T. Boone Pickens

Discuss funding sources for polywell research, including the non-profit EMC2 Fusion Development Corporation, as well as any other relevant research efforts.

Moderators: tonybarry, MSimon

TallDave
Posts: 3140
Joined: Wed Jul 25, 2007 7:12 pm
Contact:

T. Boone Pickens

Post by TallDave »

Pending the WB-7 peer review, we might make an effort to get Polywell on his radar.

http://www.pickensplan.com/

We would need, I think, to emphasize this is real science based on established physics, not a scam built around hydrino theory, zero-point energy, or an "electric universe" (hence the need to wait for the review).

Roger
Posts: 788
Joined: Fri Jul 06, 2007 2:03 am
Location: Metro NY

Post by Roger »

Boone has the right idea. But his nat gas interests dull the shineyness of it all. But its not like, solar, wind & nat gas is a new idea.

Boone made a ton of money in oil, post peak he's moving to nat gas, can he make a killing in Polywell like he has in oil and is now in nat gas ? I dont see Polywell needing a Texas straight shooter, over the top oilman. Pickens is too much of an opportunist to me.
IF Dr Nebel built a 100MW unit, I would say we need 5 Universities to open Polywell departments, and hand fulls of federal money to grease the skids. Boone Pickens, not so much.
I like the p-B11 resonance peak at 50 KV acceleration. In2 years we'll know.

TallDave
Posts: 3140
Joined: Wed Jul 25, 2007 7:12 pm
Contact:

Post by TallDave »

Pickens is pushing a "do everything" approach to energy. His main focus is getting us off foreign oil so we're not transferring massive wealth to Wahhabi propagandists, theocratic nuts, jihadis in general, and other undesirable sorts that are unkindly disposed to Western Civ in general and America in particular.

If Polywell can produce energy economically, guys like Pickens are exactly what we need to push this out into the mainstream. It can't be a government project forever.

Nothing wrong with opportunism; it's why capitalism works. Edison was a brazen opportunist too.

ravingdave
Posts: 650
Joined: Wed Jun 27, 2007 2:41 am

Post by ravingdave »

I've heard the theory that T. Boone Pickens is urging his plan because he owns a lot of natural gas filling stations, and he will make a lot of money if everyone goes along with his plan, and therefore that is his motivation for creating the plan.

This might be true, however an alternative explanation exists, and one I find plausible if not even more likely.


He believes in something, so he puts his money into it. I empathize with this perspective.

Once you get into the billionaires club, it gets harder and harder to find things that you can put your money into ( apart from nutball schemes) that won't make money. Of course William Buffet, Ted Turner and Bill Gates are people who have managed to accomplish this.

Thank God they put their money into organizations that will utterly waste it without having too much of a negative impact on humanity.



In any case, before the navy announced the restoration of funding for WB7, I had kicked in $600.00 into the development fund, with some notion of going as high as $10,000.00 . Not because I thought it would make me any money, but because I thought it really has a chance of doing something beneficial for everyone.

Altruism is a good thing. We need more of it.


David

TallDave
Posts: 3140
Joined: Wed Jul 25, 2007 7:12 pm
Contact:

Post by TallDave »

I've heard the theory that T. Boone Pickens is urging his plan because he owns a lot of natural gas filling stations, and he will make a lot of money if everyone goes along with his plan, and therefore that is his motivation for creating the plan.
I've heard the same argument made regarding Al Gore, who owns a bunch of green companies and has reportedly made $100M on the whole global warming thing.

Anyone claiming to do good is probably also trying to do well.

tombo
Posts: 334
Joined: Fri May 09, 2008 1:10 am
Location: Washington USA

Post by tombo »

I certainly don't object to someone doing the right thing or a good thing just because they are making tons of money at it.
I'd like to live my life that way.

Speaking of T Boone Pickens...
How much does a wildcat oil well outside of known oil fields cost?
Isn't it around $100M or more?

Another thought that has been rattling around in my brainpan:
If 100 small utility companies ponied up $1M each that would fill the kitty.
That is only 2 in each state.
Small local utilities are much more approachable than the giant ones.
And, if one company gets alienated by a poor sales job, there are lots more prospects.
After the project starts if one or even 5 get cold feet, that does not necessarily kill the project. (the virtue of redundancy)

Also small local utilities are more the size whose markets match a mere 100MW power plant.
This technology would not only protect them from the tender mercies of the jihadists but also from the likes of Enron.
-Tom Boydston-
"If we knew what we were doing, it wouldn’t be called research, would it?" ~Albert Einstein

Roger
Posts: 788
Joined: Fri Jul 06, 2007 2:03 am
Location: Metro NY

Post by Roger »

TallDave wrote:Pickens is pushing a "do everything"
No ethanol, no biodeisel, no nuclear, no coal.
Pickens is pushing wind, solar, nat gas.

