Finally achieving fusion energy may be closer than everyone thinks. For decades the dream has been to employ the reaction that powers stars to generate high-volume electricity without the drawbacks of fission reactors -- no high-level waste, no weapons application, no risk of meltdown, no use of uranium, and (as with fission) no greenhouse gases.
Ed Moses is director of the National Ignition Facility (NIF) at Lawrence Livermore Labs. Focusing massive amounts of laser light for a billionth of a second, the NIF is expected to demonstrate ignition of a fusion reaction (more energy out than in) for the first time in the coming year, followed by the prospect of a prototype machine for generating continuous clean energy by the end of this decade. That could change everything. The NIF itself is a spectacular work of "technological sublime."
Stewart Brand is co-founder and president of The Long Now Foundation and co-founder of Global Business Network. He created and edited the Whole Earth Catalog (National Book Award), and co-founded the Hackers Conference and The WELL. His books include The Clock of the Long Now; How Buildings Learn; and The Media Lab. His most recent book, titled Whole Earth Discipline, is published by Viking in the US and Atlantic in the UK.
Kirk Citron consults for advertising clients at Citron Haligman.
Previously, he founded AKQA, a digital advertising agency which Fast Company has called one of the fifty most innovative companies in the world.
He edits the Long News, which tries to find news stories that might still matter fifty or a hundred or a thousand years from now.
His first play, But Not For Lunch, has had staged readings at the 02009 Northern Writes New Play Festival in Maine, the New Theatre in Miami, and the Mountain Playhouse in Pennsylvania.
He helped produce a documentary about a WWII Japanese submarine for the PBS series Secrets of the Dead.
Fabrice is executive director and founder of NewsTrust, where he manages creative and business development for this next-generation social news network. NewsTrust helps people find and share good journalism online, so they can make more informed decisions as citizens.
With a 30-year track record in new media and technology, Fabrice Florin has developed a wide range of leading-edge entertainment, education and software products.
Fabrice was recently elected an Ashoka Fellow for his work as a social entrepreneur in journalism (Ashoka: Innovators for the Public is the world's largest community of social entrepreneurs). Fabrice has also been honored with four US patents as inventor of interactive TV technologies at Apple, and has received numerous media industry awards, including Emmies, Cindies, and NewMedia awards. His pioneering work in digital media has been widely covered by the press, including the BBC, NewsWeek, Scientific American, Time, Washington Post, Wired, Le Monde and many more.
Dr. Edward Moses has 18 years of experience developing Department of Energy/National Nuclear Security Administration (DOE/NNSA) laser systems and 30 years of experience developing and managing complex laser systems and high-technology projects. As associate director (AD) for the National Ignition Facility (NIF) Program from 2005 to 2007 and now as principal associate director for the NIF & Photon Science Directorate, he is responsible for completing construction and bringing into full operation the world's largest optical instrument for achieving ignition in the laboratory and for studying inertial fusion energy. He has been instrumental in sustaining the program's current strong performance.
Dr. Moses joined Lawrence Livermore Laboratory in 1980, becoming program leader for isotope separation and material processing and deputy AD for Lasers. From 1990 to 1995, he was a founding partner of Advanced Technology Applications, Inc., which advised clients on proposing and designing high-technology projects. He returned to LLNL in 1995 as assistant AD for program development, physics, and space technology.
Dr. Moses received his bachelor's degree and doctorate from Cornell University in New York. He has won numerous awards, including the 2003 NNSA Award of Excellence for Significant Contribution to Stockpile Stewardship, the 2004 DOE Award of Excellence for the first joint LLNL/Los Alamos National Laboratory experiments on NIF, and the D.S. Rozhdestvensky Medal for Outstanding Contributions to Lasers and Optical Sciences. He holds seven patents in laser technology and computational physics.
Ed Moses, Director for the National Ignition Facility, describes NIF's plan to move fusion energy from the lab to the grid using the Laser Inertial Fusion Engine, or LIFE. The conceptual mechanism would harness the power of fusion to generate gigawatts of carbon-free energy by burning heavy water as fuel.
Dr. Edward Moses, Director for the National Ignition Facility (NIF), explains that as the Kepler telescope continues to explore deep space, scientists will soon be unraveling cosmic mysteries right here on Earth.
Using nuclear fusion, Moses hopes to be performing experimental astronomy (like creating tiny supernovae) in the very near future.
Process by which nuclear reactions between light elements form heavier ones, releasing huge amounts of energy. In 1939 Hans Bethe suggested that the energy output of the sun and other stars is a result of fusion reactions among hydrogen nuclei. In the early 1950s American scientists produced the hydrogen bomb by inducing fusion reactions in a mixture of the hydrogen isotopes deuterium and tritium, forming a heavier helium nucleus. Though fusion is common in the sun and other stars, it is difficult to produce artificially and is very difficult to control. If controlled nuclear fusion is achieved, it might provide an inexpensive energy source because the primary fuel, deuterium, can be extracted from ordinary water, and eight gallons of water could provide the energy equivalent to 2,500 gallons of gasoline.
@ David Cale: I fully empathize with you and feel your anxiety. In fact I have a kind of strange idea about the anxiety that I share with you. I will be happy if you can make time and read my blog posts here to get my drift.
I hold some optimism for the outcome of the present malady, and I would sincerely request you to hold some yourself.
I tend to agree with Periergeia but from a different view point. The talk is great but I see a bit of American arrogance in projecting LIFE as a solution for the Climate Change crisis and the energy deficit scenario in order to go carbon neutral in 2/3 decades. I call that hardly an 'invention' but a technology upgrade basically - all fundamentals are long known. I have nothing against America or its people but it remains a fact that it's per capita energy consumption is absurdly high. I hope no developing country ever should make that a standard.
By concept and design, if 'Life' is a research that transforms into technology, it will be a technology based on the same old capital intensive, high-tech and consumerist growth model. Even if it becomes commercially viable, I guess, it will only suit US. Just like its economy that flourished on debt and crumbled.
The fundamental crisis that humanity is facing in terms of environment is Global, a solution of any part of it (be it energy, food, health) need to be global in true sense. The novelty seeking research with a national competitiveness sounds so lame at this point of transforming time.
Dr. Mose's call to invent future is inspirational but I feel that invention is already ongoing and any particaul country need not necessarily be the leader in that picture.
The future as I see it will be sort of organic, where the solutions to our problems will come from a radical change of view towards life and not from a groundbreaking technology to support a 20,000 watt lifestyle for a person.
With regard to Dr. Moses's call to embrace 'Life', I humbly refuse it.
