Slashdot Mirror
Is It Time For the US Government To Back Fusion At NIF Over ITER?
ananyo writes "Laser beams at the National Ignition Facility have fired a record 1.875 megajoule shot into its target chamber, surpassing their design specification. The achievement is a milepost on the way to ignition — the 'break-even' point at which the facility will finally be able to release more energy than goes into the laser shot by imploding a target pellet of hydrogen isotopes. NIF's managers think the end of their two-year campaign for break-even energy is in sight and say they should achieve ignition before the end of 2012. However, with scientists at NIF saying that a $4 billion pilot plant could be putting hundreds of megawatts into the grid by the early 2020s, some question whether the Department of Energy is backing the wrong horse with ITER — a $21-billion international fusion experiment under construction at St-Paul-lez-Durance, France. Is it time for the DoE to switch priorities and back NIF's proposals?"
Perhaps a better idea, given the potential benefits of fusion research, would be for the DoE to throw their weight behind multiple projects, rather than sacrificing some to support others.
Will this be a project to benefit society or will it be another thing where government money funds the hard, risky, long-term R&D and then a private company gets to reap all the rewards?
captcha: autocrat. Captcha generator reveals all.
The ITER people will whine , wah wah wah it's only 10 years away yada yada yada
Because of course ITER 'is the only true and scientific way'
OTOH it would be good for the DoE to put their weight behind other types of confinement and fusion generation (like Polywell, which IIRC is funded by the Navy)
how long until
Short answer: YES
You don't solve a problem by building a bigger hammer; the ITER approach is pure politics.
Go solicit private capital rather than forcing me under the threat of violence to fund your little science projects.
Seems like thorium reactors, which we've already built, and gotten working, are a much more tractable problem.
Please do not read this sig. Thank you.
I'm vaguely familiar with the NIF and their "how it works" section breaks down in great detail everything involved in generating the beam, amplifying the beam, targeting the beam, and imploding the target, but how do they capture the energy produced by the target?
I think the DoE should reward homegrown projects first, and all things being equal, a domestic project should get priority on funding.
America didn't become a superpower by international collaboration; it did so out of invention and innovation, and a sense of patriotic duty.
On a very basic level, I'd like to know just how many jobs are going overseas because of our government's international investments as opposed to the good that funding can do right here on our soil.
How much international funding did Fermilab get when it was initially built?
if you don't know where Philadelphia is and you live in DC you an send one man up each road north untill you find an answer or you can send severl men up many roads and find the answer sooner
[NIF's managers] say they should achieve ignition before the end of 2012.
I'm guessing their target date is December 21.
Is $4B really that hard to come up with for this project? That sounds a lot cheaper than the constant state of war we find ourselves in today in the Middle East to keep the oil supply flowing.
to support nuclear weapon maintenance and design by studying the behavior of matter under the conditions found within nuclear weapons
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/National_Ignition_Facility
Or at least let the DoE get involved instead of driving them to the DoD with inter-departmental pissing contests.
For the money that the Polywell people are asking, and what a full-size model would cost compared to the "superconducting cathedrals"* of ITER, they'd be fools to not at least give them a try.
*The late Dr. Bussard sure did know how to turn a phrase. There's no doubt about that, which is more than can be said about the actual Polywell concept itself - at least so far.
If God forks the Universe every time you roll a die, he'd better have a damned good memory.
The LFTR (Liquid Fluoride Thorium Reactor) is a much more promising technology. For starters it's already been done, decades ago at Oak Ridge. It only needs to be commercialized. Also it lacks the hard gamma problems inherent in fusion.
See energyfromthorium.com
Experts and executives within NASA have had very positive things to say about the potential of the technology.
(Sources: http://www.ecatplanet.net/list.php?category/45-NASA)
Two companies claim to be working on final prototypes to be released after patents: (Andrea Rossi, http://ecat.com/ and http://defkalion-energy/ ) that are giving private and semi-public demos to interested parties.
If $5-10 million were spent examining these claims and doing some basic replication research, it would be money very well spent.
Four billion dollars, 21 billion dollars...a drop in the bucket compared to Obamacare and other government boondoggles, and for an end result that would be a game changer in the history of civilization.
And all you Warmists...this is your wet dream (assuming you are actually concerned with warming and not just out to control people).
