Princeton Fusion Project Gets $390 Million

[MSimon]

Joe,

I won't go into the fact that the climate consensus is breaking down. Or that the correction for the PDO has yet to be announced (PDO warming is currently attributed to CO2 - probably just an oversight although over looked since 1997.)

However the amount of oil in Alaska is estimated to be a Saudi Arabia's worth. It would be a lot easier to tap that than to change our whole vehicle mix in a couple of years (which not even The ONE is suggesting).

In addition the change over is going to require batteries that are not yet in evidence and are due out in small quantities this year and larger quantities in subsequent years. On top of that the technology even if available has yet to be shown to be all weather and relatively safe in an accident.

You applaud him for mandating unobtanium.

I would hate to see the boy go through what we went through during the Carter years. Multiple billions spent on stuff that turned out to be a waste.

Now there are things he could do that would help. Research to lower the cost of AE would be good. If it was cheaper than current technology then no special favors to his cronies would be required.

So what is going to happen when most of the AE spending he is proposing turns out to be pure waste? Voters are going to be pissed. Mightily pissed. If you want the voter pissed at The ONE that is fine by me. But I hate to see waste. In the vernacular it is called pollution.

[MSimon]

But you kow - just skip the Obama rants. Or skip the blog. As long as it is still a free country I intend to express my opinion.

I do skip your blog, but then you go and post it here (in the News forum, no less).

I've moved the thread over to General, where it belongs, but I'd rather you just keep your amazing political views to your own blog, where we can easily ignore them. They certainly don't belong in the News forum.

Thanks,
- Joe

Well OK Joe. Three points:

1. I wasn't the first to bring The ONE into the conversation
2. My 89 year old mom, a life long Democrat, says they are all crooks
3. The piece I linked was an engineering dissection of a political program

[MSimon]

What makes you think I hate gays? Or that any one should? You must have me confused with a conservative. I'm not a conservative. I'm a libertarian.

In fact I blog at Classical Values which is known as a rather gay friendly blog. FYI. I also post at Muslims Against Sharia. Just in case you are going to tie me in with the anti-Muslim bigots. Funny that. A Zionist with posting privileges on a Muslim blog.

And nothing wrong with hedging our energy bets. The best way to do that is to get the cost of AE below the cost of current sources. You don't do that by spending on current production which produces overpriced intermittent energy. You do that by putting money into research, into cost reduction, and storage. In fact the lack of spending on storage research is a very big hole in the proposed slush funds.

So far we have exactly what I thought was the worst part of the Bush administration - uncontrolled spending going to the politically connected.

[MSimon]

Why Obama will get rolled by Dwight Eisenhower:

"In this anxious time for America, one fact looms above all others in our people's mind. One tragedy challenges all men dedicated to the work of peace. One word shouts denial to those who foolishly pretend that ours is not a nation at war. This fact, this tragedy, this word is: Korea. A small country, Korea has been, for more than two years, the battleground for the costliest foreign war our nation has fought, excepting the two world wars. It shall been the burial ground for 20,000 America dead. It has been another historic field of honor for the valor and skill and tenacity of American soldiers. All these things it has been-and yet one thing more. It has been a symbol-a telling symbol-of the foreign policy of our nation. It has been a sign-a warning sign-of the way the Administration has conducted our world affairs. It has been a measure-a damning measure-of the quality of leadership we have been given. Tonight I am going to talk about our foreign policy and of its supreme symbol-the Korean war. I am not going to give you elaborate generalizations-but hard, tough facts. I am going to state the unvarnished truth. What, then, are the plain facts? The biggest fact about the Korean war is this: It was never inevitable, it was never inescapable, no fantastic fiat of history decreed that little South Korea-in the summer of 1950-would fatally tempt Communist aggressors as their easiest victim. No demonic destiny decreed that America had to be bled this way in order to keep South Korea free and to keep freedom itself-self-respecting. We are not mute prisoners of history. That is a doctrine for totalitarians, it is no creed for free men. There is a Korean war-and we are fighting it-for the simplest of reasons: because free leadership failed to check and to turn back Communist ambition before it savagely attacked us. The Korean war-more perhaps than any other war in history-simply and swiftly followed the collapse of our political defenses. There is no other reason than this: We failed to read and to outwit the totalitarian mind... World War II should have taught us all one lesson. The lesson is this: To vacillate, to hesitate-to appease even by merely betraying unsteady purpose-is to feed a dictator's appetite for conquest and to invite war itself."

Obama wants to make deals with dictators. It will end badly for him and us.

[djolds1]

I'm not hopeful at all.

