Slashdot Mirror
MIT Used Lobbying, Influence To Restore Nuclear Fusion Dream
An anonymous reader writes in with the story of how MIT's fusion energy experiment is alive and well even though its federal funding was axed. "'In the end, it is about picking a winner and a parochial effort to direct money to MIT,' said Steve Ellis, vice president of Taxpayers for Common Sense, a Washington-based watchdog group. 'It's certainly a case of lawmakers bucking the president and putting their thumb on the scale for a particular project.' MIT enlisted the support of a wealthy Democratic donor from Concord and the help of an influential Washington think-tank co-founded by John Kerry. These efforts were backed by lobbyists, including a former congressman from Massachusetts, with connections to the right lawmakers on the right committees. The cast also included an alliance of universities, industry and national labs, all invested in the fusion dream. 'It's ground-breaking research that could lead an energy revolution,' [Senator Elizabeth] Warren said. 'This was not about politics. This was about good science.' The revival of MIT's project, whatever its merits, clearly demonstrated what the combination of old-fashioned Washington horse-trading and new-fangled power — both nuclear and political — can do."
the Obama administration, while sharing the hope that nuclear fusion will one day be harnessed as a power source, concluded that the MIT experiment was a waste of taxpayer money. It deemed MIT’s facility outdated and small, the least scientifically useful of three domestic fusion reactors. Indeed, critics of the experiment said it amounts to a $1.5 million-per-student training program that MIT wants to keep going to protect its turf and prestige.
It would be interesting to see an analysis of what the program is actually accomplishing. It's not clear, and I don't have the expertise to determine whether the program is doing anything useful.
"First they came for the slanderers and i said nothing."
I read a report 2 years ago that said the R&D funding in America has fallen, while at the same time R&D fundings in Korea, Japan, Singapore and in China have gone up
The report also stated that the number of patents awarded to America has plateaued while patents awarded to other countries, especially those from East Asia, have skyrocketed
Most importantly the report stated that of the patents awarded to American companies, more and more are not directly resulted from technological advancement, but rather, based on "usage" and/or "methodology", such as the patent as described in following article -
http://www.theregister.co.uk/2009/05/11/scheduling_paradigm/
it still tastes great. I sprinkle it on everything I eat.
Sleep your way to a whiter smile...date a dentist!
Wut? RadLab was about microwave radiation, for shortwave radar. They didn't do nuclear physics.
A lot of hype from a few desperate hopefuls who don't understand the tech. Nothing at all from anyone who realizes that it's expensive, impractical and doesn't solve any problems that can't be solved with better and cheaper options.
The US could have just stayed in ITER but it didn't because it thought fusion power was quixotic...
The US has stayed in ITER. It might leave ITER, but if it does so, it'll be because the project is so poorly managed.
How can you justify America being unable to pursue green-energy and real R&D?
How can I justify something that didn't happen? I can't be bothered. Maybe you ought to show us how it's done in case we ever need to justify invisible pink unicorns.
Is the project poorly managed now? Do you have inside information?
ITER is not run by Americans so it is, de facto, poorly managed.
Seriously, how many times have I seen outrage at this sort of thing? And now, because it's "our" side (I put it in quotes because MIT and John Kerry would not give me the time of day and any relationship I would attempt to start would quickly end with security being called) suddenly it's OK. Here, try this quick vocabulary game I just made up, just fill in the blank:
_____________ (n.) The practice of claiming to have moral standards or beliefs to which one's own behavior does not conform.
Shutting down free speech with violence isn't fighting fascism. It IS fascism!
It's common to hear someone say that "fusion power was 30 years away in the seventies, it's 30 years away now, and it will stay 30 years away"" or similar, and sadly, there is some truth to that (though perhaps it's 30 years now (estimated time for the DEMO full power-plant is 2033)). I think one of the reasons is that funding keeps decreasing, far below the optimistic projections of the 70s. The MIT fusion project made this graph to illustrate: https://i.imgur.com/sjH5r.jpg
It's a bit like when you're downloading a file, and while the download keeps making progress, the estimated time left stays put because the download speed keeps going down. I've had that happen a few times, and it requires an exponentially falling download speed. With fusion, the situation isn't quite that bad, but when you consider the sort of funding levels people were imagining before, it isn't surprising that they thought we would have fusion power by the year 2000.
