Does anyone in the world's media do in-depth research or fact verification anymore? Global media journalists are now promoting the nuclear fusion discovery as a clean energy climate change solution, but here is what they totally botched.
Maybe you have seen all the media coverage of the new nuclear fusion coverage and it being touted as the clean energy solution to climate change. This media coverage is a perfect example of a quintessential red herring strategy smartly crafted by the fossil fuel industry.
Experts familiar with the remaining nuclear fusion power obstacles say that it will be many decades before California's Lawrence Livermore Laboratory fusion experiment success ever becomes a global commercial solution for clean energy for climate change, if ever.
This huge climate solution false news is embarrassing for the global media and its journalists. No other journalists (other than those at the UK Guardian) appear to have put in the hard research time on the climate science (beyond the study summary abstracts.) They certainly have not carefully examined the substantial challenges to the grossly underestimated climate summary and recommendation reports of the UN's Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change.
These lazy and sloppy journalists also have not recognized that we have only about 3 to 8 more years, at best, left to make radical global fossil fuel reductions to prevent irreversible runaway global heating and the suffering and deaths of most of humanity (sometime between 2050 and 2080.)
If they did any honest fact-checking, they would have known that no new climate technology, especially nuclear fusion, can't scale up globally fast enough in the next 3-8 years to save us from a climate change-driven mass extinction.
Nuclear fusion is just the newest successful fossil fuel industry lobbyist red herring strategy to distract the public from the fossil fuel industry's soaring fossil fuel profits and humanity's horrible and accelerating climate change mass extinction fate.
With only 3, to at best, eight years left to make the required 2025 global fossil fuel reductions, only the immediate and radical global reduction of global fossil fuel use can save us at this very late stage of the climate change extinction emergency.
And yes, of course, we recognize that if nuclear fusion is ever widely commercialized in a few decades, it will be clean energy, but it is not a climate change solution for the time-critical emergency we face today.
To help our clueless and lazy world journalists get up to speed on the real climate change emergency, our climate change think tank provides the following:
Here is why we have only 3-8 years left to make the honest global fossil fuel reductions to save as much of humanity as possible.
Here are the honest 2025 global fossil fuel reduction targets. It includes more reasons why any journalist promoting nuclear fusion as a climate change solution is either climate science ignorant or has a vested interest in maintaining fossil fuel profits. And finally,
Here are the step-by-step processes for how a climate change-driven mass extinction of from 50% to 90%+ of humanity will occur if we do not get close to the correct 2025 global fossil fuel reduction targets.
Just in case you still believe your governments have been protecting you from the many consequences of accelerating global heating caused by burning more and more fossil fuel, here is a graph showing all of the three major fossil fuel-related greenhouse gases, carbon (CO2), methane (CH4) and Nitrous Oxide (N2O).
This is part of why the fossil fuel industry constantly distracts your attention; climate change is getting worse even even faster!
Click here to learn everything our governments must do to save us from climate change-driven extinction (which is not dependent upon last-minute hope for new technology fixes like nuclear fusion).
Others have covered this fusion misrepresentation in the past. Here is a bit of the running dialog and articles.
See 12/19/22 The long road to a fusion-powered future
Alison, Here is a short comment about your Dec. 15 article "The long road to a fusion-powered future”. Thank you for producing such a realistic view. So many other news sources just repeated Granholm’s clearly “hyped” announcement. Two specific statements easily show this. From CNN:
( https://www.cnn.com/us/live-news/nuclear-fusion-reaction-us-announcement-12-13-22/h_c81cc81e700ce70d465ab42f4c1ac33b )
1. "Ignition allows us to replicate for the first time certain conditions that are only found in the stars and sun.
2. "It’s the first time an experiment resulted in a meaningful gain of energy… This experiment, starting with 2.06 mega joules of energy delivered to the target generated 50% more energy than was put in.”
You of course spotted this part of the misleading pitch: "But, but, but... The lasers themselves require more than 300MJ of energy each time to operate, meaning NIF overall generated about just 1% of the power put in.”
BUT BUT BUT, there’s actually a bigger denial. What they are conveniently leaving out is the results of every “test" of a thermonuclear weapon. In that case, chemical high explosives are used to deliver the target energy. The target is essentially the same - a small sphere of tritium fuel. In the weapon’s test case, however, the generated fusion energy is not measured as a small percentage gain. It is a gain of around one billion times! This was already done in the 1950s. So this isn’t "the first" fusion conversion process that Lawrence Lab has done which showed “meaningful gain of energy” or replicating the conditions " found in the stars and sun.”
In my email to you on Jan. 27 (contained below), I said I actually resigned from the program as “lead planner' rather than support false claims of progress. What really astounded me during that process was, when other high ranking researchers also supported my position, and our “congressman” was told the harsh details, it was the congressman who orchestrated pushing such positive but misleading claims, at multiple laboratories, in order to pass a funding bill in process!
1/27/22 Axios Science: A fusion first
Alison, in any notes you take about specific topics, be sure to mark “fusion energy” as “be very skeptical”. I used to be the program planner for the
Lawrence Livermore National Laboratory's National Ignition Facility (NIF). That was 1975! At that time, the lab’s “communications” group was saying the same thing - we think we’re going to hit break even this year. I finally quit the program because, as lead planner, I knew there was NO WAY we were going to achieve the goals they claimed. They tried to force me to support their reports. I refused. I quit.
To help do something about the climate change and global warming emergency, click here.
Sign up for our free Global Warming Blog by clicking here. (In your email, you will receive critical news, research, and the warning signs for the next global warming disaster.)
To share this blog post: Go to the Share button to the left below.