As a Canadian I really like the idea that the worlds nuclear weapon stockpile is getting more and more unreliable. The Tritium that is in those warheads has a short half life and as it decays away the fusion weapons viability becomes more and more unreliable.
I like that idea very much. I suspect it means that the use of the world killing WMD stockpile that was never in Iraq but is in the US and Russia will eventually become less and less viable. Let us not keep them viable.
Clearly we need to replace Carbon burning, but that is inevitable anyway as the fossil fuel reserves are depleted. On a short term note [If SUVs and light trucks were removed from manufacture around the world we would nearly double the efficiency of individual transportation.]
If cars were taxed to pay for bio-degradation we would see a profound change, but even then...
The odds are that the real change will come with a pandemic that kills off about 60-80% of human population (I hope its not me or my kids) now that would dramatically reduce carbon burning. Now I know that you are supposed to have the right to happiness but that is a pipe dream. No where in nature is that a truth. Just watch a lion eating a gazelle.
I am not advocating producing a pandemic but anyone who has studied any biology knows they are part of the natural order on a local scale. The thing is that the whole world is now local. No one is going to have to make one it will just happen.
We think we are so important individually but my fellow human we are not. I suppose if there is some maniacal god who will send fire instead of the flood that might also solve the problem. Thank god (irony) it is unlikely there is such a being with murderous designs on humanity.
It will simply be nature, red of tooth and claw, which will do our species or those that evolve from us or others, the favour and reduce our numbers to a manageable level. Nuclear weapons on the other hand, used on a massive scale could simple snuff out all but the simplest life.
I am a physicist who has spent his life in the field and I love the majesty of the universe, I fall on my knees in awe of its wonder. I just don't worship it.
At this large scale stage fusion power, is a possibility but is not an inevitability and the odds that it will bring heaven on earth are very unlikely. Just think if we suddenly had massive amounts of cheap energy we would simply use the rest of the other non renewable resources more quickly and end up at the same place.
Of course I am projecting the future and that has always been a mugs game, but if we simply put it in terms of odds, it looks impossible for the earth to sustain 7+ billion voracious consumers for at the outside, a century.
There are just too many of us on this tiny planet and we are evolutionarily predisposed to consume as much as we can lay our hands on.
I am 62 and may or may not see the collapse, but all you guys who think never ending growth is good remember the exponential curve.
I shudder ever time I hear that the economy is growing. It just means that kissing your kids goodbye will be sooner rather than later.
I enjoy the math and the savings and the NO CARBON FUEL feature of NIF.
My fear is that gravity will be adversely affected at some point in the implosion of the peppercorn, because it is the same rate of implosion as that of our solar star, and if mass is irrelative to that EMP, a gravity burst could be harmful to the planet's polar axis.
As the speaker said, salt is very useful, why only take a grain of salt with his speech ...
one just walks away not having been at a talk about science but rather a sales pitch. National defense, national pride, we are the best, lots of positive spin ... it just feels wrong, not enough genuine curiosity in it
look at the sun how it works, look at human society it works the same way. a solar magnetic flares is face-book on human terms. however the collider in Switzerland is a bad idea, it creates magnetic fields like those on the sun, it shoots particles you cannot perceive, and it affects the magnetic core on the planet. the end result is a combination of heat on the atmosphere. this nuclear busyness is to complicated for you folks to actually understand it was a big mistake and a mistake born out of imagination. you use logic to understand issues that the actual logic cannot reason properly. confine to theory. before is to late.
Are you among the people who were convinced that putting a man on the moon, or making a computer you could hold in your hand, or finding a practical use for the laser, were also "chimeras"? Just curious...
And pigs will fly! I've heard this cant since the 1960s. "Just another 10 years and we'll be there". Just like the "lean burn" automobile engine, cold fusion which still has proponents and other chimera of the technocracy. A chimera, by the way, has the property that the closer you come to it the further it is from you.
First, the problems LIFE proposes to solve were actually solved by ORNL over 40 years ago with their molten salt reactor. Lately, the liquid fluoride thorium reactor (the evolving name of the MSR) is gaining increased attention, and there are some Google Tech Talks worth watching on the topic. In particular, "The Liquid Fluoride Thorium Reactor: What Fusion Wanted To Be" by Joe Bonometti.
Second, you cannot disconnect the politics of LIFE from the politics of NIF (and I do mean politics; not science, technology, or engineering). This is the photon tail wagging the nuclear dog, and is not totally unexpected if one understands how NIF was executed. I think the one thing that was unexpected is that LLNL, after subsidizing NIF and distorting internal values, would continue the process after the completion of NIF: the photon fatigue was clearly setting in.
Third, there is a disproportional LIFE dialogue on the up-sides versus the down-sides (or challenges, or alternatives). That is partially because opponents of Ed Moses tend to have short half-lives, and LLNL is littered with them. Not the way to honestly compete in the arena of good ideas, and to solve important national problems.
