Another case for government funding science research

This morning I came across a brilliant Newsweek article about the National Ignition Facility (NIF) in Livermore, CA, part of the Lawrence Livermore National Laboratory. I had heard about the NIF through living and working in the Bay Area, but I didn't know that the point of it was to create renewable energy. This is a game-changing experiment they're carrying out, in that if they're successful, and the model of the NIF can be scaled-up to suit commercial ventures, the utility companies could adopt this around the country to provide clean energy.

I will have to explore the topic further another time, but the possibilities of powering the fleet of battery-electric vehicles that will, in all likelihood, be transporting us in the near future, are quite exciting. Here's the key element of this project, detailed with somewhat technical language:

What Moses is talking about is controlled nuclear fusion—fusing nuclei rather than splitting a nucleus, as happens in ordinary nuclear-fission power plants. In a fission reaction, the nucleus of a uranium atom is split into two smaller atoms, releasing energy in the form of heat. The heat is used to make steam, which drives a turbine and generates electricity. In fusion energy, the second half of this process (heat makes steam makes electricity) remains the same. But instead of splitting the nucleus of an atom, you're trying to force a deuterium nucleus to merge, or fuse, with a tritium nucleus. When that happens, you produce helium and throw off energy.

The one concern of mine that they don't cover in this article is the steam-making process; where is the water to make that steam supposed to come from? The East Bay, where Livermore is located, is not exactly inundated with wellsprings in every backyard. I would hope that there is a mechanism for recapturing the steam and condensing it back into a closed-loop system, but I suppose that will take further research on my part.

In any case, if this works, it will truly change the possibilities for the future of energy. Rather than looking to manipulate or capture the "macro" elements of nature (sunlight, wind, wave energy, etc.) here we are looking to the "micro" elements to provide power (deuterium and tritium, in this case). Fascinating; I have my fingers crossed that it all works out for Mr. Moses and his team.

Organic food: Solely an either-or proposition?

Huffpo highlighted a brilliant article today on the complexities of organic farming from Mother Jones Magazine that suggests various methods for scaling-up the organic model for mass consumption. The main (and probably most provocative) conclusion the author comes to is that in order to expand organic farming from its current small-farm, close-to-market concept, the organic standard will likely have to be diluted somewhat to further incorporate notions of sustainability. For instance, is it sustainable to have organic crops picked by an underpaid worker with no health-care access? Are farmers' markets that are supplied by dozens of separate trucks from small farms more sustainable than big-box grocery stores supplied by tractor-trailers that haul thousands of items at a time? Those are only two examples, and I won't get into all the specifics of what form that dilution could take, as I will refer you all to the author, Paul Roberts, however the pragmatist in me can't help but see it in a positive light. The organic standard is not something I would like to see diluted, per se, however the expansion of a sustainable food system that can serve to feed the masses in an affordable way is something I'm sure many people could get behind. Can organics be expanded to serve more people without completely subverting the mission of organic, sustainable agriculture?


Living in the food-centric Bay Area, and especially in the somewhat schizophrenic Mission District of San Francisco, I run up against the stratification of food choices in society daily. Food consumption, i.e. what one eats, and where one buys one's food, is linked rather directly with status here. One can find an artisan variety of virtually any food item, from heirloom tomatoes with detailed pedigrees to the beef found in one's otherwise unremarkable burger (grain-fed, free-range, non-rGBH, your cow's flatulence was collected to create methane gas etc.) While it certainly is pretty cool to eat organic, "sustainable" food from worthy small local producers, the rub for me has always been a battle between my eco-side and my desire to support small businesses in my neighborhood. Over the past year, as I have shifted my diet towards more fresh fruits and vegetables and away from Trader Joe's pre-packaged products (which, despite being "all-natural" or "low fat" usually still tend to have lots of preservatives and generally a fair amount of sodium) I have tended to lean towards the local markets. Let's face it, while $.39/lb. oranges from Chile fit into my budget far more than do $1.39/lb. oranges from Texas, it is honestly the interactions with the locals in my neighborhood and the consequent feeling of community that convinces me to shop locally.

So in reading the article linked above, I realized that perhaps I haven't been so un-green after all. While I support Rainbow Grocery in its mission and concept, the fact is, one must be willing to pay a hefty premium to shop there, so I go there only sparingly. (The fact that basic concepts of human courtesy seem to be suspended in the bulk food bins section of the store irks me to no end, as well. It's as though self-righteous "conscious eaters" feel that showing another human being some sort of deference when both are seeking to simply buy a pound of quinoa would undermine their life-mission of universal egalitarianism. The kind of egalitarianism that reduces humans to the lowest common denominator of consumer-defecators, and therefore to show another consumer-defecator the slightest kindness would be to elevate that one above the masses. I have no time for world-resenting Greens in my life, apologies.) By shopping locally I have been paying back the immigrant store owners who worked so hard to set up their place of business in San Francisco, an incredibly business-unfriendly city. Those store owners have been providing jobs to others in the community and numerous other benefits with them, and so the question becomes, do I eat only for myself, or do I eat for others around me as well?

In sum total, I would far prefer to democratize food and to spread the bounty to those places that truly need it (see Rwanda, in the archives) than be offered the multitude of mushrooms artisan farmers provide me with. Easy for a somewhat idealistic young person to say upon returning from their first intense third-world country experience, but still, it pays to think not only of the "organicness" or sustainability of one's food, but its economic impact as well. Bringing all of these elements together to reform the food system in our country and the world will prove to be a central challenge of this century, it appears.