Time to put up or shut up. Make your real intentions known.
There is no reason not to when you consider how much is going towards other projects.
Fusion research is valuable research, the more ideas funded, the better.
If we ever go full fusion and get a really efficient system going, it would be such a huge change, almost as big as the industrial revolution.
Energy will no longer be a problem to us. We will have reached the "unlimited power age" where our advances are only held back by our creativity, and of course the laws of physics.
It would then cascade in to other industries, such as farming & food production, water, water, imagine that, no water problems due to power-hungry purification.
We could mass grow even more crops using artificial sunlight and water in large-scale vertical farming buildings as well as hydroponics in general.
It might even lead to the space age becoming feasible through mag-launchers mechanisms instead of fuel-based systems.
And even then, fuel would no longer be a problem, we could grow enough crops in order to produce those fuels.
In fact, with all this power comes new materials research in general. We could create all sorts of new power sources using various different combination methods.
We could possibly even power more compact linear accelerators with high amounts of power for production purposes, specifically for converting other elements in to new ones.
With our space age here, we could be out there mining meteors to power our new highly advancing race. Colonies around Earth, on the Moon, even Mars.
Fusion generators could power some new-age field-generator experiments to protect ships from EM.
The sky isn't even the limit anymore, if we ever finally crack the fusion age.
Shame it will just get sidelined as "another energy source" instead of "this will solve everything ever!"...
polywell is smallish has good results so far and it's only 200mil to build a pB^11 reactor that generates power. so what the hell are we waiting for
I promise that until the end of time no matter how much money you throw at energy research I won't use it as a cheap point of criticism (as long as it goes to guys in lab coats or those stereotypically thereby attired).
Well, good luck with getting power into the grid by 2020.
The reason why I'm saying this, is that it's an incredibly bold goal to turn the technology they've already got into a working prototype, incorporating everything learnt elsewhere, into a next-generation scientific experiment, let alone a power plant, by 2020. Hell, even HIPER won't break ground before 2020.
Besides, the REAL fun stuff, is things like advanced materials for the combustion chamber, and a working blanket, which NOBODY has yet demonstrated, not JET, not ITER, not NIF -- nobody.
Worse yet, we don't know what problems we'll run into once we achieve ignition in NIF, or the burning plasmas regime in ITER.
To the genius who suggested that ITER is a political waste of time is obviously unfamiliar with the science. Even if ITER achieves its low-balled goals, it'll be a massive step towards a working plant. And they plan to actually test working power-generating, and tritium-breeding blankets as well, although that won't start until quite late in the project (the D-T phase of the project).
The 'patriotic' Americans slagging ITER on /. should be quiet, as the US is, true to form, turning its back on the rest of the world, starving the US Domestic Agency of funding, and doing what it wants anyway.
It seems to be that the thermal energy produced is equal to the optical energy put in. Well, great, it's a milestone of sorts, but still massively far off actually producing energy. First and foremost, conversion of thermal to electrical is 33-40% efficient. Then you have to convert that to optical, an efficiency I do not know, but seems according to the Wiki page to be 1% (422MJ bank, 4MJ shot, could be old). Still, maybe it could be a lot better, but probably wouldn't exceed 80-90%. So, you actually have to beat this "break even" by a factor of at least 3 in order to actually output energy. But that doesn't account for fuel production, nor maintenance or construction of the facility.
And, I should also point out that this story is just that their laser works, not that an sample was fired producing "break even" energy.
Will it work? Maybe. But realistically, by the time we see commercial power from this, a fission plant built today would be reaching end-of-life.
The question isn't "Can we reach and pass the energy break even point" but "Can we produce economic energy this way". On this measure ITER is the better bet. The bid achilles heel of the NIF approach is manufacturing the pellets that are fused. There need to be incredibly precise in order to collapse in a uniform way and not deform too much. A commercial plant would have to rip through hundreds of pellets a minute. The things currently cost well over a million each.
We need to discuss economics more than energy break-even.
The US government is currently funneling funds to NIF. Ananyo, the uber-parent poster, suggests the DoE backs multiple projects, instead of "sacrificing some to support others." It is unclear how the US government is supposed to pick the right technology worked on by the right people at the right time, or how unlimited funds will be available to fund various projects to prevent sacrifices when the CBO projects the entire US economy will "shut down" in 2027 based on current trends.
