Senate Slashes Fusion – Action?

[vansig]

It would be an error to imply that Canada’s oil is any more deadly than Saudi oil, or Alaska’s oil, or Gulf of Mexico’s oil.

I support the notion of using nuclear energy, (even fission) to help extract oil from tar sands with less waste, and less harm to the environment.

[zapkitty]

vansig wrote: It would be an error to imply that Canada’s oil is any more deadly than Saudi oil, or Alaska’s oil, or Gulf of Mexico’s oil.

I support the notion of using nuclear energy, (even fission) to help extract oil from tar sands with less waste, and less harm to the environment.

?

Are you implying an equivalence between tar sands extraction (and consequences) and salt dome extraction (and consequences)?

[Tulse]

I’m all for fusion, but I really question the utility of NIF for practical generation (to me it’s a scam, a nuclear weapons stockpile assurance program sold as fusion research). More generally I think that approaches like DPF and FRC and Polywell are far more likely to produce practical powerplants. So while I understand that, to some extent, a “sinking tide lowers all boats”, I don’t know that I’m terribly upset that the giant fusion projects are having tens of millions cut from their budgets of hundreds of millions.

And yes, the tar sands are an environmental nightmare.

[jamesr]

I agree with Tulse. NIF is a military project. If they do succeed in getting ignition there is growing pressure from within the laser fusion community that, at that point, the civilian research should be split off and run separately. Only then will the competitiveness of LIFE be able to be compared on a level playing field with MCF or ICCs.

I suspect as an energy source laser initiated fusion will only be viable for the foreseeable future as part of a fission-fusion hybrid design. So with that roadmap for them in mind the ICC community such as Focus Fusion need to plan their campaign accordingly. Emphasising the obvious advantages.

Also given there will be a substantial new build of fission plants around the world over the next 20 years. It should not be an either/or with regard to funding DPF vs hybrid designs, since they have real potential in transmuting waste, even if their electricity output will be more expensive per kWh.

[jamesr]

I also note from the report: http://www.gpo.gov/fdsys/pkg/CRPT-112srpt75/pdf/CRPT-112srpt75.pdf

Some other interesting points…
Page 84:

Plutonium-238 Production Restart Project.—The Committee pro- vides no funding for the Plutonium-238 Production Restart project.

ie. No new space missions will be able to have radioisotope thermoelectric generators (RTGs) as used on missions like Voyager and Cassini

Page 96:

The Committee recommends no funding for the nuclear waste disposal program.

The Committee reiterates its support for the $8,000,000,000 in loan guarantee authority authorized in Public Law 110–161 for Advanced Fossil Energy Projects.

Page 99:

The Committee recommends $1,804,882,000 for directed stockpile work.

Page 101:

Science Campaign.—The Committee recommends $347,055,000. Within these funds, at least $44,000,000 shall be used for plutonium and other physics experiments at Sandia’s Z facility. The Committee commends Sandia National Laboratory for successfully and safely performing two plutonium experiments at the refurbished Z facility. The Committee understands that these experiments yielded fundamentally new and surprising data about the behavior of plutonium at high pressure and this new data has been one of the most valuable contributions to the stockpile stewardship program. The Committee continues to strongly support the weapons physics activities at Sandia’s Z facility that are critical to sustaining a safe, secure, and effective nuclear stockpile.

[Brian H]

zapkitty wrote:

It would be an error to imply that Canada’s oil is any more deadly than Saudi oil, or Alaska’s oil, or Gulf of Mexico’s oil.

I support the notion of using nuclear energy, (even fission) to help extract oil from tar sands with less waste, and less harm to the environment.

?

Are you implying an equivalence between tar sands extraction (and consequences) and salt dome extraction (and consequences)?

There are no tar sands in Canada. Only oil sands. The phrase is disinformational. Of course.

[zapkitty]

Brian H wrote:

It would be an error to imply that Canada’s oil is any more deadly than Saudi oil, or Alaska’s oil, or Gulf of Mexico’s oil.

I support the notion of using nuclear energy, (even fission) to help extract oil from tar sands with less waste, and less harm to the environment.

?

Are you implying an equivalence between tar sands extraction (and consequences) and salt dome extraction (and consequences)?

There are no tar sands in Canada. Only oil sands. The phrase is disinformational. Of course.

Sorry, Brian, but bitumen resembles tar and although the term is technically inaccurate bitumen-laced sands have been referred to as tar sands in common usage since the 19th century. The greens didn’t start it and blaming them for the current connotations of the term is actually just another form of political correctness.

[vansig]

in fact “oil sands” is the greenwashed term invented by the oil industry.

they are tar sands.

but that does not mean that oil production necessarily needs to be polluting. the tailings sludge is a “ketchup-consistency mix of water, oil and clay”, that contains “polycyclic aromatic hydrocarbons (PAHs), napthenic acids, heavy metals, salts and bitumen”; but would be considerably remediated by incineration, if you had the energy to do that.

[Mike Weber Goodenow]

There are meetings in Boston on November 28, in the Bay Area (CA) on December 5, and in Ann Arbor (MI) on December 12 regarding new initiatives in the brand-new Advanced Manufacturing Partnership via the U.S. Department of Energy.

You can also post an idea for an initiative on this web page . . .

http://www1.eere.energy.gov/industry/amp/getinvolved.html

Mike

[Rezwan]

[em][NOTE: This thread was started last year and linked to an article on the Senate Budget Cuts. An update linking it to the more recent budget news on FEL site seems to have re-dated this post in the forums. ] [/em]

In light of the cuts to the fusion budget, how can we launch an avaaz.org style campaign for fusion? Could we do something like their “Stop Canada’s Deadly Oil” campaign, reworked as a “Fund Fusion so that we don’t need Canada’s Deadly Oil” campaign?

Steps involved include organizing/platform (maybe we could outsource to avaaz) and, more importantly, crafting the message – something that works for the fusion alternatives and is easy to act on for the congressperson. This is a specific type of campaign.

[em][Note: Try the Save Alcator C-Mod Campaign at http://fusionfuture.org ][/em]

[wolfram]

jamesr wrote: I also note from the report: http://www.gpo.gov/fdsys/pkg/CRPT-112srpt75/pdf/CRPT-112srpt75.pdf

Some other interesting points…

Did I misinterpret that, or did all those points lead to shoring up the diminishing petrol fuel sources and maintaining nuclear weapons stocks? nothing actually “productive”? :face palm:

[Rezwan]

Hi All! New posts on fusion budget woes at Fusion Energy League.

Also, regarding petitions – make sure you’ve signed the Alcator C-Mod petitions!

[Author]

Posts