ISF Logo   IS Forum
Forum Index Register Members List Events Mark Forums Read Help

Go Back   International Skeptics Forum » General Topics » USA Politics
 


Welcome to the International Skeptics Forum, where we discuss skepticism, critical thinking, the paranormal and science in a friendly but lively way. You are currently viewing the forum as a guest, which means you are missing out on discussing matters that are of interest to you. Please consider registering so you can gain full use of the forum features and interact with other Members. Registration is simple, fast and free! Click here to register today.
Tags Alexandria Ocasio-Cortez , global warming , green energy issues

Reply
Old 13th March 2019, 09:09 AM   #1041
The Great Zaganza
Maledictorian
 
The Great Zaganza's Avatar
 
Join Date: Aug 2016
Posts: 7,002
Originally Posted by Belz... View Post
Yeah, but ask yourself why.
because energy companies were never under actual competitive pressure until now - which is why they fold like cheap deckchairs.
__________________
Opinion is divided on the subject. All the others say it is; I say it isn’t.
The Great Zaganza is offline   Quote this post in a PM   Nominate this post for this month's language award Copy a direct link to this post Reply With Quote Back to Top
Old 18th March 2019, 08:05 AM   #1042
Eddie Dane
Philosopher
 
Eddie Dane's Avatar
 
Join Date: Aug 2007
Posts: 6,416
Originally Posted by acbytesla View Post
Ever hear of an "elevator pitch" RBF? It's important for people to get to their point quickly if they don't want to lose their audience. I have little patience for those who don't get to their point and instead drone on. This video could have been two hours long and I would be happy to have watched the entire video if it could ever actually have said anything. But watching a 40 minute video for two minutes of content is not bearable.

BTW, I just finished watching a 38 minute presentation of the Integrated Molten Salt Reactor https://youtu.be/OgTgV3Kq49U

and before that a 48 minute video about the disadvantages of Thorium.
https://youtu.be/GAiHtrWHxK0

And before that a 1 hour 43 minute presentation of Microsoft's Hololens
https://youtu.be/mMNVSwO1yDo
Thanks for those links. There goes the evening...
__________________
Death to Videodrome! Long live the new flesh!
Eddie Dane is offline   Quote this post in a PM   Nominate this post for this month's language award Copy a direct link to this post Reply With Quote Back to Top
Old 18th March 2019, 08:51 AM   #1043
acbytesla
Penultimate Amazing
 
acbytesla's Avatar
 
Join Date: Dec 2012
Posts: 20,722
Originally Posted by Eddie Dane View Post
Thanks for those links. There goes the evening...
Sorry about that. If you want to blow tomorrow night, try this one too.

Tour of Oak Ridge National Laboratory

https://youtu.be/8hA8V8y52BM

2:24 minutes


The more I learn about nuclear physics, the more I'm convinced that are problems are solvable if we can get out of our way.
__________________
“ A wise man proportions his belief to the evidence. ”
― David Hume
acbytesla is offline   Quote this post in a PM   Nominate this post for this month's language award Copy a direct link to this post Reply With Quote Back to Top
Old 18th March 2019, 09:13 AM   #1044
Eddie Dane
Philosopher
 
Eddie Dane's Avatar
 
Join Date: Aug 2007
Posts: 6,416
Originally Posted by acbytesla View Post
Sorry about that. If you want to blow tomorrow night, try this one too.

Tour of Oak Ridge National Laboratory

https://youtu.be/8hA8V8y52BM

2:24 minutes


The more I learn about nuclear physics, the more I'm convinced that are problems are solvable if we can get out of our way.
I'm getting really interested in clean tech.

I'm an investor and I'm looking to transition into these industries (I still hold Shell at the moment, a huge polluter).

I've been a big nuclear energy supporter since forever and thought it really was picking up when Fukushima happened. Now I think it is getting popular again thanks to Asia. Europe and the US have gone full retard, abandoning technologies that may kill some people in favour of technologies that will kill everybody. Spain is looking to shut down its nuke plants now.

Any info welcome, I'm learning a lot recently.

My 14-year-old daughter had to make a case for wave and tidal energy for a school project, I did the research with her. It's a very interesting technology. But the companies that lead the way are short of money and it frustrates me no end.
__________________
Death to Videodrome! Long live the new flesh!

Last edited by Eddie Dane; 18th March 2019 at 09:17 AM.
Eddie Dane is offline   Quote this post in a PM   Nominate this post for this month's language award Copy a direct link to this post Reply With Quote Back to Top
Old 18th March 2019, 10:31 AM   #1045
acbytesla
Penultimate Amazing
 
acbytesla's Avatar
 
Join Date: Dec 2012
Posts: 20,722
Originally Posted by Eddie Dane View Post
I'm getting really interested in clean tech.

I'm an investor and I'm looking to transition into these industries (I still hold Shell at the moment, a huge polluter).

I've been a big nuclear energy supporter since forever and thought it really was picking up when Fukushima happened. Now I think it is getting popular again thanks to Asia. Europe and the US have gone full retard, abandoning technologies that may kill some people in favour of technologies that will kill everybody. Spain is looking to shut down its nuke plants now.

