Tweet
There are many daunting technical challenges associated with developing fusion nuclear energy (which is carbon free, and has relatively minor radioactivity problems, compared with fission nuclear energy.) Amazingly enough, a very small (staff = 3), underfunded US inventor (Eric Lerner) holds the record for dealing with one of these technical challenges, viz., maximum temperature. See In the race for fusion, a dark horse takes the lead
Fortunately, environmental activists, who could easily crowd-fund Lerner (so he doesn’t have to waste time and energy fund-raising), have leapt to support him, since they realize that China and India’s aggressive coal power plant construction programs will easily swamp any diminution of green house gases that the West will be able to engineer via carbon taxes, EPA regulation, etc. I guess enough of them realized that writing teary letters to their grandchildren, however emotionally cathartic, is not actually helpful. /s
Ah, but I digress. Back to the breakthrough coming from the big, hot fusion world of research. Getting a plasma hot enough is not the only problem that fusion energy faces. Another one is making walls that can withstand the temperatures and particle bombardment coming from the plasma.
It turns out that 2012 was a good year for dealing with this problem. From Clean, limitless fusion power could arrive sooner than expected
Probably more significant is news from the Joint European Torus (JET), a magnetic confinement fusion facility in the UK. JET is very similar to the ITER nuclear fusion reactor, an international project which is being built in the south of France. Whereas NIF and Sandia create an instantaneous fusion reaction using heat and pressure, ITER and JET confine the fusing plasma for a much longer duration using strong magnetic fields, and are thus more inclined towards the steady production of electricity. JET’s breakthrough was the installation of a new beryllium-lined wall and tungsten floor inside the tokamak — the doughnut-shaped inner vessel that confines 11-million-degrees-Celsius plasma (pictured above).
Carbon is the conventional tokamak lining (and the lining that had been chosen for the first iteration of ITER) but now it seems the beryllium-tungsten combo significantly improves the quality of the plasma. Hopefully this information will allow ITER to skip the carbon tokamak and jump straight to beryllium-tungsten, shaving years and millions of dollars off the project.
(emphasis mine)
Also, as I recently reported in my diary UPDATED “Coal use set to surpass oil in a decade”: what realistic plan do enviros have to deal with this?:
Update: Wikipedia states that
The Manhattan Project began modestly in 1939, but grew to employ more than 130,000 people and cost nearly US$2 billion (roughly equivalent to $25.8 billion as of 2012[1]).
130,000 people, while Eric Lerner has a staff of 3. Seems a tad ‘unbalanced’, wouldn’t you say? Seems to imply that the US could do MUCH, MUCH better, wouldn’t you agree? Seems to suggest that citizens of the world could surpass this level of funding, on a voluntary, crowd-sourced basis.
But, you’d never know that from reading Bill McKibben 350.org. Unless I’m missing something….
$25 billion / 6 billion people = $4/person. Over 4 years, this is $1/person. OK, a lot of the developing world is desperately poor. Nobody expects them to chip in. So, first world nations could carry them if they chipped in, say, $20/per capita, per year. You know, the cost of a fillup at a gas station.
To get an idea of the US commitment to fusion, consider this comment from US fusion in budget vice
Eric Bass said:
It’s worth noting that the entire US ITER commitment ($2.2 billion), spread out over 10 years, is approximately equal to one day of US Department of Defense spending (c. $2.0 billion), or 0.05% of the annual US budget. The cost to build a single conventional fission power plant is somewhere between $6 billion and $24 billion, depending on location and who is estimating. Should we not expect development of a revolutionary new energy source to incur at least this cost level? Abandoning ITER, or scrapping the domestic program beginning with Alcator-C-Mod, means trading our stake in the future energy economy for nickles and dimes.
56 Comments
Some simple math:
The Manhattan Project cost about $26 Billion, over a period of 4 years. So, about $6.5 Billion/year.
However, the US contribution to ITER is about $0.22 Billion/year.
That’s a relative weight of
6.5/0.22 = 29.5.
