Master of Our (Narrower) Domain
During the closing of this week's "Young Guns" podcast, I mentioned my irritation with Elizabeth Warren's statement to a crowd in Massachusetts that "there is nobody is this country who got rich on his own."
As I said on the podcast, my frustration was that Warren then used public goods like infrastructure and police services to make the argument that we should increase taxes on the wealthy, ignoring the huge amount of federal spending that falls outside of that category. Picking the gripe du jour, I noted that I couldn't stomach this argument as long as we're giving half a billion dollars in loan guarantees to Solyndra.
Defenders of projects like Solyndra (I don't think the project itself has any advocates left these days), are keen to note that government has a role to play in scientific innovation. I'm not averse to that argument given the positive externalities involved, but funding groundbreaking R&D is much different than subsidizing a consumer product that generates demand insufficient for viability in the free market. That's why it breaks my heart that we were subsidizing Solyndra's road to perdition while this was happening:
The powering down of Fermilab's Tevatron particle accelerator on Friday marked the end of a quarter-century of U.S. dominance in high-energy particle physics.
The Tevatron, which accelerates and collides protons and antiprotons in a four-mile-long underground ring, has been replaced by the Large Hadron Collider under the French-Swiss border, which began operating in March 2010...
[Fermilab director Pier] Oddone said Europe has outspent the United States by a factor of three, and the United States now has to be very clever and define very carefully how it uses its resources.
"I think we can maintain a leadership position in the world. We are going to not be where we were 30 years ago where we led in every domain of particle physics, but we are going to lead in a narrower domain," he said in a telephone interview.
Europe got the jump on a potentially revolutionary project in the world of particle physics. We got a bankrupt solar company. I'm sure glad we finally got a president whose administration "values science."
- Comment (21)
- · Quote
- · UnfollowFollow (1)
- Pages:
- 1
- 2
Comments:
Mar '11
Re: Master of Our (Narrower) Domain
The USA could lead the world on nuclear fusion, but doesn't. We used to do the things that nobody else could do, but now we have gone soft, to quote our Dear Leader...
Apr '11
Re: Master of Our (Narrower) Domain
Having spent the last 2 decades at Fermilab, it is a poignant moment. The Tevatron has been producing data for the last few years far beyond the imagined design limitations of 30 years ago. But the LHC is something else again. The US's attempt to keep up produced the SSC, oddly located due to politics, and badly mismanaged. It lasted about as long as Solyndra.
The Lab has contributed a great deal to our understanding of fundamental physics, especially in the discovery of the bottom and top quarks, the development of superconducting magnets that make MRIs possible, and pioneered neutron therapy for certain types of cancers.
And, when Tim Berners-Lee wanted to try out his crazy new "web" idea outside the confines of the CERN network, he brought his code over on a magnetic tape, and the first connection to his webserver was transatlantic, physics lab to physics lab. But I digress. And you're welcome.
The future isn't necessarily dim. In fact, "Project X" will mean developing a new accelerator that could be coaxed into produce an intense neutron beam, which could be used to sustain fission of "nuclear waste", which is what we call fuel after we've used about 1/2% of its energy. Or unenriched Thorium. The concept is call Accelerator Driven Systems, and has the advantage of stopping whenever the neutron source stops.
Edited on October 1, 2011 at 4:17pmApr '11
Re: Master of Our (Narrower) Domain
David, I'm not a physicist (see below), but I was educated as a EE sometime back in the last millennium, and my opinion is that fusion is the technology of the future.
And always will be. :-) No matter what breakthroughs are made, commercial viability never gets any closer.
(Actually, the signature I used back in the 90's was "I'm not a real doofus, but I play one at a national laboratory". That wasn't a self-deprecating line, either. I was hired in '91 to set up the D-Zero File Server, AKA D0FS, pronounced doofus. I was the D0FS Manager. That system eventually topped out at 17 racks of DEC VAXes and Alphas, with an astounding 770 GB of disk space. You could fit that in your shirt pocket now. I don't do data wrangling anymore, but the tape robots have nearly 30 petabytes of data stored, and a sizable fraction of that is cached on disk.)
Edited on October 1, 2011 at 4:18pmDec '10
Re: Master of Our (Narrower) Domain
Hey, dances. Nice to see you wandered over here from The Blog!
Oct '10
Re: Master of Our (Narrower) Domain
“Oddone said Europe has outspent the United States by a factor of three...”
And in military spending we’ve outspent Europe by a factor of…I don’t know exactly, but I’m guessing it’s closer to 30 than three. Maybe 300. Something has to give.
But I rant.
On the SSC---was going to be buried under Texas if memory serves. I read somewhere once that even though Congress killed the SSC (“Superconducting Super Collider”, right?) our esteemed scientific community found a way to nevertheless funnel million$ (billion$?) to the LHC. So—because we have absolutely no ability to control ourselves financially—is it perhaps the case that we’ve still made a very substantial contribution to the ingrates’ new toy? Hopefully that’s just some stray voltage I picked up among the fevered brow types I apparently gravitate toward.