Any info welcome, I'm learning a lot recently.

My 14-year-old daughter had to make a case for wave and tidal energy for a school project, I did the research with her. It's a very interesting technology. But the companies that lead the way are short of money and it frustrates me no end.
Tidal and wave energy are both very interesting. There's a fascinating plant in Western Australia used to run a desalination plant that provides fresh water for 500,000 people.

I use to be anti-nuclear because I thought the waste problem was insolvable. But I've learned that the problem has been grossly exaggerated. In fact, it turns out that 95 percent of the waste is really unspent fuel and 4.5 of the other 5 percent is quite valuable

The other consideration seems to be preventing a nuclear accident like Fukishima and Chernobyl which like almost all nuclear plants in operation today have an inherent risk for a catastrophic accident because of the use of high pressure water as a coolant.

New Generation 4 plants that use molten salt as a coolant seem to be the future. They not only eliminate that risk, their low pressure high temperature coolant can be used for far more than power generation.

I'm excited about the possibilities. Thorium seems to be very interesting, yet almost no one wants to jump into that pool first.

As an investor, my instinct is to look at companies developing expertise in dealing with molten salt as it seems as half the energy industry is looking at it as an energy storage medium.
__________________
“ A wise man proportions his belief to the evidence. ”
― David Hume

Last edited by acbytesla; 18th March 2019 at 10:33 AM.
acbytesla is offline   Quote this post in a PM   Nominate this post for this month's language award Copy a direct link to this post Reply With Quote Back to Top
Old Yesterday, 12:52 AM   #1046
The Great Zaganza
Maledictorian
 
The Great Zaganza's Avatar
 
Join Date: Aug 2016
Posts: 7,002
In the current economic environment, investors are loath to bind their money to projects that require decades of commitment - which is the case for all nuclear power generating systems.
Without government guarantees, Nuclear Power won't make a comeback in the foreseeable future.
__________________
Opinion is divided on the subject. All the others say it is; I say it isn’t.
The Great Zaganza is offline   Quote this post in a PM   Nominate this post for this month's language award Copy a direct link to this post Reply With Quote Back to Top
Old Yesterday, 01:54 AM   #1047
Eddie Dane
Philosopher
 
Eddie Dane's Avatar
 
Join Date: Aug 2007
Posts: 6,416
Originally Posted by The Great Zaganza View Post
In the current economic environment, investors are loath to bind their money to projects that require decades of commitment - which is the case for all nuclear power generating systems.
Without government guarantees, Nuclear Power won't make a comeback in the foreseeable future.
This.

Nobody is so idealistic that they'd throw their money in a bottomless pit.
__________________
Death to Videodrome! Long live the new flesh!
Eddie Dane is offline   Quote this post in a PM   Nominate this post for this month's language award Copy a direct link to this post Reply With Quote Back to Top
Old Yesterday, 02:01 AM   #1048
Eddie Dane
Philosopher
 
Eddie Dane's Avatar
 
Join Date: Aug 2007
Posts: 6,416
Originally Posted by acbytesla View Post
Tidal and wave energy are both very interesting. There's a fascinating plant in Western Australia used to run a desalination plant that provides fresh water for 500,000 people.

I use to be anti-nuclear because I thought the waste problem was insolvable. But I've learned that the problem has been grossly exaggerated. In fact, it turns out that 95 percent of the waste is really unspent fuel and 4.5 of the other 5 percent is quite valuable

The other consideration seems to be preventing a nuclear accident like Fukishima and Chernobyl which like almost all nuclear plants in operation today have an inherent risk for a catastrophic accident because of the use of high pressure water as a coolant.

New Generation 4 plants that use molten salt as a coolant seem to be the future. They not only eliminate that risk, their low pressure high temperature coolant can be used for far more than power generation.

I'm excited about the possibilities. Thorium seems to be very interesting, yet almost no one wants to jump into that pool first.

As an investor, my instinct is to look at companies developing expertise in dealing with molten salt as it seems as half the energy industry is looking at it as an energy storage medium.
The Dutch are considering a carbon tax, that could make alternatives competitive.

But apart from that, I'm pessimistic about the speed at which alternatives are implemented and/or funded.

Some of the companies I've looked at:
Nuclear: verge of bankruptcy.
Wave energy company Carnegie has declined 97% since this positive article was published. I think they are no longer public.
Fuel cell company FCEL looks dire.

Governments need to get involved at this point and get some push behind this.
__________________
Death to Videodrome! Long live the new flesh!
Eddie Dane is offline   Quote this post in a PM   Nominate this post for this month's language award Copy a direct link to this post Reply With Quote Back to Top
Old Yesterday, 05:53 AM   #1049
acbytesla
Penultimate Amazing
 
acbytesla's Avatar
 
Join Date: Dec 2012
Posts: 20,722
Originally Posted by Eddie Dane View Post
The Dutch are considering a carbon tax, that could make alternatives competitive.

