Team Obama wants to pursue high-risk, high-reward initiatives on energy

[Aeronaut]

From my experiences with grant research and writing about 15 years ago suggest that it will take at least 1 full-time staffer to figure crud like the above out and navigate all the flaming hoops, only to be hamstrung by government regulations once we’re awarded the 2M$. Don’t see it being worth the effort, or the risks, myself.

[Focus Fusion Society]

Aeronaut wrote: From my experiences with grant research and writing about 15 years ago suggest that it will take at least 1 full-time staffer to figure crud like the above out and navigate all the flaming hoops, only to be hamstrung by government regulations once we’re awarded the 2M$. Don’t see it being worth the effort, or the risks, myself.

I’m sorry you feel that way, because LPP is going forward with an ARPA-E application, for better or for worse.

[Brian H]

Admin wrote:

From my experiences with grant research and writing about 15 years ago suggest that it will take at least 1 full-time staffer to figure crud like the above out and navigate all the flaming hoops, only to be hamstrung by government regulations once we’re awarded the 2M$. Don’t see it being worth the effort, or the risks, myself.

I’m sorry you feel that way, because LPP is going forward with an ARPA-E application, for better or for worse.

The problem with government funding is that you become a bureaucratic line item, easily crossed off if some more politically current interest, or just “cost cutting”, happens to be the flavor of the day. Independence from the vagaries of the Obot Administration: priceless.

What is it that FF now needs funding for? If the experiments are successful, private funding for the engineering steps would be much easier to obtain.

Politics and research have always been an abusive relationship. Noting the unprecedentedly heavy-handed treatment that recipients of TARP and stimulus and rescue funding have endured so far, you’re asking to be taken over by know-nothings by trying to get on the gravy train. This lunch is REALLY not free!

[Brian H]

Duke Leto wrote: I fail to see how a 95% reduction in the production costs of energy would not be considered a “technological lead”.

I’m also surprised that the Anti-Obama peanut galery didn’t chime in after the Reagan attack a few pages up.

Since Eric has committed to make licensing to manufacture generators to all comers world-wide open and affordable, any “lead” would depend on blocking that, or being first out of the blocks — a very temporary lead.

And anyone who wants to be micro-managed by the hyper-interventionist Obugabe administration needs a head-reading. Furthermore, one of the first and largest categories of economic losers from deployment of FF would be His new/old friends, the Islamic oil states. King Abdullah will not be amused.

P.S. It’s “gallery”.

[Aeronaut]

Admin wrote:

From my experiences with grant research and writing about 15 years ago suggest that it will take at least 1 full-time staffer to figure crud like the above out and navigate all the flaming hoops, only to be hamstrung by government regulations once we’re awarded the 2M$. Don’t see it being worth the effort, or the risks, myself.

I’m sorry you feel that way, because LPP is going forward with an ARPA-E application, for better or for worse.

No problem, Rezwan. IF you can think you can get it, by all means apply.

[Aeronaut]

Brian H wrote:

I fail to see how a 95% reduction in the production costs of energy would not be considered a “technological lead”.

I’m also surprised that the Anti-Obama peanut galery didn’t chime in after the Reagan attack a few pages up.

Since Eric has committed to make licensing to manufacture generators to all comers world-wide open and affordable, any “lead” would depend on blocking that, or being first out of the blocks — a very temporary lead.

And anyone who wants to be micro-managed by the hyper-interventionist Obugabe administration needs a head-reading. Furthermore, one of the first and largest categories of economic losers from deployment of FF would be His new/old friends, the Islamic oil states. King Abdullah will not be amused.

P.S. It’s “gallery”.
Who says we have to lead in production? Glenn has an excellent thread in the fusionomics forum about creating wealth- and how America frequently patents things like the PC for China to beat themselves up figuring out how to build it for WalMart.

I believe Eric is right on target licensing globally. That business model alone is newsworthy. It could have easily been something like New Jersey Firm Corners Market On Fusion Power” for a headline.

