Polywell FOIA

Point out news stories, on the net or in mainstream media, related to polywell fusion.

Moderators: tonybarry, MSimon

KitemanSA
Posts: 6114
Joined: Sun Sep 28, 2008 3:05 pm
Location: OlyPen WA

Postby KitemanSA » Tue Sep 14, 2010 1:07 am

Roger wrote:Kiteman- might it be that one cannot FOIA a corporation. I think so.
See if the Navy (part of the US gov.) Said yes, its appealable. By the Navy passing the buck to EMc3, wouldn't corporate law apply.... Just saying.
It probably would. And if you had standing, you may be able to sue. But do you? I kind of doubt it! :)

Axil
Posts: 935
Joined: Fri Jan 02, 2009 6:34 am

Postby Axil » Tue Sep 14, 2010 4:23 am

krenshala wrote:
Axil wrote:
ladajo wrote:Nope, NRC is not in the game (yet...)


If the reactor is declared to be a military or research facility it could potentially be built without fully completing the NRC’s usual licensing procedures. But, even if this is the case the regulator will still be strongly involved.

Scott Burnell, public affairs officer at the NRC has previously told NEI that the Agency has authority regarding licensing of civilian reactors. “Unless DOE declares something to be a research facility, or unless the executive branch declares something to be a military use, the NRC has overall authority regarding nuclear reactors. A vendor cannot unilaterally claim either of those exemptions, and neither exemption would confer any benefit in an NRC licensing review.”

This is where the difference between a fission reactor and a fusion reactor get ... interesting. An argument could be made that the NRC is a commission regulating nuclear fission reactors, and thus the Polywell (and/or other fusion reactors) do not fall under its domain.



FYI

July 16, 2009

MEMORANDUM TO: R. W. Borchardt
Executive Director for Operations
FROM: Annette L. Vietti-Cook, Secretary /RA/
SUBJECT: STAFF REQUIREMENTS –SECY-09-0064 – REGULATION OF FUSION-BASED POWER GENERATION DEVICES

The Commission has approved the staff’s recommended Option 2, under which 1) the Commission asserts, as a general matter, that the NRC has regulatory jurisdiction over commercial fusion energy devices whenever such devices are of significance to the common defense and security, or could affect the health and safety of the public; and 2) the NRC staff will conduct further evaluations of the technical and legal issues associated with the regulation of specific fusion devices and provide status information regarding the development of fusion technology in the quarterly updates on the status of new reactor licensing activities. The staff, however, should wait until commercial deployment of fusion technology is more predictable, by way of successful testing of a fusion technology, before expending significant resources to develop a regulatory framework for fusion technology.

cc: Chairman Jaczko
Commissioner Klein
Commissioner Svinicki
OGC
CFO
OCA
OIP



PS: Polywell the NRC is waiting on you!

icarus
Posts: 819
Joined: Mon Jul 07, 2008 12:48 am

Postby icarus » Tue Sep 14, 2010 6:03 am

the NRC staff will conduct further evaluations of the technical and legal issues associated with the regulation of specific fusion devices and provide status information regarding the development of fusion technology in the quarterly updates on the status of new reactor licensing activities.


Hmmmm, who wants to FOIA the NRC for the above-mentioned reports ... might have some Polywell go/no-go information?

If nothing else it will turn up anybody who has come onto NRC radar harboring possible fusion devices.

vankirkc
Posts: 163
Joined: Fri May 01, 2009 12:08 pm

Postby vankirkc » Tue Sep 14, 2010 7:24 am

KitemanSA wrote:
vankirkc wrote: This is a bit rich. As far as I know, the entire sum of Polywell knowledge has been funded by the government. How on earth can you say that that body of knowledge, ALL of which was paid for by the tax payer, doesn't belong in the public domain?
Let me see if I can make this simple enough for you.

The government does not own the data because, it seems, the government did not buy the data.
It merely paid EMC2 to develop the data for its own reasons.

Whether you think the government should have spent the extra dollars it would have taken to buy the data is immaterial. It seems that it did not.

There, is that simple enough for you?



Completely agree with your assessment of the situation, and hold that out as the principal reason why continued funding from the government for this project should stop. Let them find private financing for their private project, and the govt can buy the finished product if it ever pans out.

KitemanSA
Posts: 6114
Joined: Sun Sep 28, 2008 3:05 pm
Location: OlyPen WA

Postby KitemanSA » Tue Sep 14, 2010 11:27 am

vankirkc wrote:Completely agree with your assessment of the situation, and hold that out as the principal reason why continued funding from the government for this project should stop. Let them find private financing for their private project, and the govt can buy the finished product if it ever pans out.
Thank you for agreeing with my assessment. However, I disagree with your conclusion.

The navy has obviously determined that the benefits to itself are great enough that such small amounts of funding are worth the risk. I happen to agree with them on that point.

Further more, they navy seems well aware that if this does indeed pan out, the economic benefits that accrue to the governement thru direct taxation alone will be SO great as to make the piddly sums involved so far wane to indetectibility.