I.e., chump change for fusion. This is not an accident, boys and girls…
An aggressive fusion program is sure to be vigorously resisted by the fossil fuel industry. Somehow, Bill McKibben and his ilk never seem to notice things like this. Speaking of green Bill, I recently did searches for information about ALEC on his website, and found nothing top-level, and almost nothing from local contributors.
Thus, wrt his ALEC omerta, Bill McKibben’s 350.org bears a striking resemblance to the websites of famous conservative talking heads. From my diary Progressives are Stupid if they don’t seize their opportunity to educate their Republican neighbors:
Fusion is not safe, and cannot be safe.
This was the promise of fission. Those promises were not fulfilled. Why should they be believed this time?
The problem is neutrons, especially high energy neutrons. Go and find out why (I’ll give you a hint: Magnetic Containment, and unstable isotopes).
Unstable isotopes are radioactive.
We have an effective, safe fusion reactor. It’s moderately safe at 93,000,000 miles.
I, personally, didn’t take “clean” as an absolute.
I expect the containment of a fusion device to eventually become ‘hot’ (i.e., radioactive). I’ve never heard anybody suggest that this would be nearly the problem of radioactivity that fission plants are.
If that’s what you’re suggesting, please write a diary on it, with references, please.
Here is a page from Focus Fusion, showing the differences between fission, ‘normal’ fusion, and Eric Lerner’s aneutronic Focus Fusion.
This page says,
So, nothing about the big, hot fusion projects radioactivity problems being showstoppers.
From wikipedia:
(emphasis mine)
Couldn’t resist taking a jab at those of us who are worried about climate change could you, metamars? Everything you write is suspect, most of your sources are suspect and every opinion of yours is tainted with the stink of denial. First you deny that the climate is changing, then argue it’s not caused by carbon emissions, then you tell us that it won’t really be much of a problem, even
ifwhen it does warm up. You parade a lot of discredited people then you spotlight a branch of research, (low energy nuclear reactions) that has been labeled as junk science by most competent physicists. Finally you produce something more or less credible but you STILL couldn’t resist turning it into a dig at people who disagree with you. Sorry, buddy. You have no more credibility and I can’t believe a word you type.That’s a feature, not a bug…
So says Margaret, who tells bald faced lies about me.:
(emphasis mine)
Perhaps you should have worried more about your own credibility, before degrading MyFDL with such an obvious lie that would even embarrass some other CO2 climate catastrophists.
Regarding your garbage statement
, aside from the fact that “most competent physicists” have made no public statement about a niche field, as would be required for your fantasy to have any chance of being correct, I already told you, via Comment 16 in my diary Al Gore/Bill Nye ‘Climate 101′ Video Found to be Fraudulent + How You Can Replicate The Experiment, Yourself
When is your diary on fusion coming out?
A word or two about scientific skepticism.
The author of this post often characterizes the science of global climate change as “failed” and justifies this by claiming he/she takes the approach of a skeptic.
Real, honest skepticism is vital to good science. This post illustrates the difference between an honest skeptic and a disingenuous one.
Here we are told that some new facts about nuclear fusion are a “breakthrough”.
Where did the “skepticism” go? Why is this science immune from the “skeptical” treatment?
The author of this post will present the most preposterous, tissue-thin, often energy industry funded citations as some kind of evidence that the whole of climate science is suspect. But not in this area. Again, why?
When the application of supposed skepticism is so wildly inconsistent, you have to suspect an underlying agenda.
And a “skeptic” with an agenda is no skeptic at all.
youtube downloader
Yikes, something just inserted a link at the end of my comment.
I had no intention of putting that link there. My apologies.
I am 60 years old. I first studied fusion in Junior High School. Then, as now, it was “right around the corner” and would solve all our energy problems. As someone said “Fusion: the energy of the future. And it always will be.”
I’m not aware of corruption and scandalous level of groupthink within the community of fusion scientists, as exists within climate scientists. And, as I have written, my impression is that the level of corruption within the medical/biological sciences is much worse than even climate science.