Clean Fusion Power of the DecadeKIRK CITRON: Good evening, I'm Kirk Citron, and I'm an associateand an editor at the Long Now Foundation. And this is the Fabrice Florin an executive director ofNewsTrust. We are briefly going to tell you about this week's energy, some background. We havebeen running a project called the Long News which as Alexander said looks for news stories thatmight still matter 50, or 100, or 10,000s years from now. And just to give you an idea of a coupleof themes of the kinds of things we have been looking at for the last couple of months, there'stalk that there might be another mass extinction event but the problem this time isn't an asteroidor volcanic eruption, it's us. And we found headlines like more than 800 wildlife species are nowextinct and may be a reason we should care which is that animal biodiversity keeps people healthy.A secondary, and another thing, is the extinction of humanlife spans with stories like it isstarting to get crowded in the 100 years olds club. And half of US babies living today may be reach100. So that's a flavor of the kind of news stories we are looking for that might have some kind oflongterm significance. And lately for obvious reasons, we have been thinking about the future ofenergy, kind of hoping the current crisis will prompt a deeper conversation about the need to findalternatives to oil, like fusion which we are going to be hearing about tonight. So to do that, wehave partnered with NewsTrust to do this energy news and I will turn it over to Fabrice to tell youmore about it. FABRICE FLORIN: Thank you, Kirk. NewsTrust is a community of citizens that careabout good journalism because we need it to make inform decisions as citizens. So we rate the newsfor quality and we feature some of the best stories that we find everyday on our sites. In that, weoffer a hybrid news filter which engages professional and amateurs to filter the news. And thiswhole collaborative approach is an effective way to find good journalism all in one place. And itmanifests itself on the home site: NewsTrust.net. Everyday our editors feature stories worthreading. Topics like, in this case, the future of energy. But you could also see our reviewers atthe bottom of the screen and they are doing the reviewing which helps us feature these top storiesbased on their reviews and ratings and those are filtered by computer out goers. This week we arehosting an energy news hunt. We hope that you will join us. It works a little bit like a scavengerhunt. We are all looking for good journalism about the future of energy. So each day our editorspost stories on our site. And we invite you to review them. So, when you click a story on our site,you go to the news providers Web site and you can see our review form in the top right corner. Whatwe ask, you to read the story and then click on the buttons that describe it best. Is it factual?Is it fair? Is it well sourced? We have other criteria. Based on your answers, we are able tosurface some of the more interesting stories. So what kind of stories have been we finding? Thelast week we have looked at a story about solar. We found some great articles from their SPIEGELand ClimateBiz. Mainstream sources. Independent sources. We have looked at nuclear power withstories like these, the case for and against nuclear power from the Wall Street Journal and greatinsights from other publications like Spiked. As far as wind power again interesting stories fromUPI and many more. The topic of today's talk "fusion energy" again covers ranges from the BBC tothe new scientists. It is diversity of all these sources that is what makes it interesting. You cansee how the different sources cover the same topics. And we have reviewed hundreds of storiesalready. Next week we will share the best and worse coverage on both the NewsTrust and the LongNowblocks. And we'll keep adding stories on our site. So we hope you will join us. The best way foryou to do that is go to NewsTrust.longnow.org and we hope to see you online. Thank you verymuch.STEWART BRAND: Thanks, Fabrice; I'm Stewart Brand.A little continuity here, Fabrice Florinwas at the Hacker's conference in 1983 and made a video of it that is still available online. Thisis an event that Kevin Kelly, my wife Ryan Phelan and I organized back age of computers. What isinteresting, you'll see people there who were young pioneers at the time are all still very active.What is going on across the bay and over the hill at liver more is a serve inside of star power.Stars are powered by fusion and we have been looking for productive ways to bring that power here.And Alexandria Rose and I went to the National Leadership facility a couple months ago and itknocked our socks off. Basically, everybody who sees it goes, "Oh, my God." One, this is amazing,any how to do that massive kind of with lasers. It might mean pretty good things. We can't all goto the National Leadership facility so what Alexander and I decided may be we would bring thenational facility here and here it is. ED MOSES: Thank you so much to invite me. And all of youfor coming out. I'm going to be talking about laser fusion, energy and the future of it. It isgoing to be at the story of the National Ignition facility. That is a picture of it transported toSan Francisco. Now when I go around the world I transport it Tokyo, or Paris or wherever I have tobe and that's ag or happen to be. And that is sort of the point. My purpose is to show you, by theend of the day, by the end of this evening that it is possible in the fairly near future, what weare doing at the NIF can be a part of your future of clean energy future. We want to demonstratethe route to fusion energy. Fusion energy is so cool because as Stewart said not only does it powerthe stars, but we use the hydrogen in water, lots of it. And it has an energy density about 7million times that of normal chemical bonds. That's nice. And also, no carbon. You are burninghydrogen. We'll be talking about that. Not all of you can come out. But we do have public affairstowers. And Linda Sziber is here from the lab and it is possible to come out to the lab if you makearrangement to see it. This is an interesting picture. I'll show you how it used to look 40 yearsago in a second. This is where the NIF is; it is 60 kilometers aware. It is out in Livermore. Itused to out in Ranchland. But slowly but surely we have been swallowed by San Francisco.So sinceI'm at the Long Now Foundation I've been thinking about, recasting history. This is the history ofthe universe and the future of the universe. The history goes back 14 billion years which is a longtime if we look back in time on the slog scale, of 10 years ago, 100 years ago, a on the years ago,10,000, etc., you can see it work our way back to 10 billion, 14 billion, years ago, the time ofthe big bang. And we can look for the Long Now Foundation view of the world but we can look forward10,000 years? There's another way to date these things which is 2020, 2110, 3110, 12,110. Whenyou think about this or go back 10,000 years to minus 8,000 which is a little bit before BC, youcan see it is an important point, we are looking forward is 10,000 years. Can we imagine that?Think about what our ancestors who were coming into agriculture and forming the first villages andcities could possibly think about us today. That's, I think, the dynamic of the challenge that wethink about when we think about our responsibility for the future. So here are the four stages ofthe universe from the human centric point of view. This was this 10 billion years of preearth. Andabout 5 billion years ago, there was a supernova around this part of the Milky Way blew up and putstar dust everywhere, which we are now made of and the earth was made out and then we had earth.Almost immediately there was life on earth. then we had the life on earth which is still going onbut before us we sort of had 4 billion years of life without us. Then we have this 100 thousandyears or so of human civilization. Human civilization, I define as when we came out of Africa.Homosapiens were established we started roaming the earth. And now we are looking at the whathappened during these times? We had this very nice period of around 4 billion years where therewas hydrocarbon and oxygen production. So all the oxygen that came before us were hard at work youthink, making hydrocarbon, CH bonds, which we are now thinking about very carefully and makingoxygen so we could breathe. At times there was a lot of oxygen, and at that time, there wereexplosions of carbon making. Then when there was not it wasn't so much. That was that period. Whatis this period about? Human civilization. It is