Slashdot: Playing Favorites Since 1997
Basically, this should be a 'hero' project. Like a moon shot.
By that argument after spending $100B we'll get ITER/NIF to work but the cost of building any more fusion plants will be so overwhelmingly expensive that we will not build anymore for the next 40 (and counting) years. Instead why not take a chance on something a lot simpler like General Fusion. These guys have a beautiful reactor design and are working on a shoestring budget to develop it. While the chance of success is not known (they themselves estimate it to be 10-50%) if it were successful it would be instantly deployable and have massive repercussions for energy generation - certainly the basic physics behing it is good the only question is in the complexities of plasma dynamics and interactions and whether they can fire the pistons to compress the molten lead with a sufficiently accurate timing.
I'd have polywell funded, even if just to shut up the myriad internet cranks constantly banging on about it.
No offence folks -- but citations from reputable peer-reviewed literature or STFU.
Really now, they've fired ~2MJ pulse. But what does that mean? 2MJ of laser light was present in their test chamber. This was fueled by 400MJ of electrical energy stored in capacitors. So we can now see that they have accomplished making a 0.5% efficient laser. This is nothing to write home about. Lets consider the actual fusion power output. The most they've had is about 1kJ of fusion energy output. This is not a lot. The balance between energy in and energy out is very poor. Getting 1kJ from 400MJ is about the best they can hope for. An overall efficiency of 0.00025%. Who here thinks that's good? JET, which is the smaller brother of ITER has achieved a 90% energy balance. Still not breaking even, but still 3600 times closer. ITER is designed to output 10 times more energy than is input. So it'll spank NIF. QED. That doesn't stop it being expensive though...
Is it really economic to do this? If we have to build a new facility every time it goes past breakeven and explodes, it just seems like it is going to be expensive. Not to mention the politics of siting a bomb blowy-up thingy near cities where they need the power.
Can't fund it all. The rest of the cash went to oil subsidies.
is to spread the bets... I totally agree that in order to find that successful solution, one must look at ALL solutions to find the most successful. Sometimes its not as easy as saying "You succeeded, and you failed" but rather "You succeeded, and you did it better than the others"... So I would tend to agree with the poster on this one...
Using heavy ions (Xenon Bismuth Lead etc) accelerated to 10GeV (~0.4c) in a linear accelerator to ignite DT cylinders encased in lead in a simplified NIF type target chamber filled with lithium spray is a far more likely approach to economic fusion power than anything else in existence.
http://www.fusionpowercorporation.com/press-information
The technology is in hand, and has been since the 1970's, but has the problem of sticker shock:
-The drivers are adapted lineacs (and related collider tech) that are much more efficient (30%) than lasers. They can run at very high power without overheating and delicate optical issues of lasers.
-Lithium spray absorbs all of the neutrons and breeds tritium - avoiding all Tokomak first wall neutron and plasma interaction problems.
-Costs are actually pretty comparable to ITER, but the payoff is absolutely massive.
Problem is you need to build big to overcome ignition energy barriers - 100GW (10GJ/pulse) with 10-20 target chambers being fed by the same lineac would be about right. The lineac needs to be about 7-10km long so not small. Gains of 1000:1 are expected so driver is not overwhelmingly huge, estimated $10 billion), and at $20-30 billion (assuming large cost overruns) for 100GW it is cheaper than any other source of power. It also has zero proliferation risk, and almost no radioactive waste.
The very high temp (1100C) liquid lithium produced in the reaction chamber can be used as a heat source in Sulphur Iodine chemical process to create hydrogen feedstock for hydrocarbon synthesis at $50/barrel forever. Waste heat from this process can then also make electricity.
300 of these units around the world would address all of humanities projected energy needs for the next 100 years - both electrical and transport fuel, at lowest possible costs, with none of the existing downsides of other forms of electricity production.
Even though their proof of concept system may not ultimately be the best way to fusion, they invented a HELL of a lot of technology in the process of getting there. Those laser pulses are amplified by sheets of giant crystals, so they had to invent a process to extrude them. And they always knew that their system was merely a demonstration of what could be done: they hope to license the technology to private energy companies who want an alternative to nuclear. Without the R&D component, the price tag of a NIF style fusion plant should drop from four billion down to 200-300 million, on par with the initial investment cost of a nuclear power plant. (I toured the facility a few years ago. Holy moly that place is cool and awesome. And the wine off Tesla Road is pretty good, too.)