I’m also leery of the claims of superstring theorists, since my reading of Peter Woit’s “Not Even Wrong” blog leads me to believe that they (as a specialized community) are also willing to hype their claims, beyond reasonableness.
I don’t follow developments within the fusion energy field, as I do developments within climate science. If you know about scandals – along the lines of fudged data and analyses, such as we know about from climate scientists – that pertains to fusion scientists, by all means, fee free to share.
To my mind,
describes a breakthrough, just as surely as there being no statistically significant warming for 16 years, and this period of time sufficient for some modelers, themselves, to have declared their models as likely failed, is anything but a breakthrough.
In case I’ve been duped, and the report of possibly shaving years off development time for fusion is nor more reliable than Michael Mann’s graphs, please do accept my apologies, won’t you?
You continue to pollute FDL with your Alex Jones world view. That is, the world view of the energy cartels, of Nuclear, Coal and Petroleum, which is lies and suppression of alternate energy.
It occurs to me, that you are annoying. But if you are a paid FDL member I will put up with your nonsense. If you do not contribute to FDL, we, collectively should consider, flagging each and every Post that you inflict on us.
In your opinion, if fusion was funded 30x it’s current rate (i.e., along the lines of the Manhattan Project), do you think that would speed things up?
Also, people take out insurance policies in the hopes that they won’t have to use them. CO2 climate catastrophists may not want to rely on unproven technology, at all, but in light of the surging 3rd world CO2 production, what moral option could they possibly have? Drop some mini-nukes on China and India, to make sure they get the message?
The US government is spending 0.22 billion USD per year on ITER. Divide that by 300 million Americans, and that’s only about 70 cents, per capita, per year.
Do you really think you’d miss 30x that, or $21.00/year?
It’s the CO2 catastrophists who predict gloom and doom. Taking out a $21.00/year insurance policy, even if it turns out to be worthless, strikes me as a no-brainer.
What strikes me as brainless is writing teary letters to grandchildren, apologizing for global warming, when, in fact, there are numerous constructive options to pursue.
==================================
Also, don’t forget that it took almost 50 years to detect the Higgs boson, and hundreds of years to prove Fermat’s Last Theorem. If fusion is also a tough nut to crack, well, so what?
Did you never hear the saying “old men plant trees”? Better trees, than teary letters, says I.
Frank33 is the author of the following, confused, vile, verbal vomit:
Am looking forward to it.
youtube downloader
Excellent – more textbook examples of dishonest “skepticism”
This is, of course, a preposterous – and unsubstantiated claim.
And the real beau:
This posters “evidence” for this is an article in the Daily Mail – a publication with a known bias in support of the energy industry. The scientist who was the supposed source for this article later, in her blog, made it plain that she felt 16 years was not a statistically sufficient period and that the reporter had misquoted her.
When this was pointed out to our poster, with a link to the quote, that was ignored, and here he/she is again – trying to make the same preposterous claim.
Don’t be fooled by intellectual dishonesty in the guise of scientific skepticism.
You are?
The current godawful mess with both fission and fusion is very much the outcome that was desired by the energy sector… i.e. the oligarchs who form the foundation of our ruling class.
It would look very strange for you to attempt tackling them on this particular matter if you insist on simultaneously using arguments that were bought and paid for by the same oligarchs.
Note: this does not assign any particular motive or blame to you… it’s just that there’s no escaping the fact that much of what you type about CO2 has been in fact authored as a result of an astroturf campaign sponsored by the carbonarchs.
And then there’s the irony: those carbonarch arguments are just an effort by our owners to escape blame for some of the more obvious results of the same policy goals that fracked over fusion to begin with.
I am flattered that you repeated my preious comment. But it is about the third time so people may be getting tired of it.
Again, my question, are you a free loader using valuable bandwidth or are you a paid FDL member? I may have to assume that you are just a user and abuser who does not contribute. Your Posts take up space that replaces more worthy Posts.
Either pay for the prvilege of being here OR you get FLAGGED.
To be fair, he’s got a point. Several, in fact.