But apart from that, I'm pessimistic about the speed at which alternatives are implemented and/or funded.

Some of the companies I've looked at:
Nuclear: verge of bankruptcy.
Wave energy company Carnegie has declined

Governments need to get involved at this point and get some push behind this.
None of this surprises me. Few of these are ripe for being publicly traded. The Nuclear sector has a dozen new companies. 80% of which or more are likely to crash and burn. Choosing the right company to invest in is challenging. Not only is picking the best technology difficult but picking the company is extremely hard. Bill Gates has invested a half a billion dollars into Terrawave and traveling wave reactors and I'm not sure it is a better solution than any of the other companies proposing small module reactors. Imagine losing a half a billion dollars.

I have been studying the energy sector intensely for years and I don't feel comfortable with any of the investment opportunities I've looked at. The one I did take a flyer on lost half its value in the first six months I owned it. I mention molten salt simply because of the versatility of applications and the intense interest in it.

Good luck with your investing. I hope you make a killing.
__________________
“ A wise man proportions his belief to the evidence. ”
― David Hume
acbytesla is offline   Quote this post in a PM   Nominate this post for this month's language award Copy a direct link to this post Reply With Quote Back to Top
Old Yesterday, 06:19 AM   #1050
Eddie Dane
Philosopher
 
Eddie Dane's Avatar
 
Join Date: Aug 2007
Posts: 6,416
Originally Posted by acbytesla View Post
None of this surprises me. Few of these are ripe for being publicly traded. The Nuclear sector has a dozen new companies. 80% of which or more are likely to crash and burn. Choosing the right company to invest in is challenging. Not only is picking the best technology difficult but picking the company is extremely hard. Bill Gates has invested a half a billion dollars into Terrawave and traveling wave reactors and I'm not sure it is a better solution than any of the other companies proposing small module reactors. Imagine losing a half a billion dollars.

I have been studying the energy sector intensely for years and I don't feel comfortable with any of the investment opportunities I've looked at. The one I did take a flyer on lost half its value in the first six months I owned it. I mention molten salt simply because of the versatility of applications and the intense interest in it.

Good luck with your investing. I hope you make a killing.
Thanks.

I'm coming to the awful realisation that I'm better of putting my money in companies that deal with the effects of climate change, such as reinforcing coastlines, than technologies that could have prevented the damage.

In Europe, there are many demonstrations by schoolkids demanding policy changes regarding climate change. So that gives hope.

But on the other hand, we have a climate change denying party rising in the polls right now here in the Netherlands.
__________________
Death to Videodrome! Long live the new flesh!
Eddie Dane is offline   Quote this post in a PM   Nominate this post for this month's language award Copy a direct link to this post Reply With Quote Back to Top
Old Yesterday, 06:23 AM   #1051
Belz...
Fiend God
 
Belz...'s Avatar
 
Join Date: Oct 2005
Location: In the details
Posts: 79,467
Originally Posted by The Great Zaganza View Post
because energy companies were never under actual competitive pressure until now - which is why they fold like cheap deckchairs.
Sorry, the answer was "because people are scaret ******** about nuclear and thus the costs have gone up."

Now, let me tell you what you didn't win...
__________________
Master of the Shining Darkness

"My views are nonsense. So what?" - BobTheCoward


Belz... is offline   Quote this post in a PM   Nominate this post for this month's language award Copy a direct link to this post Reply With Quote Back to Top
Old Yesterday, 06:24 AM   #1052
Belz...
Fiend God
 
Belz...'s Avatar
 
Join Date: Oct 2005
Location: In the details
Posts: 79,467
Originally Posted by Eddie Dane View Post
I'm getting really interested in clean tech.
No such thing. If you generate megawatts, there will be major environmental impacts. You can have cleaner tech, at least compared to coal.
__________________
Master of the Shining Darkness

"My views are nonsense. So what?" - BobTheCoward


Belz... is offline   Quote this post in a PM   Nominate this post for this month's language award Copy a direct link to this post Reply With Quote Back to Top
Old Yesterday, 07:04 AM   #1053
Eddie Dane
Philosopher
 
Eddie Dane's Avatar
 
Join Date: Aug 2007
Posts: 6,416
Originally Posted by Belz... View Post
No such thing. If you generate megawatts, there will be major environmental impacts. You can have cleaner tech, at least compared to coal.
I know, but coal is INSANELY dirty, that's the one I'd like to see disappear in my lifetime.
__________________
Death to Videodrome! Long live the new flesh!
Eddie Dane is offline   Quote this post in a PM   Nominate this post for this month's language award Copy a direct link to this post Reply With Quote Back to Top
Old Yesterday, 07:07 AM   #1054
JoeMorgue
Self Employed
Remittance Man
 
JoeMorgue's Avatar
 
Join Date: Nov 2009
Location: Florida
Posts: 16,509
"Clean" is a bad buzzword to get hung up on.