hydrocarbon and oxygen burning. So we did that fora few billion years recollect, we came around. Now we started to harvest that. What that leads tonow, the situation we are on, environmental disaster because of this burning or do we a way to finda way to have a clean energy future? So that's the history of the universe in four steps. Itwasn't the earth. It was. We made hydrocarbons and oxygen. Then we started burning. Now we are heretoday. What are we going to do? This is the problem. If you look only back 10,000 years, you know,everything seemed fine. Until the last couple of hundred years. The population made this incrediblechange in slope. And it made this change in slope because of carbon; right? The industrialrevolution happened. So you can think about it, a few great men and a few great women who did greatthings. But they led to us learning procreate, the green revolution and go from 1 husband ofmillion to billions in couple of hundred years. This has changed things dramatically. In fact ifyou just look at the United States. These are quadtrillion if you don't know what they are, it'sokay. It's just a measure of how much energy we use. From the 1850s until today, we have gone frombarely using energy to 3 trillion watts. Now go over 3 trillion watts that's three times 10 to the12th watts. and 3 times 10 to the eighth of us, that's 10,000 watts each. So all of us are using100 watt lightbulbs all the time. That's not including heating. That's the energy we are consumingas Americans right now. How do we do this? Again go back 150 years, remember, we are the carbonburners. So 150 years ago, we were basically a wood society. After a while we would chop down theforest. We went over to coal. And then we went to oil. And then we went to gas. And then we finallydid a little dam building and collecting hydroenergy and then we did nuclear and then you see thisincredible little renewals. I think this is a really interesting chart. I want to show you somethings about it that will be useful to understand our future. Because if the past is prolonged,this tells you something. It takes a long time to change energy modalities. Takes about 50 yearsfor coal to displace wood. And it's sort of took that amount of time for oil to displace coal. Butyou see it didn't displace all of it and then it took another 40 years for natural gas to displacesome of the oil. It didn't displace any of the coal though. And then we had nuclear sort ofdisplace some of the gas but none of the oil or the coal; right? So what happens is you have thesemodalities last for a long time, and they increasingly get harder and harder to displace previoustypes of energy burning. The reason that is, you spend all that money to build that and theygenerally last 50 to 70 years. And once you have done that you don't want to throw it out. And infact, you are rate payers, whoever you were during that time say no I'm happy with this. I spent mymoney; let's use it. This is really the amazing part. We were in 98 percent carbon burning societyand today 100 years later we have gone all the way to 90 percent. So if anyone thinks we are not acarbon burning society, and sort of really entrenched in it, look at this. We know that our energysupplies. This is what we are doing, this is gas flame out; right? What we have here is thefollowing thing that we have to look at. What is the problem with fossil fuels? Well, going backbillon or two billion years we are burning up about 10 million years of hydrocarbons every year.Some people say 20 million so it is sort of hard to measure. And that means it is not going to lastforever. So we might have 100 years to go of coal. 40 years to go of oil. These things are arguedbut it is not 200 or 300. This is sort of where we are. So it is not going to last forever. May bethat is good. Fossil fuel can affect the quality of our life, this is a famous picture of thebird's nest in Beijing on a clear day; right? This is the oil pollution. And fossil fuel can leadto environmental disaster. Everyone knows this picture. What I think is amazing about this picture,what is going on in the bustle of Mexico, there's a 30inch oil about a mile down in the gulf thathas putting about something like 50,000barrels a day, which is a million barrels every three weeksor so. Sounds like a huge number. But just remember, the United States is burning a million barrelsof oil an hour. So you figure that; right. And then you think about what is really going in ourworld, this focuses our attention has taken President Obama's whole agenda off the table. This iswhere he is at right now. That shows the instability of the system we are living in. The otherthing that fossil fuel can do, it can affect the climate. This is argued by some that it isn'texactly affecting the climate yet or has some smaller or unknown effect or how it will developmentover the next 50 years. But I think the preponderance of scientists sort of have taking the pointof view that is very likely this is an effect that is real and over the next 10 years it will besorted out. Scientists are slow in coming to conclusions usually and it is deliberate. I think thebeta has been going on for a while. But I think it is obvious what is happening. I don't meanKatrina was caused by global climate warming but there are many things that are. The way I thinkabout it, and I know many of you have had these thoughts many of time. For the first time humankind is acting as a force of nature. I don't mean we are doing agriculture or things like that, ordragging species around the globes in ways that are unnatural, right now we are acting like a forceof nature globally. This is I think something that is kind of a first. We've always been a local,locally driven species. One group of people, and what another group of people were doing was notaffecting everyone. Now we are, I'd like to say we are not in a global society, we are in anonlocal society. Which is has slight subtle difference to me. We can think we are acting locallyand remember old politics as local, but we having effects on each other. When you look at thispicture, some people look at green land. They say that is a big ice sheet. Seems to be meltingfaster than people thought. The ocean seems to be rising, the amount of carbon dioxide in theatmosphere is going up. What the temperature is doing or not doing is really hard to tell on shorttime periods. But over long time periods it is going up and how is this going to affect us? Well,let's go back to the U.S. The way it is going to affect us is really hard to get out of thiscarbon habit because in 1970 or so you can see everything frozen. We were sort of 9590 percentcarbon then. And that is where we are now. Those month modalities take forever to change. So whatdo you think were going to do? This is the finger print of human kind, and how it is dealing withus. This is the Earth at night. I think what is interesting about the earth at night is that howinteresting you can see where we live but it is also interesting it doesn't quantitively tell youwhat is out there. China looks bright, India looks bright. But remember they are using around 10percent per capita energy that we are. And they don't like that and why should they? They want tolive in our standard of living. And they are rising they are raising their levels of energiesrapidly and there's going to be about 3 billion more people sailing on this earth with us and theamount of energy we need is going to go up. Now whether it is 2 billion or 4 billion which is alsoarguable, we are 6.5 billion right now, some people go to 8.5 people times 10. I don't know what itis. It is a lot. In China is sort of a billion. It is 2 and half billion. 2 Chinas. 