Yes, meth, it means there will be as much radioactive waste as a fission plant, but for “only” a couple hundred years instead of thousands of years. That’s good compared to fission, but not to solar and other renewable power.
Once again, you ignore what some of the climate modelers, themselves, had to say. No, I’m not referring to Judith Curry.
So, who is being dishonest? And do you think the lack of a statistically significant linear trend, for the past 16 years, in the HADCRUT4 data set, somehow depends on whether Judith Curry does the curve fitting?
> the lack of a statistically significant linear trend, for the
> past 16 years, in the HADCRUT4 data set
Debunked. Next misrepresentation, please.
Sorry, I don’t know what you’re talking about. Will you be explaining this in your diary?
I know the government preferred uranium fission plants to thorium, because the former was more useful for weapons work. IMO, these are very dangerous plants, so in that sense I agree there’s a “mess”, even if not (thankfully) the extreme sort of mess we see at Fukushima.
As for fusion, I heard a talk, many years ago, where the speaker said that basically, the fusion community had hit their targets, as a function of money. However, President Reagan helped slow them down, by cutting their funding.
Very recently, I read that their progress over the last few years has not been good. The subject of this diary is thus an exception, not the rule. (As per my limited and imprecise knowledge of fusion energy. I haven’t been following this, frankly.)
I suspect that fusion has been deliberately underfunded, mostly to secure oil and bankster interests (including control over us little people; there’s more going on here than selfish desire for profits) but I wouldn’t call that a “mess”. Hence, I really don’t know what you’re talking about.
That would bother me quite a bit if “much of what (I) type” were false. It is not – not to my knowledge, anyway. It’s hard to get a rational response, here at myFDL, though I note that openleft was no better.
Furthermore, I think you’re probably living in some sort of time warp. We know that Exxon-Mobil did indeed pay money for some sort of PR campaign, modeled on the “smoking is safe” nonsense. Nowadays, though, Exxon Mobil is just hunky dory with a carbon tax (which will actually profit them, via their gas interests), and furthermore, conducts no public education program, of note, regarding climate science.
The scientific case for catastrophic global warming appears to me to have all but collapsed. I’ve given MANY, MANY references, and don’t care to dig up lots of them, now.
I will post a new one, though. I note that the CO2 climate catastrophists are generally NOT INTERESTED in dealing with the subject of slimed and intimidated scientists, who don’t really hew to the politically correct (and financially compelling) climate catastrophism. From a comment on the article NASA on the sun: ‘…tiny variations can have a significant effect on terrestrial climate.”
(emphasis mine)
First off:
Name them.
Beyond that, however – a teaching moment about how politically motivated commenters intentionally confuse BASIC science in an area with things going on in advanced and emerging science in that area to cast doubt and spread confusion.
Climate is a very complex system and modeling it is difficult. Politically motivated commenters will exploit that to point at areas where the work is being refined (as all scientific work is) to claim that the BASIC science is somehow “flawed”
The basic science of climate change is quite settled.
The greenhouse effect traps heat on the earth
CO2 is a greenhouse gas
CO2 levels have been rising dramatically since the industrial revolution
Humanity has been adding CO2 to the atmosphere at an increasing rate since the industrial revolution
Temperatures have been rising since the industrial revolution.
More CO2 continues to be added the atmosphere.
None of that is in question. The minutia of modeling techniques does not change that.
Our poster confuses that – possibly with the intention of creating doubt and confusion.
An analogy – X-Rays are less effective in diagnosing some conditions than others – respiratory illnesses among them. There is disagreement among radiologists as to how to best interpret X-Ray results for those maladies.
Does this mean radiology is “flawed” and “failed” Should the practices of using X-rays for medical diagnosis be abandoned?
Of course not, we’re talking about a corner area of radiology that is advanced and still emerging, not the basic science.
But of course, there is not a huge, filthy rich industry that stands to benefit by sowing confusion about radiology and delaying action based on what X-rays tell us.
If there were, we would have internet commenters inundating us with arcana about corner-cases in radiology where scientists disagree. In the name of “scientific skepticism” of course.
