[Green] Fwd: Fusion ITER

[George Banziger]

Fellow GSC members:

    I have been having some dialogue with Democratic candidate for the OHIO
6 CD, Michel Kripchak. I did have some concerns about his promotion of
fusion and ITER (international Thermonuclear Experimental Reactor) and sent
my concerns to him.My comments/questions are in black, his responses in
red. I am interested in what GSC members  think about his ideas of fusion
to generate electricity and the use  of coal.


George & Gwen Banziger; 740-434-5685; 740-434-3354 (mobile)


---------- Forwarded message ---------
From: Michael Kripchak <vote at kripchak.com>
Date: Thu, Jun 6, 2024 at 4:33 PM
Subject: Re: Fusion ITER
To: George Banziger <gbanziger497 at gmail.com>


Mr. & Mrs. Banziger:
Sir & Ma'am,

I am happy to have shared it with you. No email from a constituent is
"unsolicited." It is your duty to keep your elected officials accountable
and I welcome it.

Answers below in red:

   I have looked over your document and done a bit of research myself.
Please regard this unsolicited message as one coming from a non-expert and
from a serious supporter of your candidacy for the OH6 congressional seat.

     I learned from your document that fusion has a large energy density
(compared to other sources and to fission technology.) and there is some
research in the US (Oak Ridge TN) on this topic. in the "highlights"
section did you  mean to indicate $32 billion in *1945*?
No sir, The Manhattan Project cost $2B in1945 which is about $32B in
today's dollars.

      I have also picked up and generated some cautions and criticisms of
this strategy:

      -What is the role of coal, a fossil fuel, (dangerous to mine,
expensive, and polluting) in your plan?
Coal is only a fossil fuel if we burn it. I concede the danger of mining
and general pollution that comes with it. No plan is ever 100% perfect. I'm
not even saying we have to mine the coal. But using our coal legacy to get
federal funds and attract S&T businesses to do the work here is a plan
worth doing. I am open to other suggestions but this is "the first stake in
the ground" if you will. Obviously, if we can get Congress fully on board,
the details will be more flushed out with the experts at DoE, Academia, and
Industry providing their inputs. I am but one man in a sea of experts who
dedicated their professional lives to this cause.

As for what coal can do: we can extract hydrogen (the main fuel source
needed for fusion), we can create graphite (needed for Li-ion batteries),
we can create graphene (next-gen power transmission lines), nanomaterial
substrates (Carbon atom has 4 covalent bonds so it is super-versatile in
chemical engineering applications), diamond vapor can be used for high
thermal conductivity applications, we can extract hydrogen gas from coal
which is an even better gaseous energy source than "natural gas"
(chemically methane), we can also use coal to make ammonia cheaper for our
farmers .

This is all pretty wonkish and in the weeds so the umbrella term my
campaign is calling this is "advanced carbonics" as a catch-all. Especially
since if we talk to the scientists, they probably have a myriad other
applications they can think of.

Now the environmentalists who are uncompromising will say doing this from
coal is not good for the environment either and we should use other
technology. I will concede coal is not as clean but the point is to use
this technology development in an iterative fashion. If we can do this with
coal now, let's do it. Later on, when other technology matures, we can
develop those too. The point is, coal is ready to help the green revolution
so let's start the process now and not sit on our hands waiting for a
miracle green tech to fall in our laps. That's not how technology
development works - it's always iterative.

       --Fusion technology seems relatively new and expensive, as it has
rolled out in the project in southeastern France. Its effectiveness has not
yet been demonstrated, as far as I can see..
Fusion is hardly a mature technology and will require a heavy investment in
science and engineering to mature it and commercialize it. This will not be
a walk in the park, but neither was the atomic bomb in 1939 or the Apollo
program in 1961. This work will require dedication and support from the
federal government which will IMPORTANTLY bring high quality jobs to our
district to make it happen. The economic activity is the "brass tax" that
actually matters to the average voter.

The reason we are focusing on this now is because Germany (arguably the
leaders in this field) believe there has been sufficient SCIENTIFIC
progress, to now dedicate a significant portion of their economy to the
ENGINEERING progress. This means blue collar jobs and blue collar success.
If Germany thinks the time is right to work this (even if it will take 20
years) then we better listen. And if it takes 20 years, well that's 20
years of economic activity guaranteed to flow into our district.

       -Fusion seems to rely on combining deuterium and tritium, the latter
of which seems to be in short supply.
That is what the lithium blanket is for. As neutrons that naturally emit
from the fusion process bombard the lithium blanket, they eject tritium and
feed that into the already-occurring nuclear reaction. This by the way, is
exactly how thermonuclear bombs (> 1 megaton yield) work too. Of course, a
power plant is controlled whereas a bomb is most definitely not controlled.