3.5 billion,three Chinas. It is a lot of people and they are happening to us pretty quickly. So we are attipping point on where we are going. The climate is changing. We are running out of carbon. It isaffecting the way we live. What are we going to do? This is something else that is happening? Ifyou look at the United States only we're now we stopped building in the '70 and '80s we are goingto have we have 70 year infrastructure. It is going to turn off or run out by 2060. Why it isgoing off, the electricity demand is going to go up. It is going up for two reasons. Even withconservation and even with efficiency. We are becoming a more legible society. And we are usingmore electricity. So that combination shows that the demand is growing for electricity. And ourelectrical infrastructure is going away. So there's this big gap that's forming. This gap is kindof interesting. If you look at this you can see that we need around 250 gigawatts by 2050. Doeseverybody's know what a gig watt is? It is a nuclear reactor is a gigawatt. Everyone knows on theway down the aquarium, 500 megawatts. The United States needs something like 200 or so (inaudible)or some other source of green source of energy. And it gets worse and worse after that. So 2030,2050, is where things happen and that is our challenge. If you look at the earth, worldwide, not tobeat this to death, it sort of gets worth. Now I show this in billions of barrels of oilequivalent. I show you these units so you, when you are working or you are walking around and yousee this here is where we are today. It is a fossil fuel society. This is what we think we have todo. Most models agree. Not exactly, in order to stay at two degrees Centigrade, which people forgetis four degrees Fahrenheit, on average above where we are today. As a scientist, I have to say, ora social scientists if I were one, turning that around, based on our history is an incrediblydifficult path. In fact, if you look at this, this says by 2050, 2060 should be go back topreindustrial revolution carbon admissions. How do you do it? It is real hard. Not only that, wehave to make a huge amount of low carbon energy at the end of the century. This is all going tohappen in 2030, to 2050, only 20 years from now. And the problem is we talked about that lag timeif we decide good ideas today, it is going to be hard to pull this off. One more thing that makesthis even more difficult, we are concentrating in the city. Right now this is the mega city in2000. Mega cities are cities above the population of 10 million. This is how people think it isgoing to look in 25. You can see these exploding cities. Why do people go to cities? That's wherethe jobs are. That's where culture is. That's where centers of power are. By the way, they are moreenergy efficient. Cities are the most energy efficient parts of your society. This is where peopleare going. Because they are in cities, they need base low power. We don't want to have power thatgoes on and off. Based on whether the wind is blowing or the sun is out. We live in a 24 society.We need energy that is affordable, clean, nongeopolitical that's a big deal we don't likedepending on other people. No one likes depending on other people for where they get their energy.We'd like it to be inexhaustible. We'd like it to be nonproliferate. To fit in a physicalinfrastructure that we have; right? That means you want to be able to plug into where you are.Compact and acceptable for all cultures and deliverable and timely. That's a quite a list. And mostpeople when they look at that list say well I don't know what to do. Everyone has their own ideawhat to do China worked on population control, it sort of helped on some levels. Some people saypeople shouldn't develop, they should live in a less developed society. Other people say we shouldrenewable, like wind or sun or saw grass. Or we have nuclear or we have carbon secretion take thecarbon out of our carbon producing plants or we could be more energy efficient. All of these areclearly a part of our infrastructure, of our future. But none of them is the panacea, at least mostpeople don't think so.Then I ask you is there another idea? One that could be really exciting?And the answer is, and I love this picture, it is a picture of the sun. What I love more about it,is the picture of the U.S. space station flying across the sun. And because I think it sort of saysman's capabilities for good or may be if you think it is a little bit too much, but it shows we arenot limited in our vision if we choose to. And I think the answer is right in front of us. Justlook at where we are. Look at the sun. In fact, look anywhere in the universe and you come toothis is this beautiful picture out of the Hubble and we are looking from hundreds of thousandsaway in this picture, billions of light years away. And you say that fusion powers the cosmost. Soevery bit of light that you see in the day sky or the night sky, every bit, is coming from burningplasmas. Or fusion systems. And the question is where did that come from? And that's old Albert.Albert in 1905 which was an important year for many things besides this, the airplane appeared. TheWright Brothers were there. Henry Ford was there. This was an incredibly productive time for humankind. Told us the way this all works, he didn't actually tell us, but he pointed the way, is thatthe reason that these things, this energy is happening is you can take mass, stuff and turn it intoenergy. The fact is he even said more. He said they are the same thing. Just how can you convertthem from one to the other. They are measured the same. What is great about this is C, the speed oflight. It is such a big number. So when you multiply C by C. You get a really big number as we sayscientifically, and so a very small amount of mass can be a very large amount of energy f you canpull it off. Now it is hard. And we asked could we build a miniature sun on the earth. And when Italk about miniature, you'll see I'm talking about the diameter of a hair. I'm not talking about abig sun. One of the reasons we like the sun is because it is far away. If it if we were as closeas Venus is to the sun it is a sort of a warm day. If it is where Mars is, it is sort of cold. Weare in that Goldy Lox planet, not too hot, and not too cold. Just right. Then that is actuallytrue. So could we do this. Could we build a miniature sun on the earth. What is the recipe in thecook book? For fusion on earth? We have to take hydrogen from water, and you filter out the heavywater. So the time of the big bang, actually about one minute after the big bang hydrogen appearedin the universe. And there was two types of hydrogen. Regular hydrogen which we call hydrogen theother kind which is deuterium. And then there's about 1 and 7,000 water molecules when you go outto the bay that is heavy water. If we filter water and we place it in the oven and we heat it toaround 200 million degrees Fahrenheit, for a few billionths of a second you can turn mass intocopious amounts of energy. And it has no carbon and no waste. So that is the recipe. So where doyou get one of those ovens? So there it is. That's what the unusually ignition facility is. Itholds an oven inside and to display how we got here, we only have to go back 50 years. This isagain a California bay area story which is kind of interesting to me. Charlie Towns who is still atCal Berkeley, he's 94 and still active in the field, invented or pointed the way theoretically tothe idea of lasers. He did that in around '58. It is a famous paper. What I think is moreinteresting is Ted Maimen. Ted Maimen down in Malibu was working at used aircraft where I worked atone time, and he showed the first laser. I have actually held this laser within the last two weeks.It is the 50th anniversary of the invention of the laser. It is so eloquent you can't believe it.If you look at that sucker, it is so small and so it was so revolutionary. It is revolutionary atthe scale of the transistor. People still have it understood that. In the next 20 or 30 years. Itwill be clear that manipulating light using lasers will have more power or at least as much poweras manipulating electrons using semiconductors. This is a powerful device and there's where itstarted. And what is really amazing, this was on May 16th, 1968 at around 3:00 in the afternoon,at the lab, Livermore lab, three days later, look at Livermore then. Remember that picture. We usedto be a naval base during World War II. You can still see the runway. That time John Knuckles whowas working in the nuclear weapons program at the time realized that that laser was the way to getfusion energy. And it started off a 50 year journey that we are coming to conclusion of right now.So this is what he told us to do. He's the oven. I'm going to tell you how big it is in a second.We have this gold can, and we have this little ball. This little ball has a little hydrogen in it.And it has a capsule wall that is about I will keep using this a little thicker than your hairthat is made out of plastic, that is rocket fuel. What happens is let's pray. Okay. What we do,put laser light into this oven. You can see the billionths of a second going on. And this oven getsreally hot. Instead of baking it red hot like your oven does, it bake with Xrays and it absorbed onthis little cake here. And it explodes and dries the hydrogen together so it is hotter and denserthan the center of the sun and it burns. When it burns you actually, if you went there and weighedthat after words when you can't, but if you did, compared to beforehand, you would see it was alittle mass missing. And that mass is turned into energy for us to