Don’t be fooled
Why don’t you provide a link for your “debunked” claim? Could it be because the “debunking” depends on a debunked paper by Nuccitelli?
http://my.firedoglake.com/metamars/2013/01/06/world-temperature-records-in-2012-and-the-green-veal-pen/ comment 5
http://my.firedoglake.com/metamars/2012/12/22/is-this-any-way-to-model-a-catastrophe-ipcc-methane-projections-are-as-off-as-temperature-projections/ comment 86
What do your lying eyes tell you?
Don’t be cranky, meth. I’ve supplied it directly to you twice, and no amount of “it relies on a debunked Nuccitelli” whining is going to cut it. Supply the “debunked” Nuccitelli link por favor.
After that, answer the question I’ve been asking about which scientific corruption scandals of the past 1,000 years are similar in scope to the one you’re alleging about 97% of current climatological scientists. Thanks!
Should I keep reposting links in each and every diary of mine, where you show up and make some obscure claim?
What figures do you claim for the least squares fit of the linear trend of the 16 year period of the HADCRUT4 data set in question? What’s the slope, and what’s the error?
If you want to amuse us, tell us what the probability is that temperature declined over that 16 year period.
I can understand why you’d prefer to babble, obscurely, about a debunked paper and
fudgedfortuitously adusted ocean temperature values.A stupid (at best) question. I intend to get around to posting diaries about the 97% consensus claim. As I’ve recently noted, one of the ‘surveys’ to get this misleading figure, with non-(sufficiently) disambiguating questions, to boot, was based on a whopping 77 scientists.
Funny, but the climate catastrophe propagandists don’t spread that meme around, now, do they?
> Should I keep reposting links in each and every diary of
> mine, where you show up and make some obscure claim?
I’ve posted my link twice. I just asked you to post yours once and you have not complied. So put up or shut up. It’s a very simple concept, so you should be able to comprehend it and follow through.
> A stupid (at best) question.
And yet you cannot answer it. Then you go into an unrelated issue about a percentage. You’re certainly a slippery one (or perhaps slimy is more accurate).
Either this kind of alleged global scientific conspiracy has happened before, leading us to easily grant that it could indeed be happening again, or your alleged conspiracy is something new under the sun, and therefore much more improbable than likely. Which is it?
I’m glad that you seem to know what you’re talking about. OTOH…..
@metamars – First I would like to thank you for the fine article packed with great information regarding a relatively little known but promising technology innovated by Dr. Eric Learner of Lawrenceville Plasma Physics. I would also like to make you aware of an additional fusion technology that is at a very high level of technical readiness which has great technical promise that deserves some consideration.
There is a practical form of inertial confinement fusion that could be built today that requires no additional engineering or physics breakthroughs and produces net energy. It is not necessary to wait ~50 years for commercial tokamaks or Laser Fusion power plants to become commercial reality.
Inertial Confinement Fusion reactors that use a tiny amount of fissile U-233 to reliably create the conditions for Deuterium-Deuterium (D-D) fusion can be built today. The nuclear waste produced from Deuterium-Deuterium fusion is ultimately just non-radioactive helium (D-D fusion also produces Tritium which is a fusion fuel that is relatively short half-life [12.32 years] and is moderately radioactive. A D-D fusion reactor can burn in place the Tritium it generates, producing additional energy via a D-T fusion reaction, and end up only producing non-radioactive helium, and tiny stream of Thorium fission products as its nuclear waste). This system is called PACER, and the LLNL version of this fusion power plant was designed by Dr. Ralph Moir, who was the senior nuclear designer at the Lawrence Livermore National Laboratory during the years of my career service.
Practical D-D fusion that produces net energy – http://www.yottawatts.net
Energy Longer than the earth has existed or the Sun will shine – http://goo.gl/XL534
Anyone with an interest in nuclear fusion who would like to learn more or ask a question is invited to visit the Fusion Energy League -
http://fusionenergyleague.org/
Why, what a confused, weasely mind you have! You make a claim, with the ‘famous’ 97% figure, which you ascribe to me. When I tell you the figure is bogus, at least in terms of the poll of the ‘magnificent 77′, you come back with
where “you” is me, metamars.