One interesting way of putting this is to say that fusion power isn't a constant amount of time away, but about 50 billion dollars of funding away. To put those 50 billion dollars in context, fossil fules have received 594 billion dollars in subsidies in the USA since 1950. So partially fusion is difficult, and partially we're not trying very hard.
Though bit by bit there is some middle ground. As other technologies advance there are usually people looking back to see if new stuff might help solve some of the old technical challenges. Serious researchers have not given up on thorium, but they are much more realistic about its short/medium term viability then the hopefuls.
To Americans, "poorly managed" means "unable to funnel as much money as possible to myself and my friends for as long as possible, while accomplishing nothing".
You mispelled "Democrats" there.
I think you meant prima facie, not de facto.
> much more realistic about its short/medium term viability then the hopefuls
Let's not mince words. The short/medium-term viability of thorium is exactly zero. None of the players, even the hopefuls, expect a production plant in anything less than decades.
I doubt even that, given the extremely slow pace of development to date. Yes, I'm very much aware that India and China are working on this, and I'm also away that India has been doing that for longer than China has even had nuclear power and still have nothing to show for it.
Of course thorium might actually work and be practical. The same cannot be said for any current approach to fusion, which simply will not ever be practical. This story is about more pork being dumped down a very deep hole.
http://matter2energy.wordpress.com/2012/10/26/why-fusion-will-never-happen/
Your assumption of course is that all other factors stay the same. With the pain in the ass the fossil fuel is about to become (with respect to extraction over the next 30 years), the inability of solar and wind to provide baseline power, and the amount of crazy amount of emissions from coal thanks to China coming on board, you'll see more money dumped into alternatives.
As an American i take offense, yet the entire concept of lobbying for anything is idiotic...let politicians decide on what's best for their constituents, not who will give them the most money or kickbacks.
heh
I'm sorry, but having just got back from Spain and seeing the rampant political corruption there and funneling money to themselves and their friends, I believe you should pull your head out of your ass if you're going to limit that to Americans.
> let politicians decide on what's best
Better wake up then, for you should have seen what had been decided during the past 500 years. Haven't you? Not that it was all democratic, but you know, the few pretty much always decide for the many.. don't they?
Because Republicans never funnel money into pet projects or friends. You are probably one of those idiots that think Republicans are for smaller government. The only thing the parties disagree on is where to waste our money.
I think that this was the almost identical kind of reasoning which attempted to disapprove the invention of the car. :> The people at MIT certainly can accomplish a few great things. On the long run, you shall find out if it was for the benefit of mankind.
> Your assumption of course is that all other factors stay the same
Exactly the opposite, I'm taking into account the changing market at every turn.
Right now commercial PV is around 8 cents and is expected to fall in 6 to 7 cents by the end of this year.
Right now wind turbines are producing power for between 4.5 and 9 cents, and it is expected the price will collapse to the 5 cent mark over time.
These numbers include factors for intermittency, transmission upgrades, and anything else you might think of.
So, thorium. In spite of multiple decades of ongoing research, we still have no working thorium reactor. In fact, that's true in spite of the fact that the reactor just down the road from me can run on it. So if we have reactors right now that can use it, and they're not, surely there is a reason for this, right?
And the reason is that the price of building the infrastructure needed to commercialize the fuel pipeline is enormous, and at current U2 prices, utterly pointless. As I'm sure you're no doubt aware, the price of the U2 fuel cycle development was paid for by WWII, which provided a large subsidy to plants in countries with military needs. That leaves only Germany as a country that had to develop a fuel cycle *without* an interest in bombs, and look how well that turned out for them.