But regardless by damn near any factor coal is just the worse.
__________________
- "Ernest Hemingway once wrote that the world is a fine place and worth fighting for. I agree with the second part." - Detective Sommerset
- "Stupidity does not cancel out stupidity to yield genius. It breeds like a bucket-full of coked out hamsters." - The Oatmeal
- "To the best of my knowledge the only thing philosophy has ever proven is that Descartes could think." - SMBC
JoeMorgue is offline   Quote this post in a PM   Nominate this post for this month's language award Copy a direct link to this post Reply With Quote Back to Top
Old Yesterday, 07:15 AM   #1055
The Great Zaganza
Maledictorian
 
The Great Zaganza's Avatar
 
Join Date: Aug 2016
Posts: 7,002
Originally Posted by Belz... View Post
Sorry, the answer was "because people are scaret ******** about nuclear and thus the costs have gone up."

Now, let me tell you what you didn't win...
I would argue that the costs have become apparent, not gone up.
In the US, no one has really planned the entire lifecycle of nuclear power, from mining to decommissioning. Now that mines and reactors must close, the actual bill comes due, not the the Jetson-cartoon version of nuclear power energy providers tried to sell to the public.
__________________
Opinion is divided on the subject. All the others say it is; I say it isn’t.
The Great Zaganza is offline   Quote this post in a PM   Nominate this post for this month's language award Copy a direct link to this post Reply With Quote Back to Top
Old Yesterday, 07:21 AM   #1056
acbytesla
Penultimate Amazing
 
acbytesla's Avatar
 
Join Date: Dec 2012
Posts: 20,722
Originally Posted by Belz... View Post
No such thing. If you generate megawatts, there will be major environmental impacts. You can have cleaner tech, at least compared to coal.
I'm more convinced than ever that nuclear power is the cleanest and maybe the safest by a mile of any energy source that I've looked at. But it scares people because they don't understand it. I've been for the last 6 months trying to soak up every bit of information I can to get a complete understanding and I'm afraid I've barely scratched the surface.

Kirk Sorensen has made me a tentative convert of LFTR. But I feel like I must be missing something since he hasn't convinced many in the nuclear industry. It's not that they oppose the LFTR, they just aren't on board yet. And this makes me wonder why? What am I missing?
__________________
“ A wise man proportions his belief to the evidence. ”
― David Hume
acbytesla is offline   Quote this post in a PM   Nominate this post for this month's language award Copy a direct link to this post Reply With Quote Back to Top
Old Yesterday, 07:23 AM   #1057
Belz...
Fiend God
 
Belz...'s Avatar
 
Join Date: Oct 2005
Location: In the details
Posts: 79,467
Originally Posted by Eddie Dane View Post
I know, but coal is INSANELY dirty, that's the one I'd like to see disappear in my lifetime.
Then we're in agreement.

Originally Posted by acbytesla View Post
Kirk Sorensen
Wow, why can't I have a cool name like that?

Quote:
LFTR
The who to the what, now?

<checks>

Oh, a thorium reactor. Yes, that sounds remarkably better than current tech and has for a long time.
__________________
Master of the Shining Darkness

"My views are nonsense. So what?" - BobTheCoward



Last edited by Belz...; Yesterday at 07:24 AM.
Belz... is offline   Quote this post in a PM   Nominate this post for this month's language award Copy a direct link to this post Reply With Quote Back to Top
Old Yesterday, 07:32 AM   #1058
theprestige
Penultimate Amazing
 
Join Date: Aug 2007
Posts: 32,493
Originally Posted by JoeMorgue View Post
"Clean" is a bad buzzword to get hung up on.

But regardless by damn near any factor coal is just the worse.
Better than wood.

There's a time and a place for everything. Coal empowered the industrial revolution, which generated unprecedented amounts of surplus wealth, which in turn was invested in the foundations of just about every good thing civilization has produced in the past few hundred years. Without the quantum leap forward in productivity we got from coal, we wouldn't be in a position to talk about alternatives like solar and wind and nuclear. We wouldn't have global trade. We wouldn't have national power grids. We wouldn't have large-scale agriculture producing enough food to feed the entire world. We probably wouldn't have the vast medical establishment that underpins all our health care - even the crappy healthcare systems.

Coal may be worse than nuclear, but it's a damn sight better than wood, and wood was the only other option when coal came on the scene. I think that on balance, coal has been a great boon to humanity. Pollution and all.

Now, if you were to tell me, let's cut pollution without cutting productivity, by shifting from coal to nuclear, I'd support you 100%. But if you were to tell me, let's get rid of coal because coal is evil... Well.
theprestige is offline   Quote this post in a PM   Nominate this post for this month's language award Copy a direct link to this post Reply With Quote Back to Top
Old Yesterday, 07:48 AM   #1059
The Great Zaganza
Maledictorian
 
The Great Zaganza's Avatar
 
Join Date: Aug 2016
Posts: 7,002
Heck, there is even a decent chance that this time, Fusion power really is only 15 years away.
Making all new Supertanker/Freighter nuclear powered could massively reduce some of the worst pollution caused by the most dirty fraction of oil that is currently used. They could also easily be decommissioned by sinking them in a Godzilla-free spot of the ocean.
But that would probably only be done with meltdown-proof reactor designs.
__________________
Opinion is divided on the subject. All the others say it is; I say it isn’t.
The Great Zaganza is offline   Quote this post in a PM   Nominate this post for this month's language award Copy a direct link to this post Reply With Quote Back to Top
Old Yesterday, 07:58 AM   #1060
acbytesla
Penultimate Amazing
 
acbytesla's Avatar
 
Join Date: Dec 2012
Posts: 20,722
LFTR

Originally Posted by Belz... View Post
The who to the what, now?