harvest. So, how big do youthink that is? Anyone want to take a guess? That big. So that is the oven. In fact I have one. Idon't know if you can see it. So that's it. That little gold splash there. That is the full sizeand that little red ball, unless you have superman eyes, you can't see, is the size of the burningcapsule. That is a remarkable idea. That is the oven. Of course, we have to build the laser. So wewent off in the search of lasers. From the '70s to the '80s we built lasers that went from hundredsof jewels of measure to a kilojoule up by a factor of 10. To another factor of 10 want to anotherfactor of 10. Now we up another factor of 100. And we are at the national admissions facility. Thattogether to everything we know should be possible to get this burn to happen for the first time.First time in the course of human history we will have control from a nuclear burn, changing massto energy at a scale that's just right for making energy for our future. Now it does other thingstoo and I'll talk about those in a second. Takes a long time get everyone together on doing this.Because it is very expensive facility. And politicians show up and there was the ground breaking.And then that afternoon the real people came by. That's the real ground breaking. And then youknow, we had the barn raising. So that's when the NIF was coming together. This is how it lookedinside before we put the lasers in. And you can see these normal size liver morons up here. So youcan get the scale of this? It looks like that today. It is kind of a great place to be. Stewarttalked to you about it. When you are in it, and I've been in it a few thousand times, I'm stillamazed by it. It is a masterpiece of American innovation ingenuity, the engineering and everythingthat goes with it besides physics. And this allows us to do what we want to do, and if you lookfrom a above, again you can see the humans, that's the scale of it right now. Okay. Each one ofthose pipes has laser light in it. Every single one of them has the highest energy laser in theworld. So every one of them has higher energy than any other laser and there are 192 of them.That's why it is so cool. By the way, this is the target shaver that we have that little target in.This is when it was being put in place. It is 10meters in diameter or 35 or so for of the Englishpersuasion and it is pure aluminum and this is how the building looked before we put it in. Then weslid it carefully. And that's how it looks today. Almost. So I want to just show you this withoutgoing out of my light, these are humans, again, and down here. So you can see the scale of it. Sowe had that little target. We have this big ball that's because it puts out a lot of energy. Andwe want it collected nicely. And we want some optical elements in there that take care of this.But it is big on one scale but I'll show you on another scale it is kind of small compared to whatit does. So that's how it looks. It actually doesn't look this way. This is photoshop. There arefloors here. Those people are floating. We just took them out so you could see the whole thing atonce. That is how it looks like on the inside. So there's two things I like about this picture.First of all, how interesting the picture is giving you the scale of this. More important this iswhy people work for national geographic. If you notice this whole picture sin focus. When thephotographer of national geographic, it was the lens you could not believe. It was kind ofinteresting in its own right. That is the target. Remember the target? So that's kind ofinteresting. That big thing, keep this in your mind's eye. That is how big the target is. So wehave to hit that target within, again, half the diameter of your hair. And we do it all the time.So we can point at that target. So now when you look, come to the NIF, this is what you see. It isa nice building. It is on 5 hectors or 12acres. It took 10 years to build it. And it should run forthe next 30 years. And it should do great things for our country. If you are take off the roof, Ilove this picture. Look at the drawing, you can see, remember, we talked about that laser bay thatwe were looking at or I can't see it. So I'll just stay up here. That's how it looks. So what arewe going to do with this thing. This is the real control room. This is where it all starts out. Itgoes out into the laser bays that you saw. It goes up in these preamplifiers. It goes up to abillion times. You have this chunk of light that is about 20 feet long. Just remember, (inaudible).if you took a movie of it, this is actually what it would look like. The thing that was so hardOkay so this is the LEGO block of NIF. Now watch what happens. Now 48 beans. That's its cousinscoming along. Now we'll see 96 beans. This is a 10 story high building. All these bean have to getto the target at the same time. And you can see they don't look like it. But watch! And now weturn them from red to ultimate violet. And they go on to the target. You know the drill now. Thatlittle target gets real hot. And this happens in billons of a second. And when it is getting hot,it is making an Xray of it. And it drives that target to rest in the diameter of your hair. Hotterthan the sun. Higher pressures. When it does, Albert Einstein appears and says will you turn thatmass into energy. And you got it. Can you use it. And we do. I would take full credit for this ifI had anything to do with it but Let me just tell you this is the real picture. Except this is atenth of an inch, that is how big that peppercorn is when it starts. I want to show you whathappens, graphically, 10 billionths of a second later. So that's actually a picture, again, it isthe diameter of your hair smashing this thing together. So, we've done experiments and we aregetting pretty far on this. When you do stuff like this you'll publish. You'll have scientificjournals. And then we got the Rolling stone of your life is the American fiscal society. So we goton the cover of the Rolling stone. And there is a lot of attention being paid to where we goingright now. So this is kind of exciting. So NIF fusion is in the news as you heard a little bitbefore. And I have to say, this is not a single laboratory activity. It is not a single disciplineactivity. It is multidiscipline activity. It's multilaboratories. Academia, industry. Andinternational community are playing a big role. In fact, 49 out of the 50 states I'm really sorryNorth Dakota didn't play, the reason is the company in North Dakota is a woman owned company andshe moved to South Dakota. We had North Dakota lost it. We ended up with South Dakota but notNorth. Okay. So this 3,000 vendor partners. And we have international partners all over the world.This is an international effort. And it has been flying under the radar screen. Most people don'tknow about it for a long time. Then we had dedication. I got to say this, when you are doing bigprojects, and the NIF cost around $3.5 billion put together and it took 12 years to do it, youdon't do that on your own either technically or industrially but it is a political and a socialevent. And our California representative, the Senator, the governor, the whole crowd played a hugerole in making this happen. It is a really California event. But it was also a national event. Thisis the kind of dedication that we had to making this happening. And this dedication showed howpeople were proud of it. Then something really important happened. Secretary Chu, formally known tous as Steve, by the way he got his Noble Prize in laser research, has been on a journey with usthrough the NIF. He started out kind of skeptical. Because he is a brilliant scientists who is usedto table top work. Very high precision work. And he didn't relate to the NIF in the beginning. Butover the last 5 years. He has understood where it is. And it is important. He came to the lab. Andhe said, the NIF is a--. And believes the NIF will achieve ignition. Ignition is getting that burnto happen. And we should think about what we should do. And he said we should start planning forthe success of what comes after it. What he is talking about is the energy mission. So the questionis, is fusion energy a part of the solution to this problem? The global challenge? Which I thinkis the fundamental challenge that we face. Remember we have to build the equivalent, to do this, asa species in the 30s, 40s, and 50s, 20 gigawatts a week. 20 gigawatts is a big number. That meansyou do the United States as we understand it in six months. And we have to keep doing that. This isa tremendous technical challenge, fiscal challenge and social challenge. So, let me talk about whatare our idea called laser inertial