CommunityMy FDL

UPDATED Why You May Not Want to Contribute to a Promising, Crowd-Funded Fusion Energy Project

UPDATE: From Surprise, West Antarctic volcano melts ice, we’re told that only Fox and Business Insider have carried reports of the geothermal heating of the Antarctic. As I’ve claimed previously, CO2 catastrophism reflects a plutocratic agenda, hence it’s not just left gatekeepers keeping the public ignorant. It’s also main stream media.

Also, from a comment linking to the following, volcanism occurs in the North Pole, also:

Volcanoes exploding under water at North Pole

The Arctic seabed is as explosive geologically as it is politically judging by the “fountains” of gas and molten lava that have been blasting out of underwater volcanoes near the North Pole.


I believe we should be developing fusion as fast as possible, mostly because I believe it’ll be the greenest and least “intrusive” way to create energy I can think of, and also because we need concentrated energy for vital processes like water desalination. (A single windmill in a valley might look nice; a farm of them despoils a natural view and makes it look like a factory.) We should be stretching out our known oil reserves, for use as fertilizers, medicine and pesticide (while looking for non-oil ways to produce those, also). CO2 emissions are being driven be the industrializing 3rd world, and the only peaceful way to abort their emissions trajectories is be offering them something just as concentrated, but low or no emission. I.e., SEDUCE them away from their current paths.

To that end, please take a look at the crowd-funded indiegogo campaign for Focus Fusion. Focus Fusion holds the record for hottest temperature amongst fusion projects, achieved with a tiny fraction of the funding of the big, hot fusion projects. I had (and have) a good source on chief scientist Eric Lerner’s challenges, and I can tell you that Eric has had to waste time and energy raising funds, when his scientific talents should obviously be allowed to focus on fusion. The first half of the funding campaign went very well, probably aided by Eric giving talks at Oxford University, but the 2nd half has been lagging quite a bit.

Make no mistake about it, I’d like everybody to contribute to the campaign.

As for why you might not want to…..

A few weeks ago, scary headlines were splashed across lefty blogs as well as some major media about an “unstoppable” slide of a glacier in AntArctica into the ocean. (It’s supposed to really pick up speed after about 100 years.)

If you want to read scientific counterpoints to the mass-media propagandized scrare memes, you best watch websites like (and, with reservations due to their often exaggerated headlines and sometime poor vetting, over the following weeks, if not longer.

The Antarctica scare-meme-of-the-week is a good case in point, because information which appears to make it’s framing kind of laughable has appeared within weeks. And this is:

From Researchers find major West Antarctic glacier melting from geothermal sources

Thwaites Glacier, the large, rapidly changing outlet of the West Antarctic Ice Sheet, is not only being eroded by the ocean, it’s being melted from below by geothermal heat, researchers at the Institute for Geophysics at The University of Texas at Austin (UTIG) report in the current edition of the Proceedings of the National Academy of Sciences.


Using radar techniques to map how water flows under ice sheets, UTIG researchers were able to estimate ice melting rates and thus identify significant sources of geothermal heat under Thwaites Glacier. They found these sources are distributed over a wider area and are much hotter than previously assumed.


According to his findings, the minimum average geothermal heat flow beneath Thwaites Glacier is about 100 milliwatts per square meter, with hotspots over 200 milliwatts per square meter. For comparison, the average heat flow of the Earth’s continents is less than 65 milliwatts per square meter

I’m not at all confident of my understanding of what that last quoted paragraph means, but I’ll take a stab. If anybody else wants to read the actual paper, and explain, feel free.

What I think this paper is saying is that the net thermal flux from below the Thwaites Glacier, due to geothermal source, is at least 3x the average thermal flux from solar sources (including greenhouse effect), over the continents. I believe they must mean over all the continents. So, I’ll guess that thermal flux at the poles is half that (well, not soot laden parts of the arctic; the soot increase thermal absorption many-fold; don’t want to look up a source).

So, the contribution to the melting from geothermal sources is 6x solar+greenhouse sources. Ergo, even if you eliminated increased CO2, the glacier is still going to do it’s thing. This would imply that spending billions, if not trillions of dollars on mitigating CO2 (but not shoring up and/or evacuating coastal areas) would be criminally stupid.

BTW, I suspect that the lack of synchronization between surface temperatures (which have been statistically flat for the last 17 years) and ocean temperatures (have decelerated over the last few years, but still increasing) is primarily because of “heating from below” – i.e., geothermal sources pumping not just hot gases into the ocean, but also sulphur compounds which can be metabolized by plankton, releasing heat in the process.

This is basically a guess on my part, based on minimal knowledge.

Previous post

#whatshisangle? Goldman Sachs CEO says Inequality Destabilizing Country

Next post

The military described the capture of Bowe Bergdahl as a "(CRIMINAL EVENT) KIDNAPPING"