[Brian H]

Aeronaut wrote:

I fail to see how a 95% reduction in the production costs of energy would not be considered a “technological lead”.

I’m also surprised that the Anti-Obama peanut galery didn’t chime in after the Reagan attack a few pages up.

Since Eric has committed to make licensing to manufacture generators to all comers world-wide open and affordable, any “lead” would depend on blocking that, or being first out of the blocks — a very temporary lead.

And anyone who wants to be micro-managed by the hyper-interventionist Obugabe administration needs a head-reading. Furthermore, one of the first and largest categories of economic losers from deployment of FF would be His new/old friends, the Islamic oil states. King Abdullah will not be amused.

P.S. It’s “gallery”.
Who says we have to lead in production? Glenn has an excellent thread in the fusionomics forum about creating wealth- and how America frequently patents things like the PC for China to beat themselves up figuring out how to build it for WalMart.

I believe Eric is right on target licensing globally. That business model alone is newsworthy. It could have easily been something like “New Jersey Firm Corners Market On Fusion Power” for a headline.
As I observed on another thread, I personally think Eric’s priorities are first, solving the energy/pollution problems of the planet, second, being acknowledged and famous, and only third, making money. Once the genie is out of the bottle, reverse-engineering and simple theft and “counterfeiting” of the LPP design will be impossible to stop. It can only be beaten by undercutting through providing more benefits in the form of shared collaboration on engineering etc. amongst licensed users than pirates get by evading the license fee.

[Aeronaut]

I think you’ll like my newly populated site, Brian. The header needs graphic interest, but the content and typesetting are about done. As to promoting it, wellllll, first we have to see what the Society thinks.

http://global–village.com

[Brian H]

Aeronaut wrote: I think you’ll like my newly populated site, Brian. The header needs graphic interest, but the content and typesetting are about done. As to promoting it, wellllll, first we have to see what the Society thinks.

http://global–village.com

Well, you don’t provide an email address, so here’s a few initial responses:

–This is numerically confused:
“An executive’s most powerful tool is the leveraging of his or her contacts, employees, and suppliers. Since the average coal-fired power plant is rated at 1GW (1 billion watts) or more and blows through $2,000,000 worth of coal in less than a week, every GW hr eliminated from demand can eliminate one of the new coal-fired plants. This is what Green is really about- investing wisely to reduce our national demand for burning fossil fuels.”

Watts is a power measurement. GW-hr is an energy-used measurement. I can use 1 GW for one hr, or 1 watt for 1,000,000,000 hrs, both make 1 GWh. So eliminating 1 GWh from demand eliminates the need for 1 HOUR of a coal plant output. You need to eliminate 1 GW from demand for every hour of every day of the year for every year to eliminate the need for that plant.

–neutrons, not ” nuetrons”. As in “neutral”.

–FF is no longer a $2M project. Its research costs have been covered for the next 2 yrs, and a separate round of funding for engineering development will be undertaken when the results are in. It is likely to run $3M or more, and will be done with proof-of-concept in hand.

–“Get licensed to build Focus Fusion power systems, keeping jobs in towns with failing manufacturing facilities. While patented, Focus Fusion is a business model that is not focused on cornering the market for clean, cheap, and abundant energy. Focus Fusion is a 503(c) non-profit organization. “

Several problems here. Licenses are not yet available, and would be meaningless until the prototype design is complete. Second, the “business model” is that of Lawrenceville Plasma Physics, not the Focus Fusion Society, as such. LPP intends to be profitable, but not (as you say) by establishing a monopoly.

[jimmarsen]

It looks FFS is up to speed on ARPA-E.

But, in case you haven’t seen it yet, I found this related entry on the Wall Street Journal Environmental Capital blog

It looks like it’s mostly information you already know. There are 52 comments but they mostly regarding Cold Fusion.

BTW, what is your opinion of Cold Fusion/LENR?

[Aeronaut]

We scratched our heads (briefly) wondering how they get the protons together.

[Author]

Posts