fusion energy which is builds the laser inertial fusion engine.What does the NIF do? The NIF turns laser light into Xrays which drives that target and thatfusion happens and then we get more energy out than we put in. That is kind of a nice idea. Youhave gain. Doesn't break any rules of physics because you are changing mass to energy. Then you getenergy out and now you collect that energy and you turn it into heat. And you take that heat andrun it pass a heat exchanger and boil water or something like that and make steam and turn theturbine and get a generator and get electricity, then you plug into the wall. So you started withthe highest technology but you always end up back with James Watt. It is the steam engine, thisvery fancy steam engine. What we have to do, if we are going to do this. We have to add somethingthat converts thermal energy, fusion energy thermal energy to electricity. So you can see thisconcept if you just use the NIF and put that inside the system. You could do that. What we do isturn laser light into electrons. The electrons go through the wires. Everybody's normal wires.Nothing different about the infrastructure. When you do that, you could change the world if youcould pull that off. There's one problem. We have to do it not once every few hours but 10 times asecond. That's the issue. It's a little bit different from an engineering point of view from NIF iswhich is an RND facility. 10 time as second sounds like a big number but if you multiply it by 60,that is 600 RPM so your car is going idles at 600 RPMs so it probably drives as 2 million RPMs. Nota big number. But some people are a little bit put off by that thought but if you go to your highspeed copy machine and stuff like that. They do that. That is not really our issue. This is how itwould work. This is superslow motion. We fire in a target. Literally on an airgun or something likethat. And the laser light hits it. We get ignition and now we get out our fusion energy and we havethis salts blanket. Salts are good. Not if you have high blood pressure but salts are goodgenerally because neutrons have no charge. So they sort of tend to go through things. They don'tinteract with atoms too much. With certain salts, they have these absorptions and they really slowthem down quickly. If we have about two feet thick of salt, it will collect the neutrons and theywill get hot. Salt will be molten and temperatures like 200 degrees Centigrade. So 1,000 degreesFahrenheit or so. And now you have this perfect heat exchange medium. So it's a great medium forcollecting them, for collecting but now it's great medium for heat exchange so you could run agenerator. That's what we do. That's how it works. It sort of looks like this in real life. You cansee the salt flowing by. It actually flows pretty slowly. I want you to know that a gigawattengine. It looks like big on one scale but this is the scale of the NIF, and it is one .4millionth.Just to say a gigawatt is 1.4million horse power, except it has no carbon. You are not burningcarbon. And there is no CO2. And what are you using? Water. Hydrogen from water. In fact one literof every water, so that it is equivalent to two million gallons of gasoline. It is a phenomenalthought. That's why we love hydrogen. Now this isn't like hydrogen in your car. Hydrogen cars, thisis very different. That is a chemical hydrogen process. In fact, when I first briefed the governorabout this, he said what is the difference between your hydrogen and my hydrogen? And I said willgovernor, you can take your hydrogen powered hummer and drive it from San Francisco to LA. I cantake 7 million of them and drive them at that distance. So it is a really different scale. In fact,think about the alternative. It is hard to think of a 1.4million horse power engine. But lifeavoids around 77 million tons of CO2 gigawatt year. Thousand megawatt year. So how big is SanFrancisco since we live here? It is a thousand megawatt city sort of. It is a little bit smaller.That is watt we are burning that is what we are burning. 7 milliontons of CO2, per year. So this isa very large number. So what is nice about this? Laser inertial fusion energy is a separatesystem. That means that the laser that targets the fusion engine and the (inaudible) Which iswhere we make electricity and chip it out can sort of all be development pretty much independentlyof each other. What is really nice about that is. That the (inaudible) plant already sort ofexists. We don't have to reinvent that. It is everywhere you go. The fusion chamber has somematerial issues but they seem manageable. The laser people always bring up. And the targets haveto be cheap. So that's the challenge. I'll talk about that in a second.That's a 50 kilowattsrunning through a half inch of steel. That whole is this big. So when people say you can't make alaser do this, that is not exactly right we just showed that. The question is can you economicallymake it happen. This is this will be a semiconductor driven laser. I'm going to show yousomething. Which you are going to have a hard time seeing, this is can anyone see this? This is alaser bar that would be used to drive this. If you looked at it carefully, you'd say you know howto make that. This is the kind of technologies we'll be able to use. What is good about that, weget to ride on the backs of other technologies and make this happen. This is a target. That's akind of fancy looking target. That is a centimeter, question is, that is an RND target. Could youmake those cheap? We want to make them from under 50 cents. So we think we can. Heres our goal.Our goal is 25 cents. For California we would need about 5 billion a year. Sounds like a bignumber. The tolerance on them is about 50 microns, remember your hair is about a 100 microns or so.There's a lot of things that humans make in billions a year. In fact, there's more than this list.Lego blocks, everyone uses those. Two billion a year. They are the most precision thing that you'llever use in your normal life. The reason that you can your kids can play with your LEGO blocks isbecause they are so precise they don't wear. It is kind of an amazing thought. And they are free.People say, what what you spend for LEGO blocks is to market them and chip them. To make them isessentially free, except you have to use oil to do it. Mill speck bullets, about 10 billion madeevery year, almost two for every one of us, and they have specks that are around, similar to whatwe are looking at. They are bigger and heavier and have more material and they are made for about20 cents. I also think if you look at soda cans. Which is big. They are made for a penny or so. Thewhole idea of making billions of things at these costs is very possible. And there's all kind ofdevelopments in nano technologies and the like that are going to drive this down. So heres our roadmap for life. We want to get ignition and quote/unquote in 2010. We say 2010 to 2012. I'm rounding.This is when we think we'll be in a situation that we show we can get more energy out than we putin. It is going to be an exciting day when that happens. We think, in the 2020 time period, and ifthere's will, and I'm going to talk about that we have the way to build an engineering demo. Sothat people and the utilities and others could judge whether this is a part of our collectiveenergy future. A carbon free energy future, we think economical one. That's based on technologiesthat will inevitable get better over time. Because their technology, were are doing. If that weretrue, we think in the 2030, to 2050 period, we could become a part a major part of the globalenergy society which is the time that you saw that challenge arises. Can we get into it. Can we getto a be a part of a the low carbon future? So, where are we? We've talked to serious people. Weare a bunch of brainaics at the lab. We are trying to reach out to people who can judge thesethings better than we can. So we've talked to the CEOs, vice president levels of many utilities.PG&E, Pennacle West, MidAmerica, Nuclear Management, Constellation, Dominion, these have about 65percent of the rate payers in the country. They are kind of excited. If you can get a CEO to comeout for a day a couple of them have come out for more than a day to hear about this and talk aboutit, it is a sign that serious people with serious money and serious ideas in this, are interested.There's a lot of other people who have come out too. From people like Bill Gates and many otherpoliticians and business people. And people like Stewart who are environmentally driven who arethinking about our future and how to make it play out. This is a challenge for all of us. One ofthe things