General Science

Fusion funding: A Proposal

I’m a member of a group of young fusion researchers who are trying to figure out how to make fusion happen in our lifetimes. This is nontrivial because ‘young’ in this case means under 40, and current plans from DOE don’t put fusion power on the grid for another 35+ years. Given the accuracy of government forecasts a whole year down the line, I’m not holding my breath.

I think that the single largest factor holding up the development of commercial fusion is not physics, its program structure. We need to revolutionize the way fusion research is structured, and the best way to do that is to bring the power of the market to bear. Prizes have been suggested (notably by Bob Bussard). I offer here an alternative proposal, seeking your feedback.

The goal is to encourage private funding. This means finding a way to reduce the risk to investors in potential fusion schemes. If a given idea can pass a basic peer reviewed sanity check (doesn’t violate any laws of physics), DOE should offer to insulate investors from some measure of risk. As a concrete proposal, say DOE will purchase all the intellectual property assets of any innovative energy company which closes down after raising private venture funding. There would be some limit, indexed to the amount of money raised, say 1/2 the total venture funds raised, up to a limit of $50 million expended by DOE per company. The physical plant would remain property of the investors or creditors. DOE would pay an external auditor to catalog and organize the intellectual property assets, and would make them freely available to interested parties.

There would have to be sensible mechanisms for peer review and for deciding when to shut down (presumably the investors would make that call), but I don’t see showstoppers there. I think the idea would work, but getting congress to agree is likely to be hard. There’s a real danger of the money disappearing after a venture is funded, thanks to diversion to some more worthy cause, like rainforests in Iowa.

Anyway please comment, kvetch, suggest, advise, discuss, either in comments here or in email to me.

General

The Philosopher’s Magazine

If you’re interested in philosophy but don’t have a background in it, check out The Philosopher’s Magazine. It’s a philosophy version of Popular Science or Discover Magazine. I’ve subscribed for a year now, and I’m happy with it. It’s not mindbogglingly deep, but it also doesn’t presume familiarity with lots of jargon, so it’s a nice way to stimulate the mind without the frustration of running to the dictionary (or Google) all the time.

General

The Philosopher’s Magazine

If you’re interested in philosophy but don’t have a background in it, check out The Philosopher’s Magazine. It’s a philosophy version of Popular Science or Discover Magazine. I’ve subscribed for a year now, and I’m happy with it. It’s not mindbogglingly deep, but it also doesn’t presume familiarity with lots of jargon, so it’s a nice way to stimulate the mind without the frustration of running to the dictionary (or Google) all the time.

General

The Philosopher’s Magazine

If you’re interested in philosophy but don’t have a background in it, check out The Philosopher’s Magazine. It’s a philosophy version of Popular Science or Discover Magazine. I’ve subscribed for a year now, and I’m happy with it. It’s not mindbogglingly deep, but it also doesn’t presume familiarity with lots of jargon, so it’s a nice way to stimulate the mind without the frustration of running to the dictionary (or Google) all the time.

War Commentary

What Does Victory Look Like?

In comments to the previous post, Duncan Young writes:

The big difference is that in WWII the shape of victory was pretty damn clear – specific land was occupied, papers were publically signed, POW’s turned over etc etc.

I’ve never heard a non-handwaving description of what ‘winning’ looks like in the War on Terror. Which is a bit of a problem with applying the whole ‘war’ paradigm to this case.

That’s one of the problems with calling it a “War on Terror.”

If we call it by its right name, a war on radical Islamic fundamentalism, then the victory conditions become more clear, if not entirely politically correct.

It means a Middle East (and other places) in which governments don’t actively fund (or look the other way at) terrorist activities, in which imams in the mosques don’t preach hate and death to the Jews and other infidels every Friday evening, with either active government support or acquiescence, in which madrassas, if they exist at all, teach a modern and reformed version of Islam. It may also include a prosperous and free Arab world, though unfortunately it need not if those other conditions can occur without it.

That’s what victory looks like. How to achieve it is unclear, and worthy of debate, but many opponents of the war and the administration don’t even seem to see that as a legitimate goal, let alone one to debate the means of getting there. The politically incorrect part is that it means committing “culturicide,” which is something that remains an anathema to the multi-culti cultists, to whom all is relative. And while it doesn’t require genocide, it may indeed require killing many more people than we might desire, because there are some minds that won’t be changed.

Certainly policies followed in the eighties and nineties (to which it sounds like Senator Kerry wants us to return) won’t get us there. Whether or not the current policy will remains to be seen, but it’s got a lot better prospects than prosecutions and diplomacy alone. There will be many more regime changes, by various means, before this war is over.

Biting Commentary about Infinity…and Beyond!