Fusion Confidence Monitor
Inspired by the HSBC Climate Confidence Monitor (“CCM”), we propose a Fusion Confidence Monitor.
For mankind, fusion energy has proven difficult to achieve. Much more difficult than fission. And yet, we have no sense of urgency. Humanity has yet to launch an all out race for fusion. Fusion funding is marked by miserly caution. A consortium of fusion scientists have worked towards a consensus of the most probable avenue to making two main types of fusion work - at the expense of all other approaches out there. Meanwhile, many of the other approaches are delusional, or even fraudulent. It's time to take a look at the playing field and define the race for fusion. Sort through the contenders, see if we can establish a fusion prize, and talk about the uncertainties inherent in the pursuit of this knowledge. Let's have fun while we pursue fusion - turn it into a sporting event, complete with gambling - betting on fusion, cheering along our favorite teams!
Read me first for an overview »
Inspired by the HSBC Climate Confidence Monitor (“CCM”), we propose a Fusion Confidence Monitor.
On February 16-19, PPPL hosted the ICC Workshop (Innovative Confinement Concepts). This coincided with Bill Gates’ TED talk, in which he proposed nuclear fission innovations as a solution to the world energy+CO2 crisis. These two events can be juxtaposed with interesting implications for Fusion research strategy.
Energy Secretary Steven Chu gave a talk at Google, Oct. 26, 2009. During the question and answer period, someone asks him about Focus Fusion.
We here at the Focus Fusion Society think our approach is the best for realizing the promise of fusion. However, we also think that all promising alternative routes to fusion should be adequately funded, that the fusion field as a whole needs more money. What are the other approaches?
Why does the “X” PRIZE Foundation inspire us so?
Note: “X PRIZE” is a trademark of the “X” PRIZE Foundation, Inc. The “X” PRIZE Foundation, Inc. does not currently offer a fusion prize.
Why are we taking such a public approach to the pursuit of fusion? Several reasons.
Energy production has three main elements: fuel, reactor and generator (why these three?). Conventional fusion and focus fusion differ significantly in their approach to these three elements:
They say we might have fusion in 50 years. What’s the hold up? What are the barriers to developing fusion? There are many, but the most difficult ones are not so much technological as they are psychological. These barriers exist in the fusion research establishment as well as in the general public.
Fission and Fusion are both Nuclear Energy. When people discuss nuclear power, they are usually referring to nuclear fission. This is because we have many nuclear power plants that use fission, but no one has been able to build a working fusion plant yet. The biggest practical difference between the two is that fusion reactions don’t have the problem of “chain reactions” and “melt-downs”.
Please bear with us.