Reply To: Set up a holding company

[Rezwan]

I do think the first step is to see if Ed can commit to developing (or, if it already exists, publicizing) a budget that includes alternatives. I’m sure he’s thought about it, and such a thing exists in a drawer somewhere.

Actually, a pre-cursor for this (if they haven’t got a budget already hidden away) is ReNeW type documents. (“ReNeW” stands for “Research Needs Workshop” – so they have a workshop where they assemble experts to study the needs of each thing they’re thinking of doing. This kind of doc is a pre-requisite to give them validation for funding something.) So you’d need some respected/admired plasma physicists to draft said ReNeW docs which can then be used as the basis of a budget estimate and mandate for funding towards alternatives.

This is a big bureaucracy you’re working with.

Then, you’d have to get everyone on board that this doesn’t undermine the fusion effort, but makes a case for increased funding. If you try to take away from one group to give to another, you’ll have a protracted, wasteful battle. If you’re upset by the tokamak spending, fear not. Funding other projects might yield results that allow for a shut down of the project because of success elsewhere. It seems probable that a lot of fusion scientists would think advanced fuels and ICC’s are a waste of time and we need to keep the tokamak online as it’s the only hope of fusion success.

Now, once you get someone to commit to doing the ReNeW docs and devising a new budget, that’s when you need the letter-writing campaign, to urge budget committees to approve the budget, urge your representatives to pass it, to allow for government spending in our imminent “cuts across the board” climate. I think energy has a strong direct case for funding from increased oil and gas taxes, as the energy industry spends one tenth of the industry average on R&D.

Others would disagree, and so you see our argument isn’t with the government officials, but with a lot of our fellow citizens.