Because I know the next question, I'll answer it preemptively. It is
impossible to create a H-bomb from a fusion plant. The H-bomb only occurs
because it requires a smaller A-bomb to make it happen. No such amount of
energy will ever be near a fusion power plant so the chances of a
catastrophic explosion is practically impossible.

        -Many engineers are recommending more R&D with this technology..
Yes, and more R&D is more economic activity and more jobs.

         -Is there a plan for handling waste from fusion--an
engineering and political issue.
DoE has some plans. But the main thing to note is the waste that comes from
fusion is minute compared to fission power plants and also just regular
hydrocarbon plants. If this is the only issue that hasn't been solved in
this megaproject, I will consider that a great success.

         -This technology is based on some fairly complex information which
the lay person would not easily understand. Rulli might exploit this issue.
Let him try to exploit it. I cannot sacrifice a positive vision and path
forward for our fellow citizens because of a mouthpiece for extremism. I
will gladly take his arrows so that our District prospers.

          -There is room for common ground on nuclear technology between
Dems and Rs. In the past year when we (some people from Marietta) met  with
Bill Johnson's legislative director,  the latter  person made that point.
It might be easier to find that common ground with the more easily
understood fission technology, especially with the advancement of SMRs
(small nuclear reactors).
Yes, Gen-IV fission reactors are promising in the realm of fission. The
government doesn't need to choose between "A or B" we can do both. Just
like in WW2 when we developed bombers and aircraft carriers while also
working on The A-Bomb, or in the 60s when we worked on the semiconductor
chip and also sent a man to the moon. There are few "silver bullets" in
life, but nuclear fusion is. If humanity solves fusion, I cannot overstate
how prosperous we will become. It will, for all intents and purposes, be a
miracle cure to our energy woes.

    I really appreciated your remarks at the May 17 Washington County Dem
dinner. You are a great campaigner and thoughtful policy maker. I just sent
a small donation and hope to get a yard sign later today. Please let me
know what else we can do to support your campaign.. I think we have a shot
at flipping this seat from R to D. You're exciting a lot of voters here in
Washington County with that prospect ,which we hope will come to fruition
on June 11.
Thank you sir. A megaproject like this will take work and consensus
building to change the national narrative to get the country on board. But
every journey begins with a single step and I intend to be the one in
Congress to take that first step for our District and for our Republic.

Respectfully,
Michael L. Kripchak
Democratic Candidate
US Congress, OH-06
www.kripchak.com


On Thu, Jun 6, 2024 at 8:55 PM George Banziger <gbanziger497 at gmail.com>
wrote:

> Michael,
>
>     Thanks for sending the (digital) summary of your article on fusion and
> the ITER project.
>
>      I have looked over your document and done a bit of research myself.
> Please regard this unsolicited message as one coming from a non-expert and
> from a serious supporter of your candidacy for the OH6 congressional seat.
>
>      I learned from your document that fusion has a large energy density
> (compared to other sources and to fission technology.) and there is some
> research in the US (Oak Ridge TN) on this topic. in the "highlights"
> section did you  mean to indicate $32 billion in *1945*?
>
>       I have also picked up and generated some cautions and criticisms of
> this strategy:
>
>       -What is the role of coal, a fossil fuel, (dangerous to mine,
> expensive, and polluting) in your plan?
>
>        --Fusion technology seems relatively new and expensive, as it has
> rolled out in the project in southeastern France. Its effectiveness has not
> yet been demonstrated, as far as I can see..
>
>        -Fusion seems to rely on combining deuterium and tritium, the
> latter of which seems to be in short supply.
>
>         -Many engineers are recommending more R&D with this technology..
>
>          -Is there a plan for handling waste from fusion--an
> engineering and political issue.
>
>          -This technology is based on some fairly complex
> information which the lay person would not easily understand. Rulli might
> exploit this issue.
>
>           -There is room for common ground on nuclear technology between
> Dems and Rs. In the past year when we (some people from Marietta) met  with
> Bill Johnson's legislative director,  the latter  person made that point.
> It might be easier to find that common ground with the more easily
> understood fission technology, especially with the advancement of SMRs
> (small nuclear reactors).
>
>     I really appreciated your remarks at the May 17 Washington County Dem
> dinner. You are a great campaigner and thoughtful policy maker. I just sent
> a small donation and hope to get a yard sign later today. Please let me
> know what else we can do to support your campaign.. I think we have a shot
> at flipping this seat from R to D. You're exciting a lot of voters here in
> Washington County with that prospect ,which we hope will come to fruition
> on June 11.
>
>
>
> George & Gwen Banziger; 740-434-5685; 740-434-3354 (mobile)
>
-------------- next part --------------
An HTML attachment was scrubbed...
URL: <http://fuusm.org/pipermail/green_fuusm.org/attachments/20240606/80d0879b/attachment.htm>