TallDave wrote:
I've heard the theory that T. Boone Pickens is urging his plan because he owns a lot of natural gas filling stations, and he will make a lot of money if everyone goes along with his plan, and therefore that is his motivation for creating the plan.
I've heard the same argument made regarding Al Gore, who owns a bunch of green companies and has reportedly made $100M on the whole global warming thing.

Anyone claiming to do good is probably also trying to do well.
Yup.

Actually Pickens is one of the big names that talks about peak oil, so its seems natural for him to move to nat gas holdings in that light
I like the p-B11 resonance peak at 50 KV acceleration. In2 years we'll know.

TallDave
Posts: 3140
Joined: Wed Jul 25, 2007 7:12 pm
Contact:

Post by TallDave »

True, he does push wind and nat. gas in particular. He doesn't seem opposed to other domestic energy sources, though -- he's just not making money on them.

Polywell would be a great fit for this guy, if the p-b11 reactor can be made to work. The economics are compelling to a proft-seeker, and cheaper electricity frees up a lot of natural gas.

ravingdave
Posts: 650
Joined: Wed Jun 27, 2007 2:41 am

Post by ravingdave »

Coal is part of the problem, no one wants fission nuclear, bio desiel doesn't have sufficient raw materials to make it practicle, and ethanol is a disaster.

Maybe he's pushing wind, solar, and natural gas because these ideas actually have a chance of working, while the others are basically impossible.

The idea that a smart man would discard other unworkable schemes seems reasonable to me.


David

scareduck
Posts: 552
Joined: Wed Oct 17, 2007 5:03 am

Post by scareduck »

Fission nuclear is hardly impossible, just politically unpalatable for people who think Homer Simpson actually runs a nuke plant.

scareduck
Posts: 552
Joined: Wed Oct 17, 2007 5:03 am

Post by scareduck »

ravingdave wrote:Once you get into the billionaires club, it gets harder and harder to find things that you can put your money into ( apart from nutball schemes) that won't make money. Of course William Buffet, Ted Turner and Bill Gates are people who have managed to accomplish this.
I think you mean Warren Buffett. Turner took a family business and parlayed it into a much larger fortune in broadcasting. Gates started a software company that became worth billions.

ravingdave
Posts: 650
Joined: Wed Jun 27, 2007 2:41 am

Post by ravingdave »

scareduck wrote:Fission nuclear is hardly impossible, just politically unpalatable for people who think Homer Simpson actually runs a nuke plant.

I love nuclear, but in politics perception IS reality. Opponents have made fission nuclear economically unviable in this country. The laws of economics are almost as certain as the laws of physics.



David

Mike Holmes
Posts: 308
Joined: Thu Jun 05, 2008 1:15 pm

Post by Mike Holmes »

Well, except for the plants we already have in operation, right? Or are those currently unprofitable? I find that hard to believe.

You're just saying that it's politically difficult to build new ones, right? Mostly because of the NIMBY problem, yes?

I think that fission is a good bridge to fusion, given that fusion could then be used to eliminate the fission by-products. But, depending on how close we really are to fusion, it may be too late to worrry about.

Mike

scareduck
Posts: 552
Joined: Wed Oct 17, 2007 5:03 am

Post by scareduck »

Mike Holmes wrote:I think that fission is a good bridge to fusion, given that fusion could then be used to eliminate the fission by-products. But, depending on how close we really are to fusion, it may be too late to worry about.
What if Polywell doesn't turn out, the FRC device under investigation at Tri-Alpha Energy is a bust, and ITER is an expensive boondoggle? Then you're stuck ... I'd rather have the alternatives going than risk big energy shortages.

Aero
Posts: 1200
Joined: Mon Jun 30, 2008 4:36 am
Location: 92111

Post by Aero »

This is some interesting information. It says that Pickens is in it for the water, implying that wind is only a beneficial diversion.
http://www.foxnews.com/story/0,2933,395304,00.html
Aero

Post Reply