedly generated a lot more energy, and even if one lincludes LENR claims, those run, as to anything mainstream (within the field), a few watts, a few hundred watts in the extreme. Larger claims appear to be fraud or, sometimes, experimental error.

"Scientific breakeven" is defined here. Krivit is again completely confused. Breakeven is based on a ratio of 2:1, thermal output power divided by input power. It is a misleading term. I'd avoid it. When heating is involved, one almost always "breaks even" in ordinary language. There is no loss to speak of.

Again, a radicat error. "Fusion power" does not, in the least, "account for" any kind of input power. It is simply release of energy, at a rate which is the "power."

To be more accurate: "in tokamaks using non-superconducting electromagnets." Krivit is here mixing power used to heat the plasma (which can be an actual power input to the plasma) with power dissipated in magnets. (Which does not input power to the plasma, at all.) When JET stated input power, they only considered power to maintain beam temperature from losses.

Krivit is not referring to the use of "fusion power." He is referring to what has been called "input power' or "plasma power." Input power does not include setting up the environment. A full engineering study attempting to demonstrate commercial viability, more than theoretically, would look at all system power, but for now, ITER planning is only considering the most essential: plasma power. Because of how heat transfer works, ITER will probably not reach ignition, and an operating and practical reactor may not reach ignition, because at ignition, the reaction becomes fully self-sustaining, and therefore difficult to control.

Is "power gain" claimed for ITER? I haven't seen it so far; this is inferred from "net energy." In fact, there is a power gain, because nearly all input power is ultimately converted to heat, and then fusion energy adds to that. It's just that the percentage is small, if all "input power" -- which Krivit has not defined carefully -- is considered. He often looks at the available grid power, plus some extra power provided by the on-site energy storage devices, as if this is "input power." Only some of it is, some is what would be considered "overhead" when we look at business profit. Overhead will not vary, or will not vary directly, with sales volume. Krivit is careless with language.

His basic point here is "they are still wrong." He is trying to show that "standard practice" is not being followed. But ITER publicity has followed actual standard practice for the study of plasma fusion. When it approaches practicality -- it is far from it -- work will begin to reduce to a minimum all unnecessary power inputs. ITER is planned to produce more power than "input power," input power is just the energy added to the plasma that must be replaced to cover heat losses by conduction or radiation. (The "consumption" of heat by the actual fusion process is negligible, every fusion reaction, in itself, releases far more energy into the system than is absorbed by the fusing nuclei to overcome the Coulomb barrier.)

"Fusion power" is not a ratio, though it might be stated as a ratio. Ratios are unitless, but "fusion power" is stated in units of power, i.e., here, "megawatts." This is the core of Krivits misunderstanding, and Krivit blames scientists because their comments do not match his misunderstanding.

Fusion power is absolute, independent of input and other conditions. That is, it is what is released by the fusion of so many nuclei. All that matters for fusion power is whether or not it is measured correctly, and Krivit does not challenge the measure.

No power. Zero. Superconductors have literally zero resistance. The only problem is keeping the magnets cool, which is a matter of insulation. Because insulation will not be perfect, there will be some necessary power there, but it is an engineering consideration, is probably a small one compared to other considerations, and is not related to fusion power. The peak power needed to create the initial magnetic field is one-shot, for the duration of the experiment. A full study of power interactions would show that. There are other initial setup powers, such as getting the plasma current up to fusion temperature. Maintaining that may require continuous current, dependent on cooling, and, again, the plasma has a certain resistance and there will be heating, and heating is work, so this is input energy. But if the plasma reaches ignition, this can and should be shut down.

I would say "magnetic fields," plural, because the field structure of a tokamak is complex. It's not just the field of a single straightforward electromagnet. A plasma consists of fast-moving ions. Such will have a curved path in the presence of a magnetic field. So the magnetic fields are arranged in a tokamak such that the path curves back on itself, and runs around a torus. Other kinds of fusion reactors use electrostatic confinement or inertial confinement. (I.e., a fusible bit of fuel is impacted by high energy, perhaps from lasers, with the incoming energy balanced so that the bit of fuel is simply heated and highly compressed and fuses, it doesn't have time to expand. A form of this is what happens in a hydrogen bomb, this is inertial confinement.) Inertial confinement reactors are not continuous, they would produce energy in bursts, so much energy per "shot.")

