Reply To: Physics Nobel to Big Bangers

[Rezwan]

Yes, NIF is a special case. It proves its value to funders on other criteria.

Tulse wrote:
I don’t see how one can argue that spending tens of billions and decades on one approach is “conservative”, when other options would take orders of magnitude less money and time to test (and possibly rule out).

Good debate team exercise – argue things from another point of view.

The policy approach is polarized. The minors will argue it one way, but let it slip that the field requires a “miracle” still, and we need to diversify our approaches because we really don’t have any clear viable ideas. This fills policy makers with panic, so they respond better to the majors, who suggest that other approaches are mostly “speculative,” and that the physics problems are mostly solved for their approaches, only engineering issues are outstanding. And engineering, we can handle, allegedly.

All of this takes place in a climate of shrinking funds. The majors need all of that to work, and feel the minors is a step back into speculation and delay. To them, money is wasted on the minors, since most of those approaches won’t work either.

It is hardly “conservative” to go all-in on one unproven technology that won’t show definitive results for years.

I didn’t think so either, but apparently, this is the very definition of “due diligence” – which I had been using incorrectly. “Due diligence” with VC’s refers to looking through the candidates and eliminating most of them. Trying to bet on the one or two you think will make it.

What we want is a multi-target approach – with a dispersed constituency. A harder policy sell. Not impossible, but it will take some organization to get it to happen. Something the Focus Fusion Society will be part of. I’m still trying to understand the thinking behind the current policy, and what would be required to change it.

Researching all of the “alt-fusion” approaches to the point of determining their viability would likely take less than $100 million and five years’ time.

This is where the policy analysis is required. We’d need to get the data on this. A white paper would have to be commissioned to collect the information about how much it would cost to fund the alt-fusion approaches. The paper would have to be written by credible, respected members of the field. Simply writing this paper would cost hundreds of thousands for their research and writing fees. Getting the funding for said white paper, or the committment to ask this question would take a lot of organizing, phone calls, persuasion, etc. Leveraging the paper for policy change – again many many steps.

Policy doesn’t write itself. Special interests are well organized and make their case. The other sides case has yet to be credibly made, presented, and followed through with.

This is something I hope the Focus Fusion Society can raise funds to take on. It doesn’t seem like the other organizations are up to tackling it. Maybe just a little bit of activity by one organization can get things moving.