Occasionally living proof of the Ballmer peak.
The cost of EVERY single stealth bomber (plane and supporting program) comes in around 3 billion dollars. So considering this is about creating a virtually endless supply of energy capable of sustaining us for thousands of years, Why is this even a consideration. Move $100 billion from defense (I would argue this is the most important defense spending in our history) and get'er done, once and for all.
There are several thermal fusion projects that endeavor to produce energy and take good if not slow and expensive steps to get there. Then there are several that try to trigger fusion for other reasons. Who here favors the first?
Well, like that's never happened before!
Hint: The government usually backs the wrong horse. It's the nature of government.
Train prisoners to use the force and use them like a hamster on a hamster wheel. Generate that energy from "the force" and you have yourself a renewable source of energy. Just hope no jedi comes in and ruins the plans though
I love how projected "breakeven" and "ignition" in 2012 has suddenly been extrapolated to MW powerplants on the grid within a decade.
Nevermind that we don't capture the energy yet, which might give us best-case 50% efficiency. Nevermind we need 3x breakeven the breakeven energy for converting heat into steam to power a turbine. Nevermind just about every factor of 2-3 efficiency loss out there. I'm going to post one goddamn link that was true when I interned there, and is still consistent today and then I want to see what the "scientists" who projected this commercial powerplant planned to do about this minor detail:
http://www.ieer.org/reports/fusion/chap3.html
By contrast, a large commercial power plant using ICF will require around five shots per second. Laser drivers also have low efficiencies, currently around 1% for solid-state lasers such as those to be used in NIF.
99% efficiency loss right off the bat. What's left for these people to even argue about?
Thorium is Nuclear. Scaaaary scary!
It doesn't matter that Thorium reactors are as different from the Chernobyl reactors as (bad analogy time!) a modern IC engine is to a coal burning steam driven locomotive engine.
Fusion doesn't have that Pavlovian NO NEW NUKES response that is such a firm part of our society's hive-mind. Indeed, it's got an almost magical, Star Trek feel to it, it's just magically taking natural hydrogen and making energy! Like the sun! Not like that unnatural evil nuclear stuff that poisons puppies and blows up whole countries...
At least, that's my guess why.
"It only needs to be commercialized."
Also, http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Spherical_cow
Scary isn't it?
Yet no one in Washington truly wants to stop this train wreck. Maybe we can get lucky, get fusion to work, and sell it to pay off our debts.
* Winners compare their achievements to their goals, losers compare theirs to that of others.
I think the same can be said of ITER... look where it got them!
The recent Obama budget cut several important programs, in order to better fund other important programs in this era of zero-based budgeting. For example Mars exploration budget was severely cut, perhaps due to the huge cost overruns of the Mars Science lander (now enroute). Perhaps a congressman or two will earmark this money back in. However, the space comunity gets together every decade to prioritize their programs. I'd more trust the space community to allocate their money than politicians.
If you watched the Google Video of Dr. Bussard's talk you could understand the discussion in this thread. DoE heads protect funding for long term projects because they are long term projects...
Oh and your reference since you can't use Google:
http://pop.aip.org/resource/1/phpaen/v18/i11/p112501_s1?isAuthorized=no
No offence taken - but citations from independent research/experiments that say the polywell concept doesn't work, or STFU yourself.
Privacy begins with
Well, you've got me there... unfortunately not being involved in the field means I wouldn't know a reputable journal if it slapped me in the face! I do see your point though; if not for his reputation - which of course means precisely damn all - I would have written off Bussard as a crank myself, especially with his frequent remarks about a publishing embargo.
I assume you know what you're talking about, so can you say if Plasma Physics, Fusion Technology and the Int. Aeronautical Congress are reputable or not? Hell, for all I know he was laughed off the stage from the latter.
If God forks the Universe every time you roll a die, he'd better have a damned good memory.
if not for his reputation - which of course means precisely damn all - I would have written off Bussard as a crank myself
What reputation? Bussard has no reputation in the Plasma Physics community what so ever. Langmuir, Alvén, Van Allen, Debye, Bohm, Valsov, have reputations.
http://pop.aip.org/resource/1/phpaen/v2/i10/p3804_s1
When I worked at the Office of Fusion Energy, US Department of Energy in the early 90's, we referred to ITER as "money ITER".
