Reply To: Okay, Let's Stop The BAKE SALE mentality and get SERIOUS

[Rezwan]

Johan Clemmesen wrote:
…
4. Success. We (focused fusion society) is ALREADY SUCESSFUL! The experiment is already up and running it is not sci-fi. The tests already far exceed those of other huge national and international experiments. The problems are completely known and a plasma plants cost are specified, and it is again tiny compared to ITER…. SO we don’t need much, due to the 3 previous stated points so you can easily help the sustainable EV industry put by helping us!

I don’t think more points than 4 is appropriate. There of cause needs to be small images of the lab and plasma plant design, and very important a visualized scale model a one. Also the test results compared with others should be available.

Best regards Johan

Ah, but that’s the less certain part. Yes, the experiment is a real experiment, testing a fascinating possibility, and ahead of other national experiments in terms of energy out for unit of energy in. However, this is still not breakeven, and I’ve found that most VC’s or people in the environmental community want to know first of all if they can plug in to the technology, if you have a working prototype, etc. The truth is, this is still proof of concept, and the answer to that question is no, not yet, and there’s a chance not at all. That’s the nature of proof of concept research. Possibility of a stellar payoff, but don’t put all your money into it. Keep your portfolio diversified.

This is why I wasn’t going so much for selling one particular research approach, but for making the message that the electric car industry needs to take a broad, long term perspective on fusion research to make sure that promising alternatives get funded, because that could really help the auto industry, even if today things look a bit sketchy in the fusion realm. If you look at the bigger picture, it sounds pretty reasonable, and there’s no need to oversell on any one fusion approach. Then, when something works out, people will be pleasantly surprised, even though they probably would have been funding it just to hedge their bets.

It seems like our approaches fit gender generalizations. I prefer the argument that fusion is a necessary part of a balanced portfolio, and am interested in a broader fusion fund to make it happen.

I’m looking at ways to make the argument to the EV folks as an industry, on behalf of fusion as an industry, with specific projects as an educational example* to give people a sense of what might be possible (without overselling it). Focus Fusion is a great technology to show-case because it shows the picture of the range of approaches, small scale distributed vs. large scale; and most importantly, the range of nuclear energy – aneutronic vs. neutronic vs. fission. It’s an ideal energy source to aspire to, but can it, in fact, be realized? Only the research will tell, and only when it’s all said and done and you have a beating prototype in your lab, producing net energy.

The upshot is, we have to stay the course on the research, mind the costs, look for diversified sources of revenue and keep a diversified portfolio. That’s the logical approach.

That’s logical enough for me. I don’t see the appeal of the oversell, in fact it makes me nervous. But according to NYTimes generalization, men like the whole overconfidence thing, so this approach might be seen as weak and a possible turn off to them. Go figure.

*Also, as a nonprofit, we can’t solicit investment, so this is all purely about education for us.