Yet it wasn’t me that started blabbering about the 97%, but rather you, which we can see from your post 31, which I quote verbatim:
In my diary, World Temperature Records in 2012 and the Green Veal Pen
in comment #7, you wrote:
in comment #9, I informed you that you were naive:
However, you want desperately to pin a viewpoint of a grand conspiracy on me, even after I told you that you were naive, and giving you references that would enlighten you as to scientific groupthink, sociolgy, and corruption.
To no avail. In Comment #19, which I again quote in full, verbatim, you say,
This is sufficient to show your modus operandi. You’re a fairly sophisticated (compared to other people here, anyway), weasely twister of words, who has not the slightest interest in a rational conversation. You make allegations, which one might initially presume are bona fide, innocent mental errors, but your refusal to back off your misleading framing and false attributions – and instead, to double down – shows me clearly what you’re all about.
You have not the slightest interest in understanding; rather you are here to obscure, with a deeper motivation to smear and frustrate.
The difference between you and Frank33 is one of intelligence, but not one of ethics.
Have read your post with interest several times. Was alarmed that you linked to an article that mentioned NIF in reference to possible electrical power generation. (if only as a design example)
The National Ignition Facility at LLNL is not capable of producing net energy. In fact, it gobbles electricity at a rate that defies comprehension. It was not built to generate, or to study the generation of, electrical power.
I could not care less about the pissing contest you seem to have going on here. However, citing as related research something unrelated to your topic does not help your cause.
A word or two about scientific skepticism.
The author of this post often characterizes the science of global climate change as “failed” and justifies this by claiming he/she takes the approach of a skeptic.
Real, honest skepticism is vital to good science. This post illustrates the difference between an honest skeptic and a disingenuous one.
Here we are told that some new facts about nuclear fusion are a “breakthrough”.
Where did the “skepticism” go? Why is this science immune from the “skeptical” treatment?
Ah, le mot juste.
Look, you don’t have to be a physicist to realize that the probability that four guys working on a shoestring budget in someone’s basement are discovering breakthroughs that have eluded the poindexters at Sandia are…well, let’s just say vanishingly small (BUT, if you DO believe that, I’ve got some Bre-X stock I’m willing to let go of for next to nothing…)
If Eric Lerner needs funding the solution isn’t crowdsourcing, it’s getting an infusion from venture capitalists who, without a doubt, will be falling over themselves to get in on the ground floor of a potentially revolutionary new technology with nearly unlimited income potential. Except that venture capital is the one branch of investment banking in which the law of natural selection actually works – the gullible and dull are mercilessly culled so only the shrewd survive. Which is to say no venture capitalist who expects to be in business past next week would consider putting a dime of their own money behind Lerner until he can produce some independently verified results, which is something he hasn’t actually got around to doing just yet. But then again if your genius is actually self publicity rather than physics and there’s an army of benighted mountebanks ready to carry water for you why waste time with demanding professional investors when there’s untold riches to be made selling
snake oilnuclear fusion to the great unwashed via crowdsourcing? Most won’t even think to ask for a slice of equity in exchange for forking over their hard money.I doubt Lerner has actually unraveled many mysteries of fusion, but like Thomas Edison he’s definitely sensible to the romantic appeal of the “lone genius” meme, in which a unique prodigy is able to leverage his perspicacity to rise above pedestrian scientific inquiry and strike out in bold new directions, producing momentous achievements that eluded his convention bound peers.
Except Edison actually employed hundreds of people engaged in systemic research programs conducted on an industrial scale.
That’s not nearly as good a story, though.
And as Lerner no doubt appreciates, when you’re trying to separate rubes in Peoria from their monster truck rally stash with fantasies of cheap, unlimited energy, the story’s the thing.
No matter how you dress it up, PACER is still power from detonating nuclear warheads.
Tossing both D-D fusion and thorium fission into the mix does not change that fact.