Dec '10
Re: Master of Our (Narrower) Domain
Dec '10
Re: Master of Our (Narrower) Domain
Dec '10
Re: Master of Our (Narrower) Domain
Dec '10
Re: Master of Our (Narrower) Domain
Dec '10
Re: Master of Our (Narrower) Domain
Apr '11
Re: Master of Our (Narrower) Domain
So, thanks for bringing up this story, Troy. I didn't realize the Law Talk Faculty Lounge had copies of symmetry on the coffee table. :-) I do have to give you a quantum of grief, though, for using a picture of a CERN detector, not an FNAL detector. In fact, that's Atlas, and not CMS (Compact Muon Solenoid), the detector that was designed and largely made at Fermilab, and monitored in the Remote Operations Center here. FWIW, I expect the Lab to have the video of the shutdown event and Pier Oddone's remarks about the prospects for the future up by early next week. They also have recordings of various lectures that may be of interest, like MIT's Richard Lindzen on The Peculiar Issue Of Global Warming (or warmening/coldening, as some of us call it).
Apr '11
Re: Master of Our (Narrower) Domain
Hey CJ! Didn't expect a tagteam of Law Talk and the High Energy Physics Advisory Panel (HEPAP) would delurk me on Ricochet, but there you are ...
Apr '11
Re: Master of Our (Narrower) Domain
In something of a response to HVTs's semi-rant, it's probably most useful to think of Fermilab as an educational institution, a post-grad/post-doc college, for lack of a better word. I'm often asked, ... sometimes asked, ... I have imagined being asked what we make at the Lab. I'd say PhDs. And the benefit for all this effort is 1) really cool knowledge about how the universe is made and works, and 2) attracting really sharp people to the field. Only a small fraction of those folks will end up doing high-energy research, but good physics professors have beneficial effects on educating electrical engineers (and other disciplines), who in turn develop incredible devices like Twitter interfaces for your fridge and cylindrical thin-film solar panels. And important, useful devices, too.
The point is that like research at universities, Fermilab's funding comes through the giant money-laundering operation known as the Federal Government. So does a great deal of medical research. I'd like it to be otherwise, and perhaps there's a better way to fund such things. But as Rob Long has pointed out, this is small beer compared to the entitlement abyss, so we need to prioritize/choose battles wisely.
Edited on October 1, 2011 at 4:23pmApr '11
Re: Master of Our (Narrower) Domain
A former friend (he's so far left that I'm through) acknowledged that the very heavily subsidized solar company he is affiliated with "will never be commercially viable."
His 20 years of research at the local university was funded by tax payers, the solar panels on his private home, of course, were subsidized.
He brags about his non-existent energy bills . As a guest, you freeze in his home in the winter and swelter in the summer so that he can report the wondrous miracle of 'renewable energy'.
The jobs in the local subsidized plant have not materialized as promised and, in fact, have been shipped to China because of cheaper labor.
Compounding my ire are his statements immediately after 9/11. How I wish I'd saved the message he left on my answering machine wherein he compared the Twin Trade Towers to the pillars of the temple brought down by Samson.
Our hard-earned tax dollars subsidizing the ego/ideologically- driven goals of projects like this, when they could be directed to far worthier causes, sickens me.
Edited on October 1, 2011 at 9:07pmApr '11
Re: Master of Our (Narrower) Domain
Constitutional questions aside for a moment, I think the government has a role to play in the field of pure research. In many of the projects the costs are huge, the benefits are hard to quantify, and the timeframes are completely uncertain. This would make it difficult for a commercial venture to fund, hence government involvement. This is one area where I have had trouble figuring out a market or limited government approach to addressing the issue.
Mar '11
Re: Master of Our (Narrower) Domain
danceswithvowels: David, I'm not a physicist (see below), but I was educated as a EE sometime back in the last millennium, and my opinion is that fusion is the technology of the future.
And always will be. :-) No matter what breakthroughs are made, commercial viability never gets any closer.
You may well be right - it is extremely challenging. But that is my point. Nuclear fission was challenging back in 1940. Going to the moon was challenging in 1960.
So I think nuclear fusion is a good challenge now. Solar panels and windmills the Chinese can make much cheaper than we can - this should have been obvious to two Nobel prize winners (Obama and Chu).
If nuclear fusion is too tough, then start with Thorium-powered fission.
My point is that the only way we can compete with China is high-tech, unless we want to start treating workers the way they do.
Update: to Raxxalan's point, we seem to have the lost the ability to do big Federal Govt science (like fission and the space program). Big problem.
Edited on October 1, 2011 at 4:55pmSep '10
Re: Master of Our (Narrower) Domain
Are you saying taxpayer money should only be used if the ventures are extremely risky? The market is saying they are not worth pursuing, but the government knows better? The issue is addressed by the government not getting involved.
Oct '10
Re: Master of Our (Narrower) Domain
Hey there danceswithvowels: thanks for your reply ...
Edited on October 1, 2011 at 5:26pmJust for the record, I’m not against Federally-funded High Energy Physics research. I want that money spent here at Fermilab instead of CERN, that’s all. What really chaps me is going around Congress and spending money at CERN when told not to. Hence I’m hoping someone can confirm or disprove my earlier anecdote. I also get indignant when I think Europeans are complaining about how little Americans are spending on this or that pet rock---which, I realize, is not fair to what Mr. Oddone (you can’t make that name up!) was exactly saying. So, yeah, that’s why I semi-ranted – it was unfair as most rants are. I’m putting myself in the Ricochet penalty box for five minutes.
Re: Master of Our (Narrower) Domain
Dances ~
I'm happy to accept the correction given that this post was enough to get you to join the conversation. I really hope you'll continue to weigh in on topics like these in the future. The depth of your knowledge is truly impressive.
Also, kudos to you for intuiting that "Quantum of Grief" was the title of my ill-fated attempt to reboot the James Bond series.
Oct '10
Re: Master of Our (Narrower) Domain
Thanks for coming out, DWV. Hope to see you posting in the future.