<checks>

Oh, a thorium reactor. Yes, that sounds remarkably better than current tech and has for a long time.
Liquid Fluoride Thorium Reactor It's a Flouride molten salt reactor that uses the Thorium Uranim 233 fuel cycle. Kirk Sorensen is like the Pied Piper of Thorium. There are quite a few videos on YouTube where he is espousing the benefits of Thorium breeder reactors, liquid fuel and molten salt. The passive safety features of molten salt seems to be a game changer.
__________________
“ A wise man proportions his belief to the evidence. ”
― David Hume
acbytesla is offline   Quote this post in a PM   Nominate this post for this month's language award Copy a direct link to this post Reply With Quote Back to Top
Old Yesterday, 08:03 AM   #1061
acbytesla
Penultimate Amazing
 
acbytesla's Avatar
 
Join Date: Dec 2012
Posts: 20,722
Originally Posted by The Great Zaganza View Post
Heck, there is even a decent chance that this time, Fusion power really is only 15 years away.
Making all new Supertanker/Freighter nuclear powered could massively reduce some of the worst pollution caused by the most dirty fraction of oil that is currently used. They could also easily be decommissioned by sinking them in a Godzilla-free spot of the ocean.
But that would probably only be done with meltdown-proof reactor designs.
I DON'T buy that FUSION power is 100 years away let alone 15. There is just too much material science required to deal with the intense heat of a nuclear fusion. OTOH, I can see SMALL MODULE FISSION REACTORS powering those huge ships.
__________________
“ A wise man proportions his belief to the evidence. ”
― David Hume
acbytesla is offline   Quote this post in a PM   Nominate this post for this month's language award Copy a direct link to this post Reply With Quote Back to Top
Old Yesterday, 08:08 AM   #1062
The Great Zaganza
Maledictorian
 
The Great Zaganza's Avatar
 
Join Date: Aug 2016
Posts: 7,002
Originally Posted by acbytesla View Post
I DON'T buy that FUSION power is 100 years away let alone 15. There is just too much material science required to deal with the intense heat of a nuclear fusion. OTOH, I can see SMALL MODULE FISSION REACTORS powering those huge ships.
I, too, will believe in Fusion Power when I see it.
__________________
Opinion is divided on the subject. All the others say it is; I say it isn’t.
The Great Zaganza is offline   Quote this post in a PM   Nominate this post for this month's language award Copy a direct link to this post Reply With Quote Back to Top
Old Yesterday, 08:16 AM   #1063
Zambo
Thinker
 
Join Date: Nov 2017
Posts: 175
Originally Posted by Eddie Dane View Post
I know, but coal is INSANELY dirty, that's the one I'd like to see disappear in my lifetime.
Coal and gasoline/diesel.
Zambo is offline   Quote this post in a PM   Nominate this post for this month's language award Copy a direct link to this post Reply With Quote Back to Top
Old Yesterday, 08:19 AM   #1064
Belz...
Fiend God
 
Belz...'s Avatar
 
Join Date: Oct 2005
Location: In the details
Posts: 79,467
Originally Posted by theprestige View Post
Better than wood.

There's a time and a place for everything. Coal empowered the industrial revolution, which generated unprecedented amounts of surplus wealth, which in turn was invested in the foundations of just about every good thing civilization has produced in the past few hundred years. Without the quantum leap forward in productivity we got from coal, we wouldn't be in a position to talk about alternatives like solar and wind and nuclear. We wouldn't have global trade. We wouldn't have national power grids. We wouldn't have large-scale agriculture producing enough food to feed the entire world. We probably wouldn't have the vast medical establishment that underpins all our health care - even the crappy healthcare systems.

Coal may be worse than nuclear, but it's a damn sight better than wood, and wood was the only other option when coal came on the scene. I think that on balance, coal has been a great boon to humanity. Pollution and all.

