CNN coverage of General Fusion

[Brian H]

Admin wrote:
…
Apparently the US Navy disagrees; otherwise they wouldn’t be funding EMC2’s research.

Admin, AKA Ivy Matt:
The Navy has big honkin’ lumps of metal to drive around the planet’s oceans, for which a commercial grade fusion power source would be much appreciated. Also, there are numerous uses for indefinitely large sources of electric power; tossing bombs is not the only thing the military relies on.

[TimS]

Brian H wrote: TimS;
The success of General Fusion could be a very good thing. But its far more probable failure could/would/will further strengthen the eye-rolling reflex of the fusion doubters.

Hopefully they will get something out of it even if the good dog does not sit still (using Eric’s cool vernacular); like LPP will get an excellent X-Ray source even if we (gosh, I should pay those membership dues, shouldn’t I?) don’t break-even. Can’t see what they’d get, though… Maybe an alarm device that will wake up everyone on the block? If they sink 20 mil+ of some famous people’s money for nothing, – I do see your point.

[TimS]

Brian H wrote:

…
Apparently the US Navy disagrees; otherwise they wouldn’t be funding EMC2’s research.

Admin, AKA Ivy Matt:
The Navy has big honkin’ lumps of metal to drive around the planet’s oceans, for which a commercial grade fusion power source would be much appreciated. Also, there are numerous uses for indefinitely large sources of electric power; tossing bombs is not the only thing the military relies on.

In 5 years or so after fusion [em]happens[/em] humanity will make the next leap outward, i.e. upward. The army and air-force think of going upward as ‘taking the high ground’. I wonder if the navy will also think that way. Which branch does ships?

[Rezwan]

TimS wrote:

TimS;
The success of General Fusion could be a very good thing. But its far more probable failure could/would/will further strengthen the eye-rolling reflex of the fusion doubters.

… If they sink 20 mil+ of some famous people’s money for nothing, – I do see your point.

This is the story of investing. This is why VC’s don’t put all their money in one project. Only a fool would. Most projects fail. A few of the projects succeed big and mitigate those failures. I think the problem with fusion is it has this mystique about it, so people don’t deal with it the way they would with any other risk.

[TimS]

Rezwan wrote: This is the story of investing. This is why VC’s don’t put all their money in one project. Only a fool would. Most projects fail. A few of the projects succeed big and mitigate those failures. I think the problem with fusion is it has this mystique about it, so people don’t deal with it the way they would with any other risk.

Excellent point; people do not see a failed project, with others right behind it that might work, instead they see more evidence of fairy tale believers. How do we work on this perception issue?

[Lerner]

The problem is that most investors are willing to invest in possible failures in areas where there have been successes–such as pharmaceuticals. “we know most drugs fail, but some make oodles of money, so…” New sources of energy are much rarer–the last one being fission (or maybe solar-electric) so it is harder for investors to see that they are risking money for something that has some failures but will suceed sooner or later. That is why most, although not all, fusion investors have technical backgrounds themselves so they can put fusion in context. (Also big money tends to move in herds and fusion is way outside the trodden paths of wind solar and geothermal where government subsidies can make a profit more likely, although far from certain.)

[Brian H]

Lerner wrote: The problem is that most investors are willing to invest in possible failures in areas where there have been successes–such as pharmaceuticals. “we know most drugs fail, but some make oodles of money, so…” New sources of energy are much rarer–the last one being fission (or maybe solar-electric) so it is harder for investors to see that they are risking money for something that has some failures but will suceed sooner or later. That is why most, although not all, fusion investors have technical backgrounds themselves so they can put fusion in context. (Also big money tends to move in herds and fusion is way outside the trodden paths of wind solar and geothermal where government subsidies can make a profit more likely, although far from certain.)

And politicians don’t invest for success, but for Points. Political Points accrue to whoever strokes the most voters’ and vested interests’ erogenous & economic zones. (E.g.: Many many billions have been paid out for carbon offsets fulfilled by companies destroying HF, with its much higher GHG rating, which they manufactured in order to have it to destroy. About half of all EU’s payments to “offsetters” have been scammed this way, or close variations of the ploy. Others are, e.g., promising to plant forests which are never created, or already exist, or are regrowing on their own. )

If you were a talented grifter, you could probably persuade them to drop a billion or two on you for promised reductions of carbon emissions over the next decade of umpty-two gigatons. And then astonish them by actually delivering.

[Tulse]

Speaking of media coverage of GF, here is a terribly researched article by the CBC on someone worried about the safety of the research.

I would think that the real safety issue with GF is the use of hundreds of pneumatic rams whacking a big sphere of liquid metal — if anything fails there mechanically, one could have a real mess in a real hurry.

[Author]

Posts