these people ask is can you do it economically? Can you have market penetration at thetime they need? Is it operable and maintainable? Is there a supply chain? Does it fit into thelicensing structure and energy policy? We have a story for all of these. Not for together. What Iwant to talk about is the economics. There's an interesting view graft. It is blank. But it sort oftells the story of how the world looks. If you are a rate payer, this is what you care about. Thisis per kilowatt hour. This is a dime per kilowatt hour. You like that. A nickel you love. Up here,you are not so sure. But this is what banks and utilities like to understand. This is the capitalinsensitivities. The dollars per kilowatt of capacity. I could put this dollars per gigawatt ofcapacity, which is the kind of plants people would. Then you would say this is $20 billion, $25billion. We are talking about per gigawatt. That is what people are thinking about. So I want to goput some numbers up. I think these are important things to consider. People are a little bitsurprise would I show these. That's what it will take solar, for usable capacity. Kind of anamazing number. A gigawatt sort of cost $25 billions right now. Most people don't know that. Thisis a heavily subsidized safety that's why people can buy it. If they didn't have that, it would bevery hard. Remember, it is only on during the day not at the night. And the reason it works at allis because all that base power that you are adding it into when you can and subtracting from whenyou can't to do this. Offshore wind is an interesting idea. It is supposed to be on most of thetime. But it is pretty expensive, it is really the reliability and maintainability issues of windmills that are 500 feet high and 500 feet of water. Pretty hard problem. From an engineering pointof view.The other ones are light water reactors; that's nuclear. Which is from the point of view ofcost. It is really good. And from the point of view it is great. The trouble is. It keeps inchingup. It inches to the right in terms of capital cost. That is why President Obama has the longguarantee program for utilities to build new nuclear. It is a real hard problem. Fossil fuels, theway you do it. Carbon capture insecretion. If you can drag the carbon out the flews as it wascoming out and put it back under out of ground, you could do something. But it is volatile and it'snot a welldeveloped issue and it uses lots of water. So a lot of places cannot use it right now.But all of these can be part of our energy mix. The question is what about life. We have done a lotof studies about life. And it is kind of interesting, sort of looks between fossil fuels and lightwater reactors and capital cost and also in the cost of the electricity. You can say to me, younever built anything, how do you know how much it costs. Well we built the NIF. We know how muchthat cost. And we know what these are going to cost because there's a lot of models forsemiconductors. We think we understand targets. The building stuff we think we get. This isprobably reasonably accurate. The thing that is interesting about it, it is not a carbon producerat all. It avoids all carbon. And that's really an important issue. If you look at what wouldhappen if the United States deployed 700 of them like we talked about in filling that wedge whichis not a hard to do. You are talking about in starting 2030 doing like one a year going up to 2040one a month, you could sort of displace 140 gigatons of carbon dioxide compared to coal. By theway, those are Coal wedges if any of you are in this world. That is a lot of wedges. There are 30wedges on earth. If this were more displaced, if this was a part of our world wide community, andagain, putting this in fits mottles for how plants are coming offline and how we could put themonline. You could have a big story here. And remember, the cost of carbon is expected to be $100 aton mitigating or buying off carbon so just to go over it: A 140 billion tons is $14 trillion. Soyou could start paying for this on its own. It could pay its way, the future. That would changealso a lot of stuff about how to do this. If you think that's what the cost of carbon will bewhich I think a lot of people do. In fact, if you look at how much of the cost to develop it. Ifyou assume $20 billion in R & B and development funding through 2030 so the build the first twoplants; right? And develop them and build them, and you discounted the value of that carbondioxide you are talking about a dollar per ton. So this is an insurance policy that you would liketo have. You spend $1 to avoid $100 forever. It is a really interesting idea. So the RDD cost overtime are essentially 0. Let me just finish my talk. Laser inertial fusion energy, it's sustainable.It's carbon free. It's not geopolitical. It's safe. It's molecular. It's compact. You could do arelatively rapid development path. It uses our infrastructure. What's really cool about it, it willalways accept evolutionary improvements and seme conductor technology performance of targets. Andwe don't have to invent our own industry to do it. We use other industries that already exist. Thisis sort of too good to be true. All these things coming together. We are about to if I happened outgood it is to be true. We think we have a story. We think it is well analyzed. We have a lot to doto make this all happen. But you know, look what the choice is. We are at a knothole in the energyenvironmental challenge. I think this sweep of history from 100 years ago to 100 years from now iskind of an interesting thought. I have to thank the Long Now Foundation for getting me to rethinkhow I think. And what I thought about this. What was 100 years ago. We had Einstein show up. Thiswas really the beginning of modern science as we know it. Everything we know about ourpostindustrial revolution age was changing. Literarily my grandparents were using horse and buggy;right? It's a fact when they were born. This is when this period was changing. In 19501960, thequantum revolution was on. Integrated circuits were happening. The laser was developed and here weare in 2010 on the verge of proving that we can get ignition gain using hydrogen as the fuel withlasers. And what do we have to do? Do we have a future that's bright and clean a 100 years fromnow? Or not? How do we get through here? This is sort of this knothole that we efficient. Itlooks like it is 2030 but it's really right this second. This is our challenge and this is ourresponsibility. So what's your role? I didn't just come here just to talk. I'm here recruiting,signing up. We have a clear societal need. When I talk about societal need I'm talking about ourresponsibility as stewards of our own planet. There's several solutions. I don't want to comeacross that there's only one. But they have to be worked on. We have to look at the options. Andscientists and technologists can give you a lot of choices. I hope this is one you can go home andtalk about. But it won't get done because we did this. There are issues of policy, funding,industrial commitment, communication, personal commitment to our own future and our children'sfuture. And our grandchildren's future. But the problem is we live in a world that let me tellyou. There's brick wall here. And everyone knows it. Which is shortterm vision. Unwillingness toinvest in what are obvious problems. Vested interest that have different points of view.Preconceptions about what can and can't work. Sometimes cold skepticism, and apathy, I think theamazing part of the gulf of Mexico is so far, nothing has happened. It's sort of scratching theback of your head. But it hasn't we haven't woken up to it. I remember, that's going at a verysmall rate compared to the amount of oil we are burning in the United States. I think that life, ifwe have a lot of friends in life, if they were talking to their politicians, talking to each other,if they wanted to learn more about it, come to our Web site lasers.llnl.gov, they made a story,could make this happen. We can't do it on our own. We need your help. And we if we do that, Ithink we can jump that wall or if we are quantumally mechanically thinking, tunnel through thatwall. And not even touch it. So when I look at this is there fusion in our future? I love thispicture because that's 4 billionbarrels of oil coming out of the gulf; right? When I show this tokids, I say where do you see your energy future of course, they see the tanker. I say look realcarefully. It takes them a long time to see the sun. And then I say what's burning in the sun?Water!So fusion is in our future. Can we make it happen? Let's invent the future together. Thankyou for your time.