Look at what he is doing to the auto industry:

http://powerandcontrol.blogspot.com/200 ... ustry.html

If Polywell worked it would destroy most of the market for wind and solar. The project will limp along on Navy funding.

I think we will find that this administration is even less rational than Bush's, more driven by politics. Politics always favors the incumbents over the challengers.

Perhaps. "Alternatives" can secure funding until they succeed. And once Polywell succeeds (assuming it does) you don't get to unring the gong.

There will come a day - in about a year to 18 months when people will long for a return of Bush. There is an air of unreality in Washington that will come back to bite them.

Too early to tell. Give it 4-6 months

[zbarlici]

Msimon, i thought that it is in the best interest of the pro-western nations to have a working polywell. V. cheap alternative enegry would drop the demand on oil/natural gas so price would also drop. Russia`s influence would diminish because european countries would be free to go west without fear of being cut off from vital resources when needed most. Trolling on Navy funds? I was under the impression that the program would be at the top of the agenda... So... whats the real deal?

[MSimon]

Msimon, i thought that it is in the best interest of the pro-western nations to have a working polywell. V. cheap alternative enegry would drop the demand on oil/natural gas so price would also drop. Russia`s influence would diminish because european countries would be free to go west without fear of being cut off from vital resources when needed most. Trolling on Navy funds? I was under the impression that the program would be at the top of the agenda... So... whats the real deal?

My estimation is that the Saudis or the Iranians own the new guy. He gave his first interview to a Saudi owned station. Normally I'd expect an American President to give his first interview to an American station.

In either case they are not interested in a rapid displacement of oil. So the Polywell will be kept on the back burner as an emergency reserve but it will be starved for funds. Of course I have been wrong before. Chu knows about Polywell. The fact that it has not appeared in any of the bail out/energy funds so far worries me.

I may wait until the dust settles and then see what is up. If nothing has happened by mid/end Feb. I'm going into my lobbying mode.

BTW if the Iranians own him we (as a country) are in a world of hurt. The Saudis - not so much. Their interests are somewhat aligned with ours.

Now all this is rank speculation and I have been known to be wrong - big time - before. Keep in mind I'm mildly schizophrenic and see patterns before others do. I also see them when none are there. A few more data points wouldn't hurt.

[zbarlici]

I would think that 2 years running a race for president would be long enough for the opposition to bring up any credible presidential shortfalls. In any case, for once, i really hope you`re wrong.

[MSimon]

I would think that 2 years running a race for president would be long enough for the opposition to bring up any credible presidential shortfalls. In any case, for once, i really hope you`re wrong.

The media was in the tank for him and the opposition couldn't get through.

Discussing his Muslim background was bigotry. The Chicago Crooks? "he is not one of those". American foreign policy: "too much military".

American oil? "Not in the cards". That one really bothers me. The government would get royalties. More of the money would stay at home. Seems like a no brainer. Unless the government is owned by foreign oil exporters.

Charlie Rose and Tom Brokaw don't know Obama. Video here:

http://obamawaffles.typepad.com/obama_d ... obama.html

====

And why nothing on Polywell? In this climate it would be nothing to fast track fusion. A billion or three dollars for an accelerated research program into 3 or 5 options would be nothing. Cheers would resound. It could be a policy.

Instead the Princeton Torus quietly gets $390 million. This don't make no sense from the President Of The Future.

====

Yeah. It would be nice to be wrong. The thing to keep in mind is that every politician is owned. So the question is who owns Obama? No one knows. We are about to embark on a journey of discovery.

I'm starting to feel like it is time to push a political campaign.

We start by driving every comment section on every American blog Off Topic (hey, I'm good at that) by asking, "Why isn't Polywell being funded?"

Hey. Good title for a post.

[tomclarke]

From outside the US Obama is merely concerned to correct emphatically the appalling PR errors made by the Bush regime, and the boost to Islamic extrmism throughout the world that comes from having US behaving as a hate-figure & bully.

It is a deliberate message.

Whether it will work: that depends on what are your expectations. I don't expect very much. Problems and hostilities that have bult up over years do not easily change, and the mixture of extreme poverty and fundamentalist religion is incendiary.

As with global population, the only long-term solution is wealth for everyone.

Still, a US president offering respect to moderate Islam is a step forward. As a "strong" agnostic myself I don't much approve of US presidents who cosy up to any religious sect. At least Obama is showing less signs of doing this than Bush!

[MSimon]

From outside the US Obama is merely concerned to correct emphatically the appalling PR errors made by the Bush regime, and the boost to Islamic extrmism throughout the world that comes from having US behaving as a hate-figure & bully.

