Focus Fusion Flyer
(5) CommentsIt was a challenge to distill FFS into such a small space, but here it is! Check out the new Focus Fusion Society tri-fold (pdf file)
Feel free to print this out and use it to explain our organization to others.
Initial Feedback
A warm thank you to those of you who’ve already given your feedback. For everyone else, we strive to continually improve - so bring on some more feedback.
I’ve run this pamphlet by a number of people already, including some plasma physicists. The comments range from the criticism that this is too soft on mainline fusion, to the criticism that it is too pro-LPPX and will alienate most of the fusion community. For example, one says:
Your bulletized list also neglects two related points: 1) mainstream fusion’s history is full of broken promises and missed deadlines. 2) meaningful levels of power production by mainline fusion is over 100 years away.
Another says:
I think there would be more power in your organization, and more support from the conventional fusion physicist that wants to make fusion happen, if you took one step back from “picking” your fusion pony in your PR materials.
As to the support of conventional fusion physicists, other fusion organizations have their boards filled with them, and this has not seemed to benefit ICCs or aneutronic fusion as far as I can tell.
Indeed, I think our approach has merit, and I’m hoping that after some initial resistance, the rest of the fusion community will come to see that merit.
Picking our Pony
I did cave a bit and reworded the brochure to clarify that we haven’t “picked our pony” in the sense that we predict (aka promise, aka oversell) it’s going to win, rather, we’ve picked it because we like the concepts, they are our “favorite” - and we hope they do indeed pan out, so we are committed to seeing this project through.
We can’t be accused in any way of being delusional, however, since we (quite reasonably) are also hedging our bets by taking a look at the overall fusion research climate and making sure everything is done to support a multi-target approach to fusion.
On a practical level, our organization can only actively support other aneutronic fusion and fusion research diversification (ICCs), to the extent that our resources allow. As we grow as an organization, we’ll be able to do a more comprehensive job of it. If we get more collaboration from the other organizations, we can likewise build some kind of synergy.
I’m setting up the organization to grow that way, but growth in that direction really depends on the kind of support we get from the ICC and advanced fuels folks, as well as mainline fusion folk.
Currently, all of our support comes from individuals with an interest in the LPP experiment, and also a corporate donation from LPP. Join their ranks! (aka, chip in!)
I went to the APS conference in Chicago to see if there was support from those quarters, and I’m not sure there is. A trip to DC this week to another fusion gathering will continue to explore this option, but I sense this is a tough crowd to woo.
Leveraging Short Term Fusion Projects
Back to our pony: it makes sense for us to put the LPP experiment first because it has the shortest time to proof and/or falsification, and is the least expensive to pursue.
In general, I suspect the fusion community is resistant to short term projects because they fear the “oversold” “too good to be true” stigma. They’re a skittish bunch. This is too bad, because I think short term fusion projects can be a great asset in the overall fusion promotion campaign, but that so far they have been mismanaged.
First of all - the short term project just might work. It would be tragic to avoid supporting a short term project, and find out 50 years later that that would have worked all along. So many wasted lives.
Second of all, even if it doesn’t work out, with proper management, it can still be good for fusion. The “fusion in 30 to 100 years” narrative is boring. Short term projects, win or lose, take advantage of the limited attention spans of people (myself included : )). If treated constructively, they can be good PR for the overall fusion endeavor - an excellent opportunity for education and celebrating the human spirit of adventure and exploration. A bonding experience that builds our sense of ourselves as determined pioneers. Short term projects can bring the fusion drama to life and fill it with urgency. Keep the tortoise/tokamak trudging away in the background if you must - everyone is here to watch the hare.
It’s win-win. An eminently practical approach. What say you?
FFS Seeking Board Members
52nd DPP, Part I
Comments
For a more in depth discussion, start a thread in the forums.Good analysis, above. The rejection of short-term hope is cowardice, IMO. Fear of disappointment is a shoddy excuse for inaction!
The brochure is also good. I have one reservation: the Fossil Fuel Rule insertion is egregious and overdone, IMO. Fossil fuel is what will PARTLY be supplanted by FF/Fusion in the medium term, but its effects are on balance far better for mankind so far than negative. (What would civilization and modernity be without it?) So that segment feels like unrealistic Green pandering.
Thanks!
Regarding your reservation. Egregious. Cool word. The focus is on the technology barrier which separates one world from another. With fossil fuels, at best we can do status quo, and there just isn’t enough. With practical fusion, there’s the promise of…fill it in.
If we had more room to illustrate this, we could put another technology barrier below fossil fuel age, to show the difference between living standards before the industrial revolution and after. That technology barrier would be breached, of course. The things breaking through the barrier would be the steam engine, the harnessing of fossil fuels, and many other things.
No one would dismiss the firewood that came in the segment below the fossil fuel segment as a bad thing. They would just say it’s inadequate and problematic. And firewood is still in use today, it hasn’t been totally supplanted. I just used some the other day.
In any case, fill in the drawing the way you like. Nice things about fossil fuels below, and better things about fusion above. Or worse. Once you print it out, it’s your pamphlet.
The question is - what will break through the barrier? Are we stuck on this side?
Actually, the word I meant to use was “gratuitous”. For some reason I have a kind of mental short-circuit between those two, and one comes up when I reach for the other.
I actually think that NG is now abundant enough that it will handle much of the heating and industrial and chemical hydrocarbon market for a considerable time, while FF takes over the electrical generation market.
But you know, the deck is going to be so massively shuffled by introduction of FF-power that trying to guess what the details are is really a stretch. :cheese”
Looks good. I have a few suggestions:
1) Change “nuclei” to “nucleus” in “fuses with a hydrogen nuclei”.
2) It’s a good idea to point out that most electricity is ultimately generated by steam turbines, whatever the power source, but three mentions in a little pamphlet seems a bit excessive. Is there some way to consolidate them?
3) If fusion isn’t technically a renewable form of energy, what’s so great about it? It might be a good idea to talk about the availability of fusion fuels, the amount of energy produced, and/or the efficiency of direct conversion. I am assuming, of course, that this brochure is intended for a general audience rather than, say, plasma physicists, who are likely to know the difference between fusion and fission.
The PDF flyer is generally a good addition to the FF program. I agree with Brian H that hydrocarbon will have to carry the load for a while as fusion is able to be phased in.
“Power Hungry” by oil patch reporter Robert Bryce makes some interesting points about the power density requirements of the planet - so many MW/s. That is only increasing, so until fusion output is ramped up and considered as reliable as fossil and renewable fuels, no nation is going to deliberately reduce its energy consumption. He opines that natural gas and fission are the cleanest route to the energy future, but he did not know of DPF experiments, so far as I read, at the time of writing.
The PDF flyer is generally a good addition to the FF program. I agree with Brian H that hydrocarbon will have to carry the load for a while as fusion is able to be phased in.
“Power Hungry” by oil patch reporter Robert Bryce makes some interesting points about the power density requirements of the planet - so many MW/s. That is only increasing, so until fusion output is ramped up and considered as reliable as fossil and renewable fuels, no nation is going to deliberately reduce its energy consumption. He opines that natural gas and fission are the cleanest route to the energy future, but he did not know of DPF experiments, so far as I read, at the time of writing.
Post a Comment