Now, if you were to tell me, let's cut pollution without cutting productivity, by shifting from coal to nuclear, I'd support you 100%. But if you were to tell me, let's get rid of coal because coal is evil... Well.
That was 250 years ago. I think coal's had its time.
__________________
Master of the Shining Darkness

"My views are nonsense. So what?" - BobTheCoward


Belz... is offline   Quote this post in a PM   Nominate this post for this month's language award Copy a direct link to this post Reply With Quote Back to Top
Old Yesterday, 08:20 AM   #1065
JoeMorgue
Self Employed
Remittance Man
 
JoeMorgue's Avatar
 
Join Date: Nov 2009
Location: Florida
Posts: 16,509
I think we're well past the time for replacing coal and gasoline as largescale parts of the energy infrastructure. To what degree and for how long they (especially gasoline) will exist as niche products is another question.
__________________
- "Ernest Hemingway once wrote that the world is a fine place and worth fighting for. I agree with the second part." - Detective Sommerset
- "Stupidity does not cancel out stupidity to yield genius. It breeds like a bucket-full of coked out hamsters." - The Oatmeal
- "To the best of my knowledge the only thing philosophy has ever proven is that Descartes could think." - SMBC
JoeMorgue is offline   Quote this post in a PM   Nominate this post for this month's language award Copy a direct link to this post Reply With Quote Back to Top
Old Yesterday, 08:20 AM   #1066
Belz...
Fiend God
 
Belz...'s Avatar
 
Join Date: Oct 2005
Location: In the details
Posts: 79,467
Originally Posted by acbytesla View Post
I DON'T buy that FUSION power is 100 years away let alone 15. There is just too much material science required to deal with the intense heat of a nuclear fusion. OTOH, I can see SMALL MODULE FISSION REACTORS powering those huge ships.
I don't think it's 15 but I don't think it's quite as far as 100 either.
__________________
Master of the Shining Darkness

"My views are nonsense. So what?" - BobTheCoward


Belz... is offline   Quote this post in a PM   Nominate this post for this month's language award Copy a direct link to this post Reply With Quote Back to Top
Old Yesterday, 08:27 AM   #1067
JoeMorgue
Self Employed
Remittance Man
 
JoeMorgue's Avatar
 
Join Date: Nov 2009
Location: Florida
Posts: 16,509
Ironically I think we will get sustainable fission, but it will come after a broader energy revolution and will kind of only exist as a novelty / limited use tech.
__________________
- "Ernest Hemingway once wrote that the world is a fine place and worth fighting for. I agree with the second part." - Detective Sommerset
- "Stupidity does not cancel out stupidity to yield genius. It breeds like a bucket-full of coked out hamsters." - The Oatmeal
- "To the best of my knowledge the only thing philosophy has ever proven is that Descartes could think." - SMBC
JoeMorgue is offline   Quote this post in a PM   Nominate this post for this month's language award Copy a direct link to this post Reply With Quote Back to Top
Old Yesterday, 08:29 AM   #1068
acbytesla
Penultimate Amazing
 
acbytesla's Avatar
 
Join Date: Dec 2012
Posts: 20,722
Originally Posted by The Great Zaganza View Post
I, too, will believe in Fusion Power when I see it.
I'm amazed at how much government money worldwide has been invested in fusion and the super-collider. While I wouldn't call it a waste, it seems foolish given the present state of technology. It sort of mirrors how I feel about most space exploration today. It's really cool but that money should be invested in material sciences and solving the energy problem and only after that issue is more resolved

First things first.
__________________
“ A wise man proportions his belief to the evidence. ”
― David Hume
acbytesla is offline   Quote this post in a PM   Nominate this post for this month's language award Copy a direct link to this post Reply With Quote Back to Top
Old Yesterday, 08:32 AM   #1069
JoeMorgue
Self Employed
Remittance Man
 
JoeMorgue's Avatar
 
Join Date: Nov 2009
Location: Florida
Posts: 16,509
The problem with "First things first" is the "first" things are never going to go away.

The "But we have problems to solve, let's shelf inventing the cool new stuff" card can always be played, no matter how close to Utopia we ever get.

I get this puts me in the minority but advancing general knowledge through things like exploration, R&D, should be prioritized because, in my opinion, it's going to give us a much better return on investment (and not just in the literal monetary sense) in the mid to long term.
__________________
- "Ernest Hemingway once wrote that the world is a fine place and worth fighting for. I agree with the second part." - Detective Sommerset
- "Stupidity does not cancel out stupidity to yield genius. It breeds like a bucket-full of coked out hamsters." - The Oatmeal
- "To the best of my knowledge the only thing philosophy has ever proven is that Descartes could think." - SMBC
JoeMorgue is offline   Quote this post in a PM   Nominate this post for this month's language award Copy a direct link to this post Reply With Quote Back to Top
Old Yesterday, 08:33 AM   #1070
acbytesla
Penultimate Amazing
 
acbytesla's Avatar
 
Join Date: Dec 2012
Posts: 20,722
Originally Posted by Belz... View Post
I don't think it's 15 but I don't think it's quite as far as 100 either.
The ongoing joke about fusion since 1950 is that it is always 30 years away.
__________________
“ A wise man proportions his belief to the evidence. ”
― David Hume
acbytesla is offline   Quote this post in a PM   Nominate this post for this month's language award Copy a direct link to this post Reply With Quote Back to Top
Old Yesterday, 08:34 AM   #1071
The Great Zaganza
Maledictorian
 