LOL YA, CUZ THATS THE WAY IT WORKS. You make extra ordinary claims and I provide the extraordinary evidence to disprove them. What a wonderful idea. By any chance are you one of the internet cracks mentioned by GP???
I can't answer for others who advocate for Polywell -- indeed, with my limited background in nuclear physics, I probably qualify as an "internet crank" but the trails of information that are out there seem pretty high density that at the very least, someone who knows should be given a grant to examine things and make sure that the good stuff gets attention.
From where I'm at, calling the folks who advocate for polywell "cranks" is almost as good as calling Dr. Bussard a "crank" since he holds forth in a hard to understand voice (like a crank) for 90 minutes in the Should Google Go Nuclear video -- in which he was definitely "advocating" for his project.
At the very least, every government that is supplying any money to ITER should peel back 5 or 10% (I'd like to see more than that, but even such a pittance would be a princely sum -- even that much of a rollback will lead to a rice-bowl fight, I'm afraid) to establish some kind of research board to examine the other alternatives: NIF, Polywell, Thorium (in many forms), Burnaby BC's "General Fusion", whatever, and lets not just aim for the commercialization of one alternative. Let's go for several and eliminate as they prove unworkable, or long term intractable. ITER has had more than enough time to breakthrough and it hasn't. So let's not stop working on it, but let's put a few more eggs in our baskets.
And unless Pons and Fleischmann are showing up again, let's hold off from calling people cranks when what you ask for isn't available and not necessarily through the fault of the technology being suggested.
And the neighbour who asked for peer-reviewed evidence that Polywell doesn't work is on the right track there.
Still hoping for Gentle Treatment...
Virtually everything about the NIF design has been optimized for the production of calibration information for the nuclear weapons program. Nearly all the experimental runs are designed for weapons, as are nearly all the scientists working with it.
It is run, and funded by the NNSA, the part of the DoE that makes weapons, not the Office of Science.
The little patina of 'energy programs' is a cover for its actual purpose. But if in fact, it had really been about alternative energy, it would have been canceled ages ago. (Not because of scientists' desires but because of Congress' desires).
I predict that they will almost have it... If only they could have a laser just a little more powerful...
http://pop.aip.org/resource/1/phpaen/v2/i6/p1853_s1
http://pop.aip.org/resource/1/phpaen/v2/i10/p3804_s1
Seems like there are plenty of Papers on it.
It makes a nice neutron source but a terrible fusion power plant because it will always take more energy to run it than you will get out.
There is a very good reason for ITER.
Agreed. I've never seen anywhere where someone is claiming that inertial confinement will one day provide us with energy.
Free the Quark 3 from asymptotic confinement! Bring your charm! Don't get down! All colours and flavours welcome!
I've heard multiple people tell me the majority of NIF funding is intended as an end run around nuclear test ban treaties and commercially viable fusion is not the primary goal..
NIF is better than nothing but the targets cost $30k a shot to fabricate...and you'll need a whole lot of them per second of operation... Even if you were to break even the real question is commercial vaiability...NOT the ability to generate net energy.
What a great blog! It is a pity that I can not find RRS address. If RRS offers a subscription service, I can easily follow your blog! belstaff jackets womens
Right, now do the sums, and we need one new reactor built in the world every 2 weeks to compensate for the steep oil drop off. Oil production follows a normal curve, with sharp declines. Conventional oil It peaked in 2006 (source IEA), they're cracking tar these days to compensate, but that's stop gap.
http://news.nationalgeographic.com/news/energy/2010/11/101109-peak-oil-iea-world-energy-outlook/
You need first to get people to realize that subsidizing oil is the dumbest things you can do right now, and they desperately need to invest in alternatives, NOW.
According to the Congressional Budget Office's prelminary report we just set a record in February for the largest ever monthly deficit at $229 Billion. The federal government spent $334 Billion dollars but only brought in $105 Billion in taxes. That works out to a deficit of about $7.9 Billion per day. It is almost comical think about a program with so much potential only needing $4 Billion to advance their work. I guess it would funny if it weren't real life.
The NIF is not about energy research. It's about nuke research: The conditions inside the laser focus resemble the conditions in an exploding fusion nuke. They just don't like to advertise that because fusion energy sounds a lot nicer.
