Fusion Framework

[Rezwan]

The fusion research community is under threat. Budgets are being cut everywhere, and the public at large is not interested in it, or in funding it. The community needs to come up with a message to improve the funding climate, because without support, the research won’t happen.

Our challenge is to come up with a broadly appealing message that appeals to the public, and also to the diverse array of researchers in the fusion community. It has to be logically and emotionally appealing, and it has to be in the interest of the players.

What follows is the fusion framework that is emerging from my conversations with members of the fusion community.

It’s been hard to come up with an integrated framework. I get a lot of conflicting messages.

The folks at NIF and ITER, for example, admonish me to be careful about the ICC’s (Innovative Confinement Concepts, aka Alternatives). On the other hand, quite a few other fusion scientists seem to be pulling for the ICC’s and I love Dmitri Ryutov’s phrase “pleasant physics surprises” (pdf file).

Both groups are stumped when faced with a typical public position (often echoed by members of the media): “if fusion is so far away, why should we care about it?”

My response has 4 parts:

1) I mention LPP’s potential breakthrough and talk up NIF, telling them to look out for the watershed ignition event in about a year that will change the fusion landscape. Mike Dunne’s presentation at the last FPA was very compelling. This is great, but often leads to “OK, we’ll write about it when that happens” (“wait and see”). So…

2) I put fusion spending in perspective: 22 billion over 57 years compared to what BP spent on damages for the oil spill last summer (44 billion! One summer. Fusion is a bargain). If you want something this advanced, you need to give it the proper resources, not all this yoyo spending.

3) I talk about ICCs, advanced fuels and black swans. This does several things. It holds the possibility of shortcuts (addressing the “it’s so far away” problem). It makes things exciting – it adds higher risk, higher reward to the mix (I contrast these high risk approaches with the steady, long term, “most likely to succeed” mainline fusion approaches. Both approaches are part of a well rounded strategy) The black swan concept is also very useful when talking to finance folk. It makes VC’s nervous – it’s a great way to leverage the uncertainty of fusion to pull in funding of projects. People don’t want to spend billions on smart grid improvements if some fusion black swan will come along and make their investment irrelevant. At the very least they’d like to diversify their portfolios. We can capitalize on this. Especially as the amounts needed to fund ICCs is very low.

Also, talking about advanced fuel as the holiest grail of fusion opens up a perspective on nuclear energy that few people have. It shows the continuum of nuclear energy. However difficult it seems now, the idea of advanced fuel fusion creates a richer story and builds stamina. It makes mainline fusion the start of an even more glorious space/fusion age, justifying more fusion spending (people see ITER as the end of the fusion journey, but it’s just too big and cumbersome. They need to see beyond it to a more elegant future – [em]one that justifies a lot more spending on research[/em]).

4) Finally, I always come back to ego, capability and responsibility. This endeavor must be owned by all of us. It’s not just a handful of scientists in a remote top secret lab. What are WE (humanity, collectively) capable of? We’re all responsible for its success or lack thereof. This is a collective action problem and we can’t be passive. Our actions matter. People (and the media) need to be supportive and pro-active about fusion.

I’ve arrived at this approach because it seems to counter the 4 issues raised by most people when I tell them about fusion:

1) Fusion is “mythic” – it seems impossible, hasn’t been done yet.
2) Fusion is too far away. ITER’s 15-30 year timeline. “Wake me up when you’re closer”.
3) Fusion is nuclear. People want nuclear to fail because nuclear is “evil.” (FYI, It doesn’t help that NIF has a big stockpile stewardship role. I like the the redemption story inherent in this, but find that others don’t.)
4) Fusion is for physicists/too hard to understand/not my problem.

Emphasis on mainline fusion doesn’t do anything about the above issues. It’s the same story the fusion community has been telling for the past few decades. The story is old. ICC’s can help refresh the story and renew interest. Makes fusion more approachable, relatable. The trick, as you know, is for ICCs to not undermine mainline fusion, and mainline approaches not to suffocate ICCs.

If handled properly, ICC’s are a great “gateway drug” to fusion. They have been for me. I only got interested in fusion because of the “hands on” “black swan” potential of LPP. Otherwise I’d still be stuck on the ideas above. Now that I’ve found out more about fusion, I think instead:

1) It’s possible, but underfunded because of collective action issues;
2) It may be closer – if not through LPP then through the ICC’s then through NIF, but even if takes as long as ITER’s timeline, this is the start of a fusion age, so let’s keep moving forward;
3) There is a range of nuclear energy reactions, including aneutronic. So I’m more comfortable with nuclear now. I have a better appreciation of the flavors of nuclear energy and don’t feel I’m being misled; and
4) Fusion is my responsibility – supporting physicists in exploring fusion is something I can do. Also, now I’m emotionally invested in it, so I have more stamina to be patient as it unfolds.

[Mike Weber Goodenow]

This is great, Rezwan. Extremely helpful.

[Author]

Posts