It cannot lead to distributed power grids and doesn’t help with the power needs of developing nations.
Wow… everything that what you wrote about LPP and Eric Lerner is completely wrong. Where did you get your information?
metamars brings up Lerner and LPP as a an attempted at distraction from very valid and deserved criticism of the destructive and deceptive practices of the carbonarchs. But that’s all on metamars and shouldn’t be blamed on LPP.
LPP is not crowdfunded. It is funded by accredited investors.
And LPP has achieved results with their work as has been reported in peer-reviewed publications. Again and again.
So, as I said, what you wrote is completely wrong.
Where did you get that stuff?
Thanks metamars. Rec’d.
Completely wrong? I’m pretty sure that’s not the case.
First of all, I didn’t say LPP was crowdfunded. metamars suggested crowdfunding as an option to raise capital in the OP (you did read it, right?)
I was going to ask you exactly what an “accredited investor” was, then I realized this is stuff you thoughtlessly copied from LPP’s own website without giving it a second thought. I never denied that LPP had investors (re read my post), but it obviously doesn’t have nearly enough of them -hence metamars’ proposal for crowdsourcing. In fact LPP’s own website claims to have raised only about $2 million from investors, which in a capital intensive field like fusion research is a pittance. Hence my point: the market clearly isn’t sold on the feasibility of this project.
As for getting a couple of publishing credits -which again, you know because it is prominently promoted on the LPP website as some sort of credential- so what? Lots of trash gets published in peer reviewed journals. The litmus test is whether the results claimed by LPP can be independently replicated, which they have not been. All we have is LPP’s word for it.
Far from being completely wrong I think my first post was spot on in suggesting that LPP’s whole business plan is to exploit the broad absence of critical thinking skills among the American population. You are the perfect illustration of my point: everything you claim to be “true” about LPP you know because you read it on the company’s own website!
Did it ever occur to you that LPP isn’t exactly a disinterested party here and before accepting everything they say as the unvarnished truth it should be subjected to careful analysis and independent verification?
Generating power from nuclear fusion is hard, but making money off of peoples’ stupidity is remarkably easy. After all, we’re talking about a country in which a book that told people they could have anything they wanted just by wishing hard enough for it became a runaway bestseller.
Fusion will suddenly become available when it suits the interests of the Oligarchs and not a sec. before. With Metas help that won’t be until they burn every f*cking last drop of oil, lump of coal and therm of nat. gas. To absolutely no effect according to Meta and his pals. Oh and by the way did you all know there really isn’t any significant link between lung cancer and smoking. I heard it on the Internet and we all know what that means. Keep spewing Meta your certainly earning whatever it is EXXON et. a l. are paying you on retainer for.
Say now, that’s interesting, because I copied and pasted directly from http://focusfusion.org/index.php/site/article/130 .
Also, where did I ever say that Eric Lerner is crowd funded? Rather, I have chastised the greenies for their one track minds, which even forbids them – somehow, e.g. – for thanking me for pointing out the 350.org is about as reliable as rushlimbaugh.com in educating about ALEC. Greenies, by themselves, if they really believe their CO2 rhetoric, and know about China’s surging CO2 production, should have been looking to fund carbon free energy development, even if governments don’t help out, even without my input and criticism.
Instead, they’re being veal penned. It’s actually old news that the old line environmental groups are greatly coopted (as per Gary Null, well over 10 years ago). I’m only looking at this from a different angle.
Now, if you tell me that there is no possible way that crowd funding of Focus Fusion is possible, then that is news to me. Unfortunately, I don’t remember the details, but I have discussed this, a bit, with Eric. As I (vaguely) recall, there are 2 routes to getting funding to Focus Fusion. If I have gotten this wrong, and there is no way, possible, to help fund Focus Fusion’s research activities – say, e.g., by funding research grants to a university, with goals consonant with FF’s – then my apologies. However, as Eric has told me that doing research in conjunction with a foreign university (in Iran) worked out well, for FF, then I’d be curious as to why crowd sourced funding, going to an American University (say in NJ, where Eric lives; which happens be very near Rutgers, in New Brunswick) cannot help Focus Fusion.