Done: http://cosmiclog.msnbc.msn.com/_news/2008/12/16/4351315-fusion-we-can-believe-in
I can only conclude that science is expensive.
...
You say, that inside this paper, lies the conclusion that the electrostatic confinement method doesn't work?
So, the secretary of energy, selected by Obama together with the rest of the peer panel, have it wrong?
And this conclusion lies inside that document you linked I cannot access?
Could you copy paste the conclusion?
The National Academies is currently reviewing the prospect for inertial confinement fusion (http://fire.pppl.gov/NAS_ICF_interim_review_2012.pdf). There are serious challenges that need to be overcome, but hopefully NIF can ignite this year before the end of the national ignition campaign.
About proliferation hazards ... the cat is out of the bag, isn't it ? Except (perhaps) for Obama deciding to invade North Korea and Iran, or outright nuking them, what possible hope is there to contain nuclear weapons today ?
The fact that the only thing separating a dozen states, including a whole lot of very undesirable ones, from working nuclear devices blueprints that a few dozen states possess has been known for 50 years. As long as this was limited to states that have shown restraint there was some hope of containing things, but that time is long gone.
Once a working heavy water reactor design is out there, it's over. If the reactor vessel is designed for breeding instead of for electricity production, those reactors have one single use : breeding plutonium (which is why a large scale tritium-producing heavy water reactor, like Iran built, is conclusive proof of the intention to build nuclear weapons).
The problem is not that there are reactors capable of producing weapons in the United states.Not at all. Adding a few more reactors will not change anything.
I'd gladly see $4 Billion spent on this than more Solyndra stupidity.
So, the secretary of energy, selected by Obama together with the rest of the peer panel, have it wrong?
And this conclusion lies inside that document you linked I cannot access?
Could you copy paste the conclusion?
I don't know what you are talking about. The DOE and Obama administration are behind ITER. Unless the peer reviewed panel was FESAC then they aren't qualified to review electro static confinement as a energy source. Work on these devices is being performed. However, it is limited to just using it as a neutron source.
And they have these things called libraries. I suggest you goto one. But you will lack the expertise to understand it.
First of all that is not a reputable peer-reviewed scientific article. That is a blog.
Second of all
Chu responded that he had been discussing the concept with the folks at Google. "So far, there's not enough information so [that] I can give an evaluation of the probability that it might work or not," he said. "But I'm trying to get more information."
That is a politicians/scientist answer. It in no ways means he thinks it will work or that it will not work. This was Chu trying to be polite to the ding bat that asked it.
The following organizations set us fusion policy and direction.
FES
FESAC
Leave the science up to the scientists. You just make yourself look stupid.
This seems to be a fairly common mistake in reporting on the NIF. "Ignition" is the term NIF uses for having the resulting fusion generate more energy than the beamlines deliver to the target. However, much more energy goes into generating the beamlines than ends up getting delivered to the target. So even after they have achieved ignition, they'll still be a long way away from true break-even.
-deane
follows this link gurgaoncitymall@gmail.com
follows this link and get more information about hotels in Gurgaon gurgaoncitymall@gmail.com
Is It Time For the US Government To Back Fusion At NIF Over ITER?
ananyo writes "Laser beams at the National Ignition Facility have fired a record 1.875 megajoule shot into its target chamber, surpassing their design specification. The achievement is a milepost on the way to ignition — the `break-even` point at which the facility will finally be able to release more energy than goes into the laser shot by imploding a target pellet of hydrogen isotopes. NIF`s managers think the end of their two-year campaign for break-even energy is in sight and say they should achieve ignition before the end of 2012. However, with scientists at NIF saying that a $4 billion pilot plant could be putting hundreds of megawatts into the grid by the early 2020s, some question whether the Department of Energy is backing the wrong horse with ITER — a $21-billion international fusion experiment under construction at St-Paul-lez-Durance, France. Is it time for the DoE to switch priorities and back NIF`s proposals?" Perhaps a better idea, given the potential benefits of fusion research, would be for the DoE to throw their weight behind multiple projects, rather than sacrificing some to support others. Read more of this story at Slashdot.by
white sox jersey
What a elaborate method just to call someone stupid.
But on the positive side, I can now dismiss your claim.