Or whatever walls. They don't have to be metal. Yes, any material will vaporize at these plasma temperatures. The tiny spark, that can happen with relay contacts if there are no protective diodes, can burn the contacts, until they fail. Switches can burn out if switching an inductive load. Motor contacts, the same. This is really well within ordinary experience. The plasma used in hot fusion is hotter than ordinary lightning, I think. A "plasma disruption," it's called, will damage the containment, though it will be designed to not fail from occasional disruptions, especially if they don't strike the containment at the same place. Eventually, they will, indeed, eat away the containment. As well, if there is enough of a wall strike to disrupt the current, the reactor will shut down, entirely aside from devices installed to shut down if there is a plasma disruption. I'm not sure I'd want to be near a tokamak in a major disruption, but the most likely serious consequence would be a need to replace part of the plasma chamber wall. This, will, by the way, tend to become radioactive, due to neutron activation, another problem of hot fusion, but they are ready for that one. The tokamak should not explode, because full plasma disruption will completely and immediately shut down all fusion power.

At significant rate, yes, though I'm not looking up the specific numbers. Strictly, speaking, the nuclei are not "forced," that would be the action of a force on them, which is work, which would be "input energy." Rather, at fusion operating temperature, some ions have enough kinetic energy to climb the Coulomb barrier. The only force acting on the particle comes from the interaction, not from input power, and it slows the particle as it approaches. Temperature, while it may initially have been created by some force acting on the particles, is maintained by an environment unless it does work (i.e., heats the surrounding environment). This idea that fusion is "forced" is a common trope that leads to confusion. There is, in fact, a fully-accepted fusion mechanism where, experimentally, the particles are at minimal energy, i.e,. close to absolute zero.

Not exactly wrong. However "Heat is applied to the hydrogen isotopes" may be misleading. The tokamak is not heated, i.e., heat is not applied to it. I don't know the specific plasma creation method in tokamaks, and it might vary, but the general idea would be running a current through the plasma. At a certain voltage, the plasma will ionize (and that is the definition of plasma, it's significantly ionized, and the ionization will increase with temperature until it becomes more or less complete at very high temperatures). A common example of a plasma would be a lightning strike, or, smaller scale with much lower plasma current, an electrical spark. So we have all touched plasma.... Hopefully, though no big plasma has touched us. They are very hot, but that small spark has only a tiny energy involved -- compared to the lightning strike. Lightning strikes probably cause some level of fusion.

"Thermal power" is not applied to the plasma. Rather, the plasma is heated by increasing the current through the plasma, which has the effect of increasing the plasma temperature. That current creates thermal power, not the other way around. Again, unless there is cooling, temperature, once created, will be maintained. It's basically a form of inertia. The power necessary to maintain the temperature can be called "input power," easily, this would be continuously required for a stable plasma. It, however, depends on engineering details. If the plasma becomes self-heating, due to an adequate reaction rate, that's ignition, and no more such input power would be needed. Indeed, the backoff on input power needed to maintain plasma temperature would be a quick and easy-to-measure indication of fusion power. When it goes to zero, that's ignition, and then there arises the opposite problem: how to cool the plasma.

I don't know of any fusion reactors that don't use hydrogen isotopes for fuel. There are some theoretical proposals and I am setting aside speculations about nickel hydride LENR.

I have never seen anyone who understands fusion research who thinks that "commercial fusion power plants" are "not far away." If someone thinks that, they have not been paying attention. If someone from ITER testified to "not far away," they were lying, unless they clarify that "not far away" could easily mean more than twenty years. Krivit is correct in that the "real meaning of 'fusion power'" has nothing to do with engineering efficiency or commercial viability. It means the same as "excess energy" in LENR experiments.

The general "public" is not reading the ITER Web site, and we don't actually know how they would interpret this unless we study it, which Krivit has not done, to my knowledge. He might be correct, misunderstanding is possible, but that Web site is not necessarily designed for a totally ignorant public. It is more designed for those who might be interested and who might have some general knowledge. Is this laying blame over how to design a web site to be maximally informative?

Krivit started out by calling the ITER information a "lie." But it's not a lie, clearly, so Krivit was misleading! But Krivit must be right at all costs. So he converts his criticism to something more subtle. It's "misleading." To assess whether a communication is misleading, properly, I would need to study the effect it has on readers, and, further, communications are designed with levels of importance. Basic communication about science is often misleading, if interpreted outside of the intended message, because it can -- and probably must -- leave details out, exceptions, etc. So are the misinterpretations significant? Do they create an impression that causes harm?

This is not easy to study, but Krivit takes the easy path, he just accuses, and doesn't show evidence of what he claims, only evidence that an unidentified someone might misunderstand. Probably somewhere on the planet or on the internet, someone has misunderstood, but the issue of weight here would be public decision-makers, especially over funding. Are the scientists themselves misled? Almost certainly not, they know what "fusion power" means, in detail, and what it does not mean, and they have explained it to Krivit, over and over.