The Great Zaganza's Avatar
 
Join Date: Aug 2016
Posts: 7,002
Originally Posted by acbytesla View Post
I'm amazed at how much government money worldwide has been invested in fusion and the super-collider. While I wouldn't call it a waste, it seems foolish given the present state of technology. It sort of mirrors how I feel about most space exploration today. It's really cool but that money should be invested in material sciences and solving the energy problem and only after that issue is more resolved

First things first.
same argument has been made about the moon landing.
I see the quest for Fusion Power or the ultimate collider as the means to put money into basic research. Even if it comes get you there, along the way we will have discovered some new things.
__________________
Opinion is divided on the subject. All the others say it is; I say it isn’t.
The Great Zaganza is offline   Quote this post in a PM   Nominate this post for this month's language award Copy a direct link to this post Reply With Quote Back to Top
Old Yesterday, 08:48 AM   #1072
acbytesla
Penultimate Amazing
 
acbytesla's Avatar
 
Join Date: Dec 2012
Posts: 20,722
Originally Posted by JoeMorgue View Post
The problem with "First things first" is the "first" things are never going to go away.

The "But we have problems to solve, let's shelf inventing the cool new stuff" card can always be played, no matter how close to Utopia we ever get.

I get this puts me in the minority but advancing general knowledge through things like exploration, R&D, should be prioritized because, in my opinion, it's going to give us a much better return on investment (and not just in the literal monetary sense) in the mid to long term.
I don't want to be anti-big research science experiments. I think they are important. But IMV, solving the energy and global warming problem should be like winning WWII. Nothing is a priority over that. We need to be single-minded. Like General Groves said to a bunch of physicists in New Mexico. "We need to come down out of the clouds and get in the business of winning the war"
__________________
“ A wise man proportions his belief to the evidence. ”
― David Hume
acbytesla is offline   Quote this post in a PM   Nominate this post for this month's language award Copy a direct link to this post Reply With Quote Back to Top
Old Yesterday, 08:51 AM   #1073
theprestige
Penultimate Amazing
 
Join Date: Aug 2007
Posts: 32,493
Originally Posted by acbytesla View Post
The ongoing joke about fusion since 1950 is that it is always 30 years away.
I'm with Orwell. Once something becomes a cliche, that's your signal to discard it, reexamine the subject, and come up with new things to say about it.
theprestige is offline   Quote this post in a PM   Nominate this post for this month's language award Copy a direct link to this post Reply With Quote Back to Top
Old Yesterday, 09:14 AM   #1074
acbytesla
Penultimate Amazing
 
acbytesla's Avatar
 
Join Date: Dec 2012
Posts: 20,722
Originally Posted by theprestige View Post
I'm with Orwell. Once something becomes a cliche, that's your signal to discard it, reexamine the subject, and come up with new things to say about it.
I've been studying energy development since high school when the debate resolution for the year was "The development and allocation of energy should be controlled by an International organization. That was the mid 1970s. Fusion is the holy grail of energy. It is a sun on Earth. Wouldn't it be wonderful? Harnessing that much power would be wild. But no one has ever had a dam clue how you contain a million degrees of heat for any period of time. Seems to me, huge breakthroughs in materials sciences would be required first.
__________________
“ A wise man proportions his belief to the evidence. ”
― David Hume
acbytesla is offline   Quote this post in a PM   Nominate this post for this month's language award Copy a direct link to this post Reply With Quote Back to Top
Old Yesterday, 09:18 AM   #1075
Belz...
Fiend God
 
Belz...'s Avatar
 
Join Date: Oct 2005
Location: In the details
Posts: 79,467
Originally Posted by acbytesla View Post
I've been studying energy development since high school when the debate resolution for the year was "The development and allocation of energy should be controlled by an International organization. That was the mid 1970s. Fusion is the holy grail of energy. It is a sun on Earth. Wouldn't it be wonderful? Harnessing that much power would be wild. But no one has ever had a dam clue how you contain a million degrees of heat for any period of time. Seems to me, huge breakthroughs in materials sciences would be required first.
Well the really really hot stuff is a good distance from the reactor walls, though.
__________________
Master of the Shining Darkness

"My views are nonsense. So what?" - BobTheCoward


Belz... is offline   Quote this post in a PM   Nominate this post for this month's language award Copy a direct link to this post Reply With Quote Back to Top
Old Yesterday, 09:18 AM   #1076
JoeMorgue
Self Employed
Remittance Man
 
JoeMorgue's Avatar
 
Join Date: Nov 2009
Location: Florida
Posts: 16,509
Originally Posted by acbytesla View Post
I've been studying energy development since high school when the debate resolution for the year was "The development and allocation of energy should be controlled by an International organization. That was the mid 1970s. Fusion is the holy grail of energy. It is a sun on Earth. Wouldn't it be wonderful? Harnessing that much power would be wild. But no one has ever had a dam clue how you contain a million degrees of heat for any period of time. Seems to me, huge breakthroughs in materials sciences would be required first.
That's why I'm of the opinion that on a long enough time scale we'll probably get there, by the time we do it's nearly inevitable that another form of energy will already have established itself as the backbone of our energy infrastructure.

