Skip to main content

I applaud George Will’s December 22nd proposal to fund fusion research.  The response from conservatives on the Washing Post web site was expected, refusing to spend a penny. Progressives argued for research in other areas of Science. Quite frankly,  Mr. Will is willing to make a funding exception for his alma mater Princeton University. Meantime, MIT can’t afford to run the Alcator-C fusion lab since 2012.

MIT's fully functional plasma research laboratory is shutting down because they cannot pay their electrical bills.  Performing fusion plasma research is an expensive proposition, both in electrical energy and operating costs.  Unfortunately, it is the success of across-the-board government cutspromoted by the conservative movement over decades that kept the United States from achieving fusion. The Princeton Plasma Research Laboratory budget was slashed starting in the 1980s.  If their funding was maintained for fusion research in the prior century, we could have achieved fusion by now and be phasing out carbon fuel power plants with clean hydrogen fusion.
Meanwhile the conservatives cry, “drill baby drill.”  Fancy that? Our dependency on fuels like coal & oil is because they are resources that need to be discovered and refined to create energy.  With Hydrogen Fusion, energy comes from machines.  The amount of hydrogen used in fusion is insignificant compared to barrels of oil or tons of coal.  The more hydrogen fusion machines are on-line, the less need for carbon fuels.
We should be investing in fusion research now. Achieving hydrogen fusion energy is game-changing technology.  There is a race for hydrogen fusion energy and opportunities with this volatile technology. Forget about ITER, which took 20 years to pour the foundation. Lockheed claimed to achieve fusion in 5 years during a Solve for X talk, but there is no reference on their web site. Both China and Korea are investing in fusion. Independent companies like Lawrenceville Plasma Physics in New Jersey are developing aneutronic fusion, with no risk of neutron exposure compared to Deuterium-Tritium fusion reactions.  Even cold fusion, now known as Low Energy Nuclear Reactions (LENR) is making significant progress.

The American Security Project’s $30 Million / 10 year Proposal is $3 Billion spending a year. Funding could be achieved by eliminating tax breaks for the carbon fuel industry, or part of a broader Carbon Tax. Funding a decade-long science program for could have happened any time in the past 30 years. Of course, this will sound like heresy for members of the Tea Party and other conservatives who reject such funding. Conservatives rejoice at “across-the-board” cutting of government spending, always reduces energy research. It is the Tea Party that argues the government is good for nothing, and they prove it all the time!
I challenge George Will and everyone interested in phasing out carbon fuels to support the American Security Project proposal. Contact your Senators and Representatives to increase funding to the levels in the ASP proposal. Let’s not fund Fusion Research piecemeal, but with an “all of the above” approach. This will give our nation’s best and brightest an adequate technical and financial runway to solve our carbon fuel crisis, and create a new energy industry for mankind. The country, region and people who achieve it first will find good paying jobs in advanced technology. They will overthrow the carbon fuel colossus that powers our civilization and poisons our planet.

More information is at http://ArgumentForFusion.us

Poll

Should the government spend more on Hydrogen Fusion R&D?

61%40 votes
1%1 votes
32%21 votes
0%0 votes
1%1 votes
3%2 votes

| 65 votes | Vote | Results

EMAIL TO A FRIEND X
Your Email has been sent.
You must add at least one tag to this diary before publishing it.

Add keywords that describe this diary. Separate multiple keywords with commas.
Tagging tips - Search For Tags - Browse For Tags

?

More Tagging tips:

A tag is a way to search for this diary. If someone is searching for "Barack Obama," is this a diary they'd be trying to find?

Use a person's full name, without any title. Senator Obama may become President Obama, and Michelle Obama might run for office.

If your diary covers an election or elected official, use election tags, which are generally the state abbreviation followed by the office. CA-01 is the first district House seat. CA-Sen covers both senate races. NY-GOV covers the New York governor's race.

Tags do not compound: that is, "education reform" is a completely different tag from "education". A tag like "reform" alone is probably not meaningful.

Consider if one or more of these tags fits your diary: Civil Rights, Community, Congress, Culture, Economy, Education, Elections, Energy, Environment, Health Care, International, Labor, Law, Media, Meta, National Security, Science, Transportation, or White House. If your diary is specific to a state, consider adding the state (California, Texas, etc). Keep in mind, though, that there are many wonderful and important diaries that don't fit in any of these tags. Don't worry if yours doesn't.

You can add a private note to this diary when hotlisting it:
Are you sure you want to remove this diary from your hotlist?
Are you sure you want to remove your recommendation? You can only recommend a diary once, so you will not be able to re-recommend it afterwards.
Rescue this diary, and add a note:
Are you sure you want to remove this diary from Rescue?
Choose where to republish this diary. The diary will be added to the queue for that group. Publish it from the queue to make it appear.

You must be a member of a group to use this feature.

Add a quick update to your diary without changing the diary itself:
Are you sure you want to remove this diary?
(The diary will be removed from the site and returned to your drafts for further editing.)
(The diary will be removed.)
Are you sure you want to save these changes to the published diary?

Comment Preferences

Subscribe or Donate to support Daily Kos.

Click here for the mobile view of the site