(CNN) The US led on nuclear fusion for decades. Now China is in position to win the race. Quoting,

Private businesses in both countries are optimistic, saying they can get fusion power on the grid by the mid-2030s, despite the enormous technical challenges that remain.

This is an introduction to fusion skepticism. The above is baloney, fusion hype.

The press have trouble wit this: the ratio of amount of energy in the magnetic field used to contain the plasma of a tokamak, to the energy released, does not equate to wall-plug efficiency, typically on the order of 100X less   Prediction: Nuclear fusion will NEVER reach wall-plug break-even — a concept with which the nontechnical press have difficulty, leading to misrepresentation and exploitation.

This is not it: Fusion Breakeven Is a Science Breakthrough. If you’re a  reporter, are you going to understand this, or trust the nice scientist talking to you?

Science can be bent to personal need. Scientists are, after all,  human beings who seek self-justification, a positive self image, and at least enough money to stay in their profession. In some cases, like fusion, this can be bent all the way to personal enrichment. The press, looking for a cheery story, is often the unwitting accomplice.

See “fusion skepticism”  on YouTube. The material is uniformly high quality, because fusion skeptics are not in  it for the money. Here  is a brief summation to inform your journey:

The Lawson criteria is for fusion what the rocket equation is for Mars colonization, Unlike starting a fire with matches and tinder, this criteria must be maintained the entire duration of the fusion reaction. What do you do when your fireplace won’t keep burning? Do you throw billions at it?

The fusion reactions that are the easiest to initiate and yield the most energy create a huge neutron flux. In continuous operation, neutrons tear the metal of the fusion device apart. This is swept under the rug with current devices, which operate for seconds at a time. Unlike a nuclear reactor,  where the neutron flux is absorbed by inert shielding material, the space outside the containment vessel of a tokamak fusion reactor  is populated by complex equipment.

Inertial confinement fusion is less susceptible to the neutron embrittlement of delicate equipment. It comes with its own advantages and it’s own set of problems. Without going into details, I stick with my prediction.

Aneutronic  fusion , fusion which does not create neutrons is possible, but either:

• requires an impractically high ignition temperature, exploding the Lawson criteria or
• produces too little energy in the reaction  to ever, conceivably, reach break-even.

Cold fusion has been permeated by fraud, but it has one cynical advantage: experiments are cheap. In a race in which all horses are dark, it is  the darkest. Because it is so cheap, it may be worth low-level funding.

Magnetic confinement alternatives to tokamak. Many such startups are  sucking in money. They tend to combine alternative fusion reactions with novel magnetic geometry. To paraphrase Tolstoy, they are all unhappy in their own ways. See Youtube.

For insurance, in case my prediction is wrong, we have ITER, the largest tokamak in the world, under construction in France.  The goal is research data for future designs, not power production. The astute will ask: Why can’t the data be obtained by computer simulation?

Answer. The problem of plasma dynamics is so complex, involving the simultaneous application of gas dynamics, Maxwell’s equations , and nuclear physics, it is beyond the ability of the most powerful computers in the world to simulate. So we build machine after machine, in a guided stumble, not completely blind and not completely informed. The first tokamak was built in 1954,  70 years ago. That’s a lot of time, justified by “progress” that shows up in journals and press releases, not as utility.

This explains why fusion keeps sucking in money. Every new machine inspires hope. If simulation could prove fusion impractical, the money would dry up. If a person keeps doing the same thing for 70 years without success, we usually call him crazy. The impracticality of   a mathematically informed refutation is why ” fusion is  the power source of the future, and always will be.”

Fusion, like Mars colonization, or man-on-the-moon, is an unrecognized ethical dilemma for the press. If you’re writing a story that is pro-fusion, people will talk to you, people who deal in money and hope. If you’re writing a story that is anti-fusion, you talk to people who have no money or hope. The cheery-beery fusion story will get more reads, but at what cost to the nation? Rather than serve as unwitting accomplices of fusion hype, it is time for the media to inform the debate.

Despite the absurdity, this costs the nation less:  Sloppy CNN; Earth’s core has slowed so much it’s moving backward, scientists confirm. Here’s what it could mean  is.

Analogous to the Lawson criteria for fusion, traditional media need their own quality criteria,  with relevance to the social media revolution (see Att David Zaslav; Warner Bros. Discovery signals rapid deterioration of television business, sending stock plummeting.)

The criteria: Is our journalism better than YouTube?