So basically people that actually work in the power industry, especially the nuclear power industry, see that this is not a technical problem (well, it is) but a practical one. One that is *not* getting solved any time soon. Perhaps this is simply a chicken-egg problem, and anyone that cracks one side will produce a reason to attack the other. But to date that hasn't happened, and there you have it.
They had sci-fi movies about cars for 60 years and no one actually built a car during those 60 years?
Oh you mean Sparkfun? I know right? Anything they sell can be had even from Digikey at half the price, and anyone who can draw with a crayon can design the boards they sell and have them made for a lot less than what they sell theirs for...
"They have no grasp of practical problem solving."
What U.S. corporation does.
No, I mean Adafruit. Even her master's thesis sounds like a sham. If that's what EE has become, I'll be a plumber, thank you very much.
You don't need insider information, as there has been published information on the issue: for example. Steps are being taken and any large science project risks having such issues independent of the science and engineering behind the principles of the project. Having to manage and balance contributions from many countries does complicate and pile on the bureaucracy though.
So, thorium. In spite of multiple decades of ongoing research, we still have no working thorium reactor. In fact, that's true in spite of the fact that the reactor just down the road from me can run on it. So if we have reactors right now that can use it, and they're not, surely there is a reason for this, right?
Because thorium isn't easier or cheaper to use in the US. This isn't true in other countries though. India has a much larger thorium reserve, and has been the leader in thorium use over the last decade or two, as most wester thorium based reactors were done by the 70s. They have half a dozen or so pressurized heavy water reactors using thorium partially, a small test reactor that has been running for a while, a 500 MW test reactor that is nearly finished construction and should be operational by the end of this year, and plans to have a full scale reactor commissioned by 2020 (although probably will have couple years of delay). You said you where aware of India working on this, but I guess not aware that they want it running in less than a decade, not decades.
It's still decaying. Slowly.
Slashdot still doesnâ(TM)t support Unicode after it was added to the HTML standard in 1997.
The idea behind lobbying is that politicians are not experts in everything and so it makes sense for them to listen to domain experts before making their decision. The first problem is that it's hard for someone who isn't an expert to differentiate between an expert and a vested interested (or an expert providing impartial advice and one providing advice promoting self interest). The second problem is that money found its way into the system and so now it's just about vested interests, experts need not apply...
I am TheRaven on Soylent News
Now a lobbying group is unhappy. What would they have done, instead? Use "influence" and "lobbying" perhaps? Pot, meet kettle. We're all niggers here so settle the fuck down.
For all the group's name is worth, it could be a republican-funded anti-science organization serving the coal, natural gas, and oil industries; and the uranium industry to a lesser degree.
ITER is not run by Robots so it is, de facto, poorly managed.
Correction.
Some things are too important to save money on. Fusion is one; space expansion is the other.
The Manhattan Project was an expensive undertaking, even for a rich country fully mobilized for war. Competing methods were given unlimited funds and two different methods were pursued to completion.
> Because thorium isn't easier or cheaper to use in the US
Nor India, who imports all the fuel they need. And as the supply from Africa and Australia remains solid for the foreseeable future, the economic argument is unlikely to work for anyone, including India.
> You said you where aware of India working on this, but I guess not aware that they want it running in less than a decade, not decades.
I'm perfectly aware of this. I'm also aware that they said the same thing a decade ago. And the decade before that. And I'm also aware that they laid out this plan *in 1954*.
None of this inspires confidence, especially in a market where PV and wind will almost certainly (we're talking 99.9% here) cost less. You are aware, I'm sure, that India currently has plans to install more PV than nuclear, right?
Lobbying is part of getting legislation passed. Sometimes it has broad support from the public and sometimes the public just doesn't care (such as copyright law - the average person just doesn't care).
The answer to bad lobbying isn't to ban lobbying. It's to create an informed public that participates in the democratic process.
Solar nuts will win...
Do you have inside information?
I have public information.
