The Focus Fusion Society Forums Reframing fusion, managing expectations "Fusion is always 20 years away" joke

Viewing 3 posts - 1 through 3 (of 3 total)
  • Author
    Posts
  • #905
    Rezwan
    Participant

    The “Fusion is the energy of the future – and always will be” joke is another variation of this.

    This joke is connected to the “fusion is too hard” frame.

    This joke comes up everywhere and has the effect of dismissing fusion. For example, I was watching “Moon“, starring Sam Rockwell, directed by Duncan Jones. In the DVD extras, there is a Q&A with Duncan at NASA. They ask him why he chose this topic (Rockwell is mining He3 on the moon for fusion power plants on earth), and he said he was very interested in fusion as a viable energy source. The interviewer quickly jumped in with the “fusion is always in the future” joke, and that was the end of the discussion.

    Another missed opportunity.

    To reframe this current frame, we have to acknowledge that fusion has taken a lot longer than people expected. Then again, at the ICC conference, someone told me the original “we’ll have fusion in X years” was based on the expectation of funding at 10 billion dollars a year for those X years, said funding which never happened, as fusion rode the funding rollercoaster and took a plunge after the OPEC oil crisis died down.

    We’ll need to verify this info, of course. To get to the bottom of the origins of the “always X years away” idea. Fusion in X0 years is such a vague statement.

    And with LPP, it’s, “fusion is always 1 year away” – but those pesky switches and such could keep pushing that year into an ever receding future.

    Still, “always 1 year away” is much better than “always 20” and can be leveraged to increase public awareness and support.

    But in a sense, we can’t deny that we don’t have fusion yet. So the real issue under all of this is that people think it’s impossible. How do we reframe that? We don’t KNOW if it’s possible or not. But we must pursue likely avenues of inquiry and at the very least falsify them.

    The frame here for Focus fusion is good – it’s cheaper to falsify/prove than the other methods. If you’re comfortable funding the big, expensive ideas that take 20-50 years, it’s logical to fund these inexpensive ideas.

    Bottom line: Perhaps this frame/barrier to fusion needs a bit more analysis before we can figure out better ways to reframe it.

    #7939
    Aeronaut
    Participant

    Niche-oriented market research can be depressing when you drill down to the demographics. The reason is that most people have no plan and are easily distracted from almost anything within a week. Iow, the frame must paint an extremely vivid picture, whatever the message turns out to be, in order to sear it into the collective consciousness.

    Still, if we can get a million people to each contribute $1, we might be able to buy another year of research, so it’s worth pursuing. I’m thinking mobile phone/text a donation might be effective for this. Giving ringtones (“Fire!” and whatever noise Baby makes when it fires) could be framed as status symbols, and promoted with a YT vid which shows on many types of mobile devices.

    The story of raising $1M from 1M contributors is newsworthy.

    Sadly, the xo number of years away is an inside joke to most people, who associate fusion with music, food, or a Ford brand, like the Focus. I wish that were a joke, but that’s what a search for Focus Fusion will turn up for the most part at the moment. A runaway YT hit may be able to change that in the short term.

    #7955
    Brian H
    Participant

    Actually, the joke is “commercial fusion 50 years in the future, and always will be! “, not 20 — at least when it comes to the Tokamak or ITER.

    As for a million $1 contributions, the donations route has been tried, and failed. And LPP is eligible for investment from “qualified investors” only, which means well-heeled and knowledgeable.

Viewing 3 posts - 1 through 3 (of 3 total)
  • You must be logged in to reply to this topic.