Zixinus wrote:Short version: Not likely, consider that environmentalist are protesting againts ITER.
They have reason to. ITER, whether it's successful or not, is going to generate prodigious amounts of radioactive waste. It's not a clean technology, and almost certainly never will be, because p-B11 fusion is too hard with the tokamak approach.
Polywell fusion is of course completely different, and should be able to burn p-B11, which has no radioactive byproducts at all. It could even transmute existing nuclear waste into more benign forms. (I suppose we should discuss this in the
Implications forum if anyone wants to delve into the details.) So, as an environmentalist myself, I don't see what's to not like about it.
Zixinus wrote:For Department of Energy, it is official policy (I kid you not) that only tokamaks and laser-induced fusion are worthy.
Official policy? That's intriguing — do you have a reference for it?
Zixinus wrote:Short version: Not likely, consider that environmentalist are protesting againts ITER.
They have reason to. ITER, whether it's successful or not, is going to generate prodigious amounts of radioactive waste. It's not a clean technology, and almost certainly never will be, because p-B11 fusion is too hard with the tokamak approach.
Polywell fusion is of course completely different, and should be able to burn p-B11, which has no radioactive byproducts at all. It could even transmute existing nuclear waste into more benign forms. (I suppose we should discuss this in the
Implications forum if anyone wants to delve into the details.) So, as an environmentalist myself, I don't see what's to not like about it.
Zixinus wrote:As for environmentalists, they don't care either. In fact, they are paranoid and superstitious of anything nuclear.
Consider that Cassini-Huygens was protested againts, as it ran on RTGs, not solar panels that are useless where the probe was going (sunlight is subject to inverse-square law).
Please don't stereotype; there are extremists in any direction, but there are a great number of sensible, rational environmentalists as well.
You do raise a valid point about the reaction to "nuclear" technology though. The medical technology MRI (magnetic resonance imaging) was originally called NMR (nuclear magnetic resonance), but they changed it because people didn't react well to the "nuclear" scanner. Similarly, we might do better to refer to this as just "fusion energy" rather than "nuclear fusion" to make it slightly more palatable to those with an aversion to anything nuclear.
Zixinus wrote:Most research money for alternative energy sources is spent on solar panels, wind farms and the like. Don't get me wrong, these do produce energy and make perfect sense in some places, but even their advocates admit that it won't supply enough electricity for the world.
Right. The people holding those purse-strings probably just don't see any better alternatives. How can we reach them, and show them that there is something that, even if it's a long shot, will do far more good for the world than all those other things combined?
Zixinus wrote:All in all, the environmentalists movement is not the ideal place to get support. Sure, Polywell could do p+b11 and thus no nuclear waste and all the other things, but from what I see, environmentalists don't let things like facts get into the way.
It appears to me, if you'll excuse me for saying so, that you're blinded by your own prejudice. I've been a Sierra Club member for years, and I see a lot of potential there. More over, climate change and environmental awareness is no longer confined to "tree-huggers" — it's very much a mainstream concern these days, as the poll cited at the start of this thread supports.
Zixinus wrote:Not all environmentalists are bad, mind you. We could find support there, among the more open-minded crew. It's just not where I think we could find largest and best support.
Fair enough. Where then?
Best,