• This is a political forum that is non-biased/non-partisan and treats every person's position on topics equally. This debate forum is not aligned to any political party. In today's politics, many ideas are split between and even within all the political parties. Often we find ourselves agreeing on one platform but some topics break our mold. We are here to discuss them in a civil political debate. If this is your first visit to our political forums, be sure to check out the RULES. Registering for debate politics is necessary before posting. Register today to participate - it's free!

Fusion energy will be developed in running in 15 years

Our chances of making it to other planets would be improved by not rendering the current one uninhabitable!

Counterpoint: If we cant figure out how to live on this planet as it changes then we should give up our dream of flying to another planet and dealing with it.

Clearly we are not up to the job.
 
Our chances of making it to other planets would be improved by not rendering the current one uninhabitable!

Even if we kept our climate perfect and stopped polluting we will still end up going extinct if we did not go into space. Over population of the world is often scoffed at, but it is a real possibility. And our planet only has a finite amount of resources.
 
Even if we kept our climate perfect and stopped polluting we will still end up going extinct if we did not go into space. Over population of the world is often scoffed at, but it is a real possibility. And our planet only has a finite amount of resources.

Limiting how many humans are on this planet takes only will.

Overpopulation is a management failure.
 
Limiting how many humans are on this planet takes only will.

Overpopulation is a management failure.

:shrug: If you wish to live in a place like China then I'd suggest you move there. That's not ever going to happen in the US. Like it or not, people have Rights.
 
:shrug: If you wish to live in a place like China then I'd suggest you move there. That's not ever going to happen in the US. Like it or not, people have Rights.

Which boils down to "I dont want to deal with the problem".

If too many of us do that then humans should die off.

That would represent justice.
 
Which boils down to "I dont want to deal with the problem".

If too many of us do that then humans should die off.

That would represent justice.

There are many ways to deal with a problem. Such as going into space. Perhaps it is you that does not want to deal with the problem without trying to impose your views on everyone else?
 
Re: Batteries not included

There is a lot of research going on into making fuel.
I like the Navy and Sunfire's approach, as they do not require sunlight, and large areas.
Seawater to Jet Fuel
https://www.sunfire.de/en/applications/syngas

Which is why it is completely idiotic and assinine that republicans and many republican voters are so against green energy. This is the future, and the improvements of solar has shown. ANd there is a lot more. We need to be pouring money into it. Instead Republicans apparently like taking it in the A from the oil and gas industry while they destroy the environment, when there are much better sources of energy

We lead the pack on research, it will be American businesses dominating the market, not Chinese companies

There are many ways to deal with a problem. Such as going into space. Perhaps it is you that does not want to deal with the problem without trying to impose your views on everyone else?

The planet needs a good epidemic, a culling of the herd. As bad as that would be, in the long run probably be good
 
There are many ways to deal with a problem. Such as going into space. Perhaps it is you that does not want to deal with the problem without trying to impose your views on everyone else?

I am imposing nothing on anyone, you are evading trying to turn this into "All about Hawkeye". . We can right now choose to not over populate this planet, we can not at this time migrate all of the excess humans we produce to other planets, thus limiting the population is the only current solution, one that we refuse to talk about much less accomplish.
 
There are indeed fusion reactors, and I have had the pleasure of working on the JET tokamak near Oxford in the UK. However, these are all experimental devices that are only capable of sustaining a fusion reaction for a couple of minutes at most. The engineering challenges of building a steady-state reactor are enormous, and there remain many unsolved problems. Fusion power generation is possible in theory, but extremely difficult in practice.

The original article I posted talks about fusion power plants that use magnets to confine the fusion core. The magnet was the biggest problem, and there have been breakthroughs. They now have "tapes" or "ribbons" that can scale up, however, they aren't suited to existing fusion machines yet. So sure, there are problems to be solved, but most of the problems have been solved already. According to Dennis Whyte, we will know within three years whether this is viable or not.
 
I am imposing nothing on anyone, you are evading trying to turn this into "All about Hawkeye". . We can right now choose to not over populate this planet, we can not at this time migrate all of the excess humans we produce to other planets, thus limiting the population is the only current solution, one that we refuse to talk about much less accomplish.

Except that we are not in danger of over population just yet. We have a few more hundred years for that. In the mean time, its better to find other alternatives instead of imposing draconian laws.
 
Except that we are not in danger of over population just yet. We have a few more hundred years for that. In the mean time, its better to find other alternatives instead of imposing draconian laws.

According the the climate change alarm bell ringers we already have over populated Earth. For several hundred years the consensus has been "Dont worry about the population numbers we are demanding that Earth carry, we have the science now, we will figure it out"......That has either failed or it is in grave danger of failing, thus it is time for us to adjust...it is time to start considering population control and how we would manage that if we decided to manage that.
 
According the the climate change alarm bell ringers we already have over populated Earth. For several hundred years the consensus has been "Dont worry about the population numbers we are demanding that Earth carry, we have the science now, we will figure it out"......That has either failed or it is in grave danger of failing, thus it is time for us to adjust...it is time to start considering population control and how we would manage that if we decided to manage that.

:roll: No one in the climate change camp has claimed that over population is the cause for climate change. You're just reaching now.
 