It is like many scientific issues. The "special technical meaning" is actually within the ordinary range of meanings. "Fusion power" means "power from fusion." That's the "special technical meaning." Krivit thinks that it will be interpreted as "net energy deducting all related inputs," but that would be "overall net power" not "fusion power." When I sell Item X, I make a profit, typically a certain percentage. Does that mean "net profit"? Sometimes, net profit can mean profit from sales, not including overhead. However, what is my taxable profit? For that, I deduct overhead. I can call this the "net profit of the business." However, the word "profit" by itself is possibly ambiguous. Does that mean that if I use it, I am being misleading? It's possible, it depends on the usage, and most of all, it depends on whether or not the misleading interpretations are reasonable in context.

Krivit is inventing conditions for language and communication that do not reflect real communication in the real world. As he found, there are those who think that ITER can be and should be more clear, and I'll agree. Some people might well interpret "fusion energy" as Krivit has. But would this happen with decision-makers who have available experts to help them understand testimony? Not likely. Krivit, see below, has shown some congressional testimony, and claims that a question from a congressperson shows that he misunderstood. In fact, as I read it, the question showed cogency, it was a very pertinent question, and it got an honest answer. No, "ignition" has not been achieved. Krivit isn't even concerned about ignition.

However, scientifically, and at this point, what Krivit thinks "net energy" should mean is irrelevant. Does Krivit examine this? ITER is a scientific research project, not a fusion power plant designed to generate usable power, to make an overall "energy profit." Such a power plant, to be practical, must consider all expenses associated with the project, including the guy that works at the plant cafeteria and who uses electrical appliances which use power, included in what the plant consumes. At this point, fusion engineering is not at the point where study of that overall impact would be anything more than a waste of time and money. ITER is designed and funded to increase engineering knowledge around maintaining a plasma at fusion conditions.

Krivit has not demonstrated, so far, that anyone was actually misled, other than him. Further, he hasn't actually shown that he, himself, was misled; rather he has identified a possible misunderstanding. Did he ever write something that shows he was misled? At least that would show one misled person! Krivit is generally searching for "lies" or "deception." Seek and ye shall find. But it may be meaningless.

This is brief polemic, about a "potential source." They are not wrong. How much information does Krivit expect in two sentences? "Harnessing fusion's power" is a somewhat misleading goal stated for ITER. The goal is to study plasma behavior and control, which is an aspect of harnessing fusion power. One might think that "harnessing" was a goal for ITER, to actually produce net energy overall. It's not, and it is obviously not the goal, ITER is not engineered for that. ITER may demonstrate progress in what it could take to "harness" fusion energy.

"Many fusion scientists" is vague and Krivit has no real evidence for this, it is an imagination. It might or might not be true and is, in fact, irrelevant to the issue here, unless those scientists believe in Krivit's imagined implication re "net energy." I have never seen this misunderstanding from a scientist. What I have seen is explanations that were incomplete, that did not address the issue Krivit raises.

what is "input power"? Does it mean the total power usage of the entire research facility -- because this is a research facility, not a power plant (No.) -- and is this peak power (Yes, probably) or continuous power (Unlikely, but they would hope to get there)? "Net energy" probably means coming close to satisfying the Lawson Criterion. It is not yet, necessarily, to be "net energy," from the social and practical point of view. ITER is not designed to be a net energy producer from the overall full-social sense, where one would look at every energy input to the process, as a real and practical application.

No. It converted 700 MW of system power (this is not the real figure, by the way, but using it....) into heat and an additional 16 MW of fusion power for a total heating power of 716 MW. "684 MW" is a completely meaningless figure.

the statement, using ordinary language, is true. Peak power released by fusion ("fusion power") was 16 MW. It was a record, a difficult accomplishment, a result of perhaps forty years of fusion efforts. Krivit wants to make this mean something that it does not mean. That something is misleading. He is apparently creating the problem, as far as what he has shown, so far.

"May have" or "was"? Further, was this intentional? Presumably the public and especially elected officials will have their own experts to analyze information, looking for possible bias. Could the information presented by ITER be biased in some way? Wouldn't it be utterly astonishing if it were not? Human institutions involve human beings, who have opinions and agendas and interests. It takes high training to avoid this, and it is never perfectly avoided. What we see does depend to some degree on what we seek to see.

Probably not "excellent," but if we are comparing it with, say, burning lots of coal (greenhouse gases), or solar power (unless it is satellite solar power, requires massive energy storage), or fission power (creates dangerous waste), it may be "better." We cannot yet actually compare it with LENR, only with ideas about LENR based on projections from what we know. Hot fusion is facing severe engineering difficulties, but the science is well-known. LENR is not understood, in spite of what a few may claim (such as Krivit and his obvious sponsor, Lewis Larsen of Lattice Energy, co-author for and most active promoter of "Widom-Larsen theory.")

That would be the goal, but not what fusion power is. Krivit's theme is that the term "fusion power" shifted, but it did not shift. It still means what it meant in 1966. It means power from fusion, i.e., energy released by fusion at some rate, power being the rate of energy release or usage. (Energy is "work." The rate of work is power.)