I frankly don’t believe that, but if you want to claim that, go ahead and make the case.
Also, his staff size of 3 is what he told me, himself, when he was in Newark, NJ last summer. We chatted as we marched to City Hall, and back again. If he’s added or removed staff, since then, do give the correct current figure, won’t you?
Oops, my apologies, I started reading this thread, this morning, from bottom up, and thought you were addressing me.
ETA
metamars brings up Lerner and LPP as a an attempted at distraction from very valid and deserved criticism of the destructive and deceptive practices of the carbonarchs. But that’s all on metamars and shouldn’t be blamed on LPP.
(emphasis mine)
While your reply wasn’t directed towards me, I will say that this accusation (bolded) is sheer nonsense. I’m against junk science and scientific dishonesty. What you call a “distraction” in fact speaks to the blindness and tribalism of CO2 catastrophists. Even if you gave Lerner’s technology only a 1% chance of being successful, why would you not work to fund it, adequately, as a form of insurance?
You are an exception to the rule. Good for you, on that count.
It is true, though, that I speak for myself, and not LPP. I have, of course, never pretended to speak for LPP.
You’re welcome.
The big hot fusion research projects are dicey, and I do not suggest that they should be plan A. Rather, to quote from President Obama (which I almost never do, in a sympathetic way), we need “all of the above”, where by “all” I don’t mean literally “all” technologies.
We probably should be mothballing all fission reactors; Fukushima is the ‘gift that keeps on giving’. I’ve read that 40% of children in the Fukushima area having thyroid problems….
I have some insight into this, as per a conversation I had with Lerner, but will not give details. Let’s just say that there are other, non-conventional energy technologies being developed, that FF has to compete with.
Having met Lerner, I have a big problem with what you are saying, here. I’m not an old buddy of his; however, I can tell you that an older white guy is not going to be heading to Newark, NJ, to fight for the rights for black and brown people (including illegal immigrants; a phrase Lerner probably doesn’t appreciate!) unless he has a strong social conscience. In fact, he told me that he got some pushback from co-workers, in spite of his long hours, which he found somewhat amusing.
He just doesn’t fit the mold of a con artist. At all.
I also hang out with his friend, and former roomate, once in a while, who is quite the lefty, very involved with activism, and also high-minded. Not a wisp of a hint of trace of scandal or dishonesty, regarding Eric, was ever mentioned.
ETA: I am, of course, not saying that ultimately scientific claims do not need to be verified.
Do you mean will never be capable of producing electricity?
Oh! Just noticed this, now!
You’re welcome. Perhaps you would be interested in writing a diary on the subject?
Correct. Not what it is built for.
Meth, you are still 0 for 2: you refuse to post the requested link, and you refuse to answer my question about scientific scandals. This reflects very poorly on you and any credibility you seek to disguise yourself with.
This is the way crackpots, charlatans and shills operate, folks. They have their talking points and scripts and refuse to deviate from them. Every direct question is either deflected or turned into an opportunity for claiming haughty umbrage or namecalling, or used to jump to a non sequitur answer to a different question. They cite a lot of things that they don’t bother to read or understand, or which actually disprove what they’re alleging. Lots of namedropping. The exercise is intended to confuse the issues and lead everyone on a wild goose chase. You will never be able to pin such a poser down, although it does provide a grim sort of sport.
Metamars has no concept of his lack of knowledge.
For example:
Half-life and radioactivity are inversely proportions. The shorter the half life the more radioactive the isotope.
Even moderate radioactivity is lethal in industrial sized amounts, and tritium is a gas, and can go where much else cannot (lungs for example).
Cobon-60 has a half life of 5.6 years (Close to Tritium). A use of Cobolat-60 is to “X-ray” welding on high pressure pipelines. which give one some measure of its “radioactivity”.
I’ve seen an engineer put a cobol-60 source in his pocket after checking pipelines, he received burns, and died one month later.
.
Synoia has no concept of who he is quoting.