Re: Batteries not included

Which is why it is completely idiotic and assinine that republicans and many republican voters are so against green energy. This is the future, and the improvements of solar has shown. ANd there is a lot more. We need to be pouring money into it. Instead Republicans apparently like taking it in the A from the oil and gas industry while they destroy the environment, when there are much better sources of energy

We lead the pack on research, it will be American businesses dominating the market, not Chinese companies



The planet needs a good epidemic, a culling of the herd. As bad as that would be, in the long run probably be good

You are not understanding the market conditions.
These technologies will become viable, when the market says that this is the path to greater profits.
Let's say for example Exxon already has all the bugs worked out, but knows the finished fuel product will
cost say $3.50 per gallon to sell at a profit, but fuel from oil is only $2.25 per gallon, some sales but not wide spread buy in.
If in say 5 years, oil has increased to say $95 a barrel, the resulting fuel from oil will be $3.75 per gallon,
while the man made stuff has come down a little in price to sat $3.40 because of the expanding supply of surplus solar energy.
Both products may still be at the pump, but which one will the masses buy?
The Navy identified a sort of limitation on man made fuels, they can only make high octane.
From the refineries perspective, they can ether buy their feedstock for $95 a barrel, or make the equivalent
fuel that that barrel would have made for $90, I have an idea which one they will pick.
 
:roll: No one in the climate change camp has claimed that over population is the cause for climate change. You're just reaching now.

In their outlining of the problem yes they do, almost no one talks about population management only because that is taboo.

But off you go, clearly you are done here.
 
Fusion power has been 20 years away for about 50 years now

Yup. I think we're at least a couple of breakthroughs away in both advanced magnets and heat resistant materials before this can happen.
 
In their outlining of the problem yes they do, lmost no one talks about population management only because that is taboo.

But off you go, clearly you are done here.

No, what they point towards is industry and what is being put into our air by industry. And yes, I am done here. You are too unreasonable to have any sort of extended conversation with.
 
Buckets o' sunshine

Don't you realize what you are saying? You won't rejoice until it's fully developed. Okay, I guess.

Yep, the problem with nuclear power stations is that the hype on fission plants was: The power will be too cheap to meter. That hasn't turned out to be the case, of course, there are lots of expensive items - insurance, liability, radioactive waste disposal & containment for centuries (the most dangerous materials), & so on.

Fusion looks better on paper - but there's that pesky delivery schedule & all its predecessors - which unfortunately, have failed to shine - as it were.

So I'll wait for an actual fusion reactor to produce more energy than it consumes, thanks just the same.

Quite frankly, we need a good fusion reactor to generate lots of clean power. We need to kick the legs out from under OPEC, the CIS, & a slew of bad actors on the World stage. Let them go back to exporting (or pounding) sand … & we (the World) may need all that POL for food, or feedstocks for other chem.
 
Re: Batteries not included

There is a lot of research going on into making fuel.
I like the Navy and Sunfire's approach, as they do not require sunlight, and large areas.
Seawater to Jet Fuel
https://www.sunfire.de/en/applications/syngas

The ERoEI on seawater to fuel is absurdly bad, but the reason it's being done is because it's still a somewhat better ERoEI than the logistics of having large fueling tankers circle the globe to keep Naval aircraft refueled.
Seawater to jet fuel is a very intelligent way for the military to go green but it's not very economical for us landlubbers.
 
Re: Batteries not included

The ERoEI on seawater to fuel is absurdly bad, but the reason it's being done is because it's still a somewhat better ERoEI than the logistics of having large fueling tankers circle the globe to keep Naval aircraft refueled.
Seawater to jet fuel is a very intelligent way for the military to go green but it's not very economical for us landlubbers.
The economics are relative to the cost of the alternative, (in this case oil).
Sunfire claims the process is 70% efficient , while the Navy says 60%.
We have not heard anything from the oil companies yet, but they have better facilities and much greater intellectual depth
on the topic. Since Exxon's CEO has said he favors a carbon tax, I would say Exxon has already found a way to
profit from carbon neutral man made fuels.
 
And as for nuclear fission itself, there is a reason why we never adequately explored the thorium fuel cycle.
The power industry thought it might favor thorium because of more availability and its apparent better safety, but the military demanded plutonium/uranium for its proliferation potential, and the government wound up being forced to choose only one.
Had we devoted resources to both fuel cycles, most power plants would be thorium today.
The Cold War being what it was, we chose uranium/plutonium and thorium was shelved.

Thorium fission would be a possibly workable scheme for fission power today, even as an interim solution while we continue to explore fusion ideas.

[h=1]Thorium: The Future Fuel for Nuclear Energy?[/h]
 
Re: Batteries not included

The economics are relative to the cost of the alternative, (in this case oil).
Sunfire claims the process is 70% efficient , while the Navy says 60%.
We have not heard anything from the oil companies yet, but they have better facilities and much greater intellectual depth
on the topic. Since Exxon's CEO has said he favors a carbon tax, I would say Exxon has already found a way to
profit from carbon neutral man made fuels.

By the way, since we've also touched on carbon sink ideas...

BIOCHAR

Biochar is charcoal used as a soil amendment. Biochar is a stable solid, rich in carbon, and can endure in soil for thousands of years. Like most charcoal, biochar is made from biomass via pyrolysis. Biochar is under investigation as an approach to carbon sequestration, it has the potential to help mitigate climate change. Independently, biochar can increase soil fertility of acidic soils (low pH soils), increase agricultural productivity, and provide protection against some foliar and soil-borne diseases.
 
Back
Top Bottom