I simply referred him to: The DoE committment to very large fusion concepts (the giant magnetic tokamak) ensures only the need for very large budgets; and that is what the program has been about for the past 15 years - a defense-of-budget program - not a fusion-achievement program. As one of three people who created this program in the early 1970's (when I was an Asst. Dir. of the AEC's Controlled Thermonuclear Reaction Division) I know this to be true...
http://www.oocities.org/jim_bowery/BussardsLetter.html and pointed out that Bussard's termination of all government fusion programs, substituting prize awards for significant milestones, was a fair compromise with reality which is ultimately beyond the grasp of both believers and disbelievers alike. On Thu, Jan 3, 2013 at 9:09 AM, Jed Rothwell <jedrothw...@gmail.com> wrote: > This is depressing. See: > > > http://www.slate.com/articles/health_and_science/nuclear_power/2013/01/fusion_energy_from_edward_teller_to_today_why_fusion_won_t_be_a_source_of.html > > > "For one thing, the history of fusion energy is filled with crazies, > hucksters, and starry-eyed naifs chasing after dreams of solving the > world's energy problems. One of the most famous of all, Martin Fleischmann, > died earlier this year. Along with a colleague, Stanley Pons, Fleischmann > thought that he had converted hydrogen into helium in a beaker in his > laboratory, never mind that if he had been correct he would have released > so much energy that he and his labmates would have been fricasseed by the > radiation coming out of the device." > > > - Jed > >
