Reply To: Iconography

[Aeronaut]

Rezwan wrote: Ah. Some cynicism appears. This Mother Jones Article says the BBC suggests that:

Branson’s move to invest $3bn in renewable energy technologies is “more than green philanthropy.” Could he also be “making a canny attempt to get in on the ground floor of a fast growing and innovative global industry” and “fulfill his mission to turn Virgin Fuels into a power giant in the same class as Shell or Exxon Mobil”? (Where have all the saints gone?)

There’s big money to be made in renewable fuels–at least that’s the general assumption–and many US biofuel firms are small-scale oufits. An unsentimental venture capitalist (not that there’s any other kind) tells the BBC, “Sir Richard wants to make money in a field where returns are being made right now.” Should we care that there’s a commercial logic to Branson’s decision? Of course not–the guy’s a businessman.

This gives me pause, as focus fusion is a direct competitor to all the renewable fuels. Will the Virgin Fuel folks embrace our fusion pitch or are they strict hydro-solar-wind-biogas types? Big money can be made with focus fusion as the renewable fuel of choice. Wish I could express this in clear economic terms.

Pleased to be of assistance, Rezwan. FF is not currently seen as renewable fuels, but as a something for nothing that’s underpriced. The VC crowd is after the residual income of selling fuels for decades to come so they can sell these companies for big bucks.

The FF business model is about truly affordable local power plants that run essentially on water and maybe cost a million in quantity. There is no reason for the renewable energy or VC communities to get fired up about FF and all of the carbon credits that owners of FF reactors in fleets of ships, trains, trucks, factories, office buildings, and subdivisions could sell to those with (pardon the pun) a burning need for combustion energy sources and fuels. Fuelish? You betcha!