Although that goal is at least 20 years away, ITER is already burning through money at a prodigious pace. The United States is only a minor partner in the project, which began construction in 2008. But the U.S. contribution to ITER will total $3.9 billionâ"roughly four times as much as originally estimatedâ"according to a new cost estimate released yesterday. That is about $1.4 billion higher than a 2011 cost estimate, and the numbers are likely to intensify doubts among some members of Congress about continuing the U.S. involvement in the project.
That paragraph in a nutshell shows both the mismanagement and the connection between that mismanagement and a continued US contribution to ITER.
let politicians decide on what's best for their constituents
With that approach, there would be no constituency other than the politicians themselves since there would be no accountability or communication possible.
Also as a US citizen, you should be aware of the First Amendment. In addition to the rights of freedom of speech and religion, the amendment specifies the right to petition for redress of grievances which is exactly what lobbying is.
Then you are blind to what the Europeans and Chinese have been able to do in green energy. However, that is ok. As an American, you have fought hard for your right to be ignorant.
Lets not forget that it was politics in the first place that re-appropriated the money for other (larger and better funded) DOE projects. When politics are involved, scientific value does not matter anymore. You can only battle politics with politics.
Then you are blind to what the Europeans and Chinese have been able to do in green energy.
Like doubling the cost of electricity in Denmark and Germany? I'm really impressed and likely to stay that way.
This is a presentation on fusion I watched recently. It is by a Skunkworks engineer, made at Google's Solve for X program. It looks plausible to me. Would anyone care to comment on it?
This and no other is the root from which a tyrant springs; when first he appears as a protector - Plato (423 to 327 BC)
Tens of millions of dollars for decades pay for people's careers.
With very little to show for.
Stop fusion research. Give molten salt thorium reactors a chance.
Big difference, fusion needs scientific breakthrough.
Molten Salt Thorium reactors are strictly engineering challenges, and not very difficult ones.
The LFTR reactor enables mainly fissioning Uranium 233 (Th-232 -> Pa-233 -> U-233 -> fission).
LFTR could run with a 3% blend of spent nuclear fuel for solid uranium reactors (AKA Nuclear Waste).
LFTR output is fully fissioned (99%+) material, 81% is stable in 10 years, 19% is table in 300 years (compared to current nuclear waste that takes millenia to become stable).
By mixing in spent nuclear fuel, a large fleet of LFTR reactors could burn up 100% of existing spent nuclear fuel stockpiles, while producing two orders of magnitude nuclear products than current reactors. Currently it takes 250 tons of mined uranium to fission one ton of uranium producing 1GW year of electricity. With LFTR 1 ton of Thorium produces the same 1GW year of electricity (less than 10000 tons of Thorium per year would produce close to 120% of worldwide electricity demand) !
And LFTR development could be done 30 to 40% public money and the rest private funding. Could be just a loan guarantee.
Plenty of investment interest in LFTR if govt would come in and sweeten the deal just a little.
While Fusion research today is 100% money invested without any expectation of medium term return at all !
But instead we're hostage to radical anti nuclear environmentalists, that want solar/wind everything, which is a solution that creates as many problems as it solves.
Solar+wind might not produce any CO2 directly, but the fossil fuel peaking plants used to cover the time solar+wind shortfalls do produce twice as much CO2 as fossil baseload electricity sources. Only nuclear is CO2 free baseload electricity source !
Is good...... klik ; http://agenobat69.com/
I understand the Constitution, thanks, but filing a petition isn't the same as having lobbyists go to DC to skew policy to benefit themselves, their company, or their line of business...it's to petition to do something while showing the good it can bestow. Read Animal Farm and see how things devolve from doing things for noble reasons to doing things for personal gain (e.g. where we're at in DC).
but filing a petition isn't the same as having lobbyists go to DC to skew policy to benefit themselves
Sure, there are other forms of petitioning such as mass protest. It still remains that lobbying is protected under the First Amendment for the reason I mentioned.
Now, practical fusion power is only 25 years away, instead of, well, 25 years away.
There's no time like the present. Well, the past used to be.