I think that their actions show a remarkably wise involvement in this area; one not often seen in government work.

If the DoE was doing this, I suspect it would have cost 20 times as much and they would not have made the WB6 breakthru yet.

JMHO.

Axil
Posts: 935
Joined: Fri Jan 02, 2009 6:34 am

Postby Axil » Tue Sep 14, 2010 4:26 pm

icarus wrote:
the NRC staff will conduct further evaluations of the technical and legal issues associated with the regulation of specific fusion devices and provide status information regarding the development of fusion technology in the quarterly updates on the status of new reactor licensing activities.


Hmmmm, who wants to FOIA the NRC for the above-mentioned reports ... might have some Polywell go/no-go information?

If nothing else it will turn up anybody who has come onto NRC radar harboring possible fusion devices.


I doubt it. The NRC is pay as you go. No pay means no go. If there is no money forthcoming, nobody at the NRC will write anything down.

Specifically, new nuclear license applicants are reluctant to get too specific too early with the NRC - as soon as discussions move past general questions, the NRC requires the project to be docketed. That starts the billing clock and puts the applicant on the hook for paying the government $259 for every regulator hour - with no ability to control the number of hours expended. Unlike a commercial interaction, willingness and ability to pay for the government service does not necessarily result in any additional resources for a given project - the money that the NRC receives from its licensees and docketed applicants gets deposited into the US Treasury. The agency can only spend the money that has been appropriated through the normal budgeting process.


If the NRC got deluged with new applicants and started billing those applicants today, the commission would not get an increase in its appropriated budget until at least 2012 and perhaps until 2013. Few new government employees or contractors could be added to improve services until the newly budgeted money actually arrived. This system is a gift of the Reagan Administration, which implemented it for the NRC during an era when there was little expectation of a large influx of new reactor applications and when David Stockman was tasked with devising creative user fees to replace the need for new taxes. The system has another weakness - the general lack of accounting standards and practices within the US Government. Investors and businessmen have a natural reluctance to pay for services that they are not sure they are getting.

chrismb
Posts: 3161
Joined: Sat Dec 13, 2008 6:00 pm

Postby chrismb » Tue Sep 14, 2010 5:06 pm

Axil wrote:Investors and businessmen have a natural reluctance to pay for services that they are not sure they are getting.
...and tax payers, especially when it comes to basic/applied research that favours commercial companies, eh!?!? :wink:

krenshala
Posts: 911
Joined: Wed Jul 16, 2008 4:20 pm
Location: Austin, TX, NorAm, Sol III

Postby krenshala » Tue Sep 14, 2010 11:46 pm

chrismb wrote:
Axil wrote:Investors and businessmen have a natural reluctance to pay for services that they are not sure they are getting.
...and tax payers, especially when it comes to basic/applied research that favours commercial companies, eh!?!? :wink:

You are correct, Chris ... Investors and businessmen don't like to pay for tax payers either.

vankirkc
Posts: 163
Joined: Fri May 01, 2009 12:08 pm

Postby vankirkc » Wed Sep 15, 2010 1:58 am

KitemanSA wrote:
vankirkc wrote:Completely agree with your assessment of the situation, and hold that out as the principal reason why continued funding from the government for this project should stop. Let them find private financing for their private project, and the govt can buy the finished product if it ever pans out.
Thank you for agreeing with my assessment. However, I disagree with your conclusion.

The navy has obviously determined that the benefits to itself are great enough that such small amounts of funding are worth the risk. I happen to agree with them on that point.

Further more, they navy seems well aware that if this does indeed pan out, the economic benefits that accrue to the governement thru direct taxation alone will be SO great as to make the piddly sums involved so far wane to indetectibility.

I think that their actions show a remarkably wise involvement in this area; one not often seen in government work.

If the DoE was doing this, I suspect it would have cost 20 times as much and they would not have made the WB6 breakthru yet.

JMHO.


Just like EMC2 you want to have your cake (public financing=zero risk of loss) and eat it too (private profits).

This is neither capitalism nor democracy. I daresay this is a fascist model.

Betruger
Posts: 2310
Joined: Tue May 06, 2008 11:54 am

Postby Betruger » Wed Sep 15, 2010 2:32 am

You'd think so even if EMC2/Navy released this information a few years down the road?

GIThruster
Posts: 4686
Joined: Tue May 25, 2010 8:17 pm

Postby GIThruster » Wed Sep 15, 2010 3:27 am

vankirkc wrote:This is neither capitalism nor democracy. I daresay this is a fascist model.


Would you please show some credentials for such a damning judgment?

Just saying, you seem out of touch with the way the world works. You'd have us back in the stone age, based upon some prudish pretense.

What makes you think you're the judge of how people and corps should get funding? You're the judge? On Ethics? Have you ever had a single ethics class in your life? I don't think so.
"Courage is not just a virtue, but the form of every virtue at the testing point." C. S. Lewis


Return to “News”

Who is online

Users browsing this forum: No registered users and 5 guests