It is a deliberate message.

Of course it is. And if the Islamics take his attitude to be that of a "weak horse" he could very well start a war. Or how about them Russians.

Already Hamas is spitting in his face.

Yeah. It would be nice to be liked. But you prevent more trouble by being feared. Sad but true facts of life. Peace through superior fire power and the will to use it.

We are about to get a 4 year test of whether Bush was right or whether the kumbayah crowd has the superior foreign policy. Eisenhower says the kumbayah crowd invites war. And you know he might have some small understanding in the matter. Time as always will tell.

[ravingdave]

But you kow - just skip the Obama rants. Or skip the blog. As long as it is still a free country I intend to express my opinion.

I do skip your blog, but then you go and post it here (in the News forum, no less).

I've moved the thread over to General, where it belongs, but I'd rather you just keep your amazing political views to your own blog, where we can easily ignore them. They certainly don't belong in the News forum.

Thanks,
- Joe

Joe, you sound ANGRY. You also sound like you have BDS. Yeah, Bush Sucked,(but not for the reasons you mentioned) but the WORST ? Geeze, i'd have to say that Honor is unquestionably Jimmy Carter.

From my recolection of History, Carter was the worst President for destabilizing and toppling the Shah of Iran. A couple of quotes to prove my point.

http://archive.newsmax.com/archives/art ... 4726.shtml

Remember Carter's human rights program, where he demanded the Shah of Iran step down and turn over power to the Ayatollah Khomeini?

No matter that Khomeini was a madman. Carter had the U.S. Pentagon tell the Shah's top military commanders – about 150 of them – to acquiesce to the Ayatollah and not fight him.

The Shah's military listened to Carter. All of them were murdered in one of the Ayatollah's first acts.

By allowing the Shah to fall, Carter created one of the most militant anti-American dictatorships ever.

Soon the new Iranian government was ransacking our embassy and held hostage its staff for over a year. Only President Reagan's election gave Iran the impetus to release the hostages.

I believe Carter's decision to have the Shah fall is arguably the most egregious U.S. foreign policy mistake of the last 50 years. [Former President Bush's decision to allow Saddam Hussein to stay in power is a close second.]

With the Shah gone, the whole region was destabilized. The Soviet Union invaded Afghanistan; no doubt a direct link to the rise of the Taliban can be traced to this invasion. Iraq also took advantage of the Shah's departure to invade Iran. A long war followed that helped make Saddam's Iraq a great Middle Eastern power.

And decades after Carter's ignominious act, Iran is still bent on destroying America. President Bush named it one of the three nations in the "axis of evil." Iran is developing both nuclear weapons and the missiles to deliver these weapons to its enemies.

We can thank Jimmy Carter for all of this

http://noiri.blogspot.com/2004/03/jimmy ... -shah.html

Strong intelligence has begun to emerge that US President Jimmy Carter attempted to demand financial favors for his political friends from the Shah of Iran. The rejection of this demand by the Shah could well have led to Pres. Carter’s resolve to remove the Iranian Emperor from office. 1 GIS.

The linkage between the destruction of the Shah’s Government — directly attributable to Carter’s actions — and the Iran-Iraq war which cost millions of dead and injured on both sides, and to the subsequent rise of radical Islamist terrorism makes the new information of considerable significance.

Footnotes:
1. © 2004 Alan Peters. The name “Alan Peters” is a nom de plume for a writer who was for many years involved in intelligence and security matters in Iran. He had significant access inside Iran at the highest levels during the rule of the Shah, until early 1979.

So okay. Bush has killed his tens of thousands, perhaps Hundreds of thousands , Jimmy Carter has killed his Millions

By the standards of Death and Misery, Carter is the worst.
Here is a Picture of the Front in the Iran/Iraq war.


The Body count is on Jimmy Carter's side.


David

[IntLibber]

But you kow - just skip the Obama rants. Or skip the blog. As long as it is still a free country I intend to express my opinion.

I do skip your blog, but then you go and post it here (in the News forum, no less).

I've moved the thread over to General, where it belongs, but I'd rather you just keep your amazing political views to your own blog, where we can easily ignore them. They certainly don't belong in the News forum.

Thanks,
- Joe

I just love it when lefties spout their opinions, its 'news' and 'facts', but when anybody else does, its 'opinion' and 'ranting' and 'irresponsible'....

Like that Hanson fellow on the Hockey Team, trying to demand AGW critics be prosecuted and jailed and silenced. This is the same guy who claimed an ice age was coming in the 1970's and the solution to THAT was to reducing pollution too....