Since there are no currently active contests, we have switched Climate CoLab to read-only mode.
Learn more at
Skip navigation
Share conversation: Share via:

Perry Grossman

May 13, 2016


1 |
Share via:


Congrats on a very interesting proposal. As a Climate CoLab Catalyst, I am asked to provide comments on the Energy Supply proposal. Unfortunately, this proposal is far beyond my technical knowledge. But I do recall a Physics major college friend (who then went into the soft social sciences) saying that he had aspirations for nuclear fission. I wish more people would stay in fields that address these tough, technical questions. I am sorry to hear about the difficulties in your experience:

“From our experience dealing with government, academic institutions and businesses, the will to actually act on new idealistic policies appears rather weak and shortsighted, so we expect very little from that quarter.”

I wish that more investors would be willing to take more risks on such endeavors. Bill Gates talks about the need for big investments in innovation, e.g. in the Atlantic: But it sounds like there is still too much risk aversion to big projects like this.

Given that lack private investment, your decision to pursue military funds probably makes sense.

The other information might be difficult to come by; but it would be great to see these sections filled out:

How much will emissions be reduced or sequestered vs. business as usual levels?

What are other key benefits?

What are the proposal’s costs?

Time line

Related proposals



Best wishes,


Dimoir Quaw

May 15, 2016


2 |
Share via:

Thanks Perry,

I really appreciate your interest. I am presently double checking the figures regarding costs etc but will fill them all in soon!

Watch this space

Kind regards