It's like a.... horse buggy made of carbon fiber. There's no reason it wouldn't work, no reason you couldn't make one, and it would be a better horse buggy but the time you reach the point where you can make a carbon fiber horse buggy... you're no longer using horse buggies.
__________________
- "Ernest Hemingway once wrote that the world is a fine place and worth fighting for. I agree with the second part." - Detective Sommerset
- "Stupidity does not cancel out stupidity to yield genius. It breeds like a bucket-full of coked out hamsters." - The Oatmeal
- "To the best of my knowledge the only thing philosophy has ever proven is that Descartes could think." - SMBC
JoeMorgue is offline   Quote this post in a PM   Nominate this post for this month's language award Copy a direct link to this post Reply With Quote Back to Top
Old Yesterday, 11:24 AM   #1077
quadraginta
Becoming Beth
 
quadraginta's Avatar
 
Join Date: May 2009
Location: Central Vale of Humility
Posts: 23,041
Originally Posted by Belz... View Post
That was 250 years ago. I think coal's had its time.

I wonder where we would be if the money spent over the last hundred years (or even the last fifty) to maximise and protect the coal industry's profit margins had been spent on researching and developing more sustainable substitutes.

Not to mention oil and gas.
__________________
"A great deal of intelligence can be invested in ignorance when the need for illusion is deep."
quadraginta is offline   Quote this post in a PM   Nominate this post for this month's language award Copy a direct link to this post Reply With Quote Back to Top
Old Yesterday, 11:32 AM   #1078
JoeMorgue
Self Employed
Remittance Man
 
JoeMorgue's Avatar
 
Join Date: Nov 2009
Location: Florida
Posts: 16,509
Because it's not about coal in the literal sense. It's about coal's symbolic representation of the entire "blue collar industry." We have to pretend that it's noble that a guy in West Virginia or Pennsylvania can go die in a hole like his daddy and his daddy before that even though now the entire coal industry employees fewer people then Arbys and even at its heyday it peaked at only 863,000 job which only like... Kroger and Taco Bell combined employees now or else we're pissing on the working man.
__________________
- "Ernest Hemingway once wrote that the world is a fine place and worth fighting for. I agree with the second part." - Detective Sommerset
- "Stupidity does not cancel out stupidity to yield genius. It breeds like a bucket-full of coked out hamsters." - The Oatmeal
- "To the best of my knowledge the only thing philosophy has ever proven is that Descartes could think." - SMBC

Last edited by JoeMorgue; Yesterday at 11:37 AM.
JoeMorgue is offline   Quote this post in a PM   Nominate this post for this month's language award Copy a direct link to this post Reply With Quote Back to Top
Old Yesterday, 11:57 AM   #1079
quadraginta
Becoming Beth
 
quadraginta's Avatar
 
Join Date: May 2009
Location: Central Vale of Humility
Posts: 23,041
Originally Posted by JoeMorgue View Post
Because it's not about coal in the literal sense. It's about coal's symbolic representation of the entire "blue collar industry." We have to pretend that it's noble that a guy in West Virginia or Pennsylvania can go die in a hole like his daddy and his daddy before that even though now the entire coal industry employees fewer people then Arbys and even at its heyday it peaked at only 863,000 job which only like... Kroger and Taco Bell combined employees now or else we're pissing on the working man.

I grew up in West Virginia. I can state confidently that the coal industry has never been a friend to the state or its blue collar workforce. It raped and poisoned (is raping and poisoning) the land and treated (treats) the employees like chattel, or worse.
__________________
"A great deal of intelligence can be invested in ignorance when the need for illusion is deep."
quadraginta is offline   Quote this post in a PM   Nominate this post for this month's language award Copy a direct link to this post Reply With Quote Back to Top
Old Yesterday, 12:00 PM   #1080
theprestige
Penultimate Amazing
 
Join Date: Aug 2007
Posts: 32,493
Originally Posted by quadraginta View Post
I wonder where we would be if the money spent over the last hundred years (or even the last fifty) to maximise and protect the coal industry's profit margins had been spent on researching and developing more sustainable substitutes.



Not to mention oil and gas.
Like coal, oil and gas have done the world a lot of good.
theprestige is offline   Quote this post in a PM   Nominate this post for this month's language award Copy a direct link to this post Reply With Quote Back to Top
Reply

International Skeptics Forum » General Topics » USA Politics

Bookmarks

Thread Tools

Posting Rules
You may not post new threads
You may not post replies
You may not post attachments
You may not edit your posts

BB code is On
Smilies are On
[IMG] code is On
HTML code is Off
Forum Jump


All times are GMT -7. The time now is 01:59 AM.
Powered by vBulletin. Copyright ©2000 - 2019, Jelsoft Enterprises Ltd.

This forum began as part of the James Randi Education Foundation (JREF). However, the forum now exists as
an independent entity with no affiliation with or endorsement by the JREF, including the section in reference to "JREF" topics.

Disclaimer: Messages posted in the Forum are solely the opinion of their authors.