NationStates Jolt Archive

Yesterday i made my Nuclear Fusion Development proposal for the second time becuase there was not enought time to approve it, now i whant some people to a approve it, it ends friday, this proposal will create cheapier electricity with no pollution at all, so can people approve it, here is the proposal:

Nuclear Fusion Development
A resolution to increase the quality of the world's environment, at the expense of industry.

Category: Environmental
Industry Affected: Uranium Mining
Proposed by: Polioa (http://www.nationstates.net/cgi-bin/index.cgi/26643/page=display_nation/nation=polioa)

Description: This is the United States of Polioa's second attempt at this, the first attempt failed becuase there was not enought time to approve it

This Proposal is to begin to develop and perfect the form of energy known as Nuclear Fusion, with the help of UN members we can develop this form of power prodcution, here are my 6 points.

1. Cheap Fuel
2. No Waste
3. No Pollution
4. No Risc of Meltdown
5. Almost Limitless Energy
6. Lower Prices for Helium

Nuclear Fusion is not economicly feasible yet becuase there is little net energy gain, and we can not master the proccess, but through the combined efforts of Nations we can perfect this technology and make it possible so we can we can have enourmus energy for a low cost fuel and envirometaly

Approvals: 8 (Polioa, LeFleur, Keilbasa, Pharan, Funkdunk, Gaiah, Juna Esperantisto, Fudgeburketania)

Status: Lacking Support (requires 142 more approvals)

Voting Ends: Fri Jun 3 2005

Click Here (http://www.nationstates.net/cgi-bin/index.cgi/26643/page=UN_proposal/proposal=49/vote=for/start=45) to Approve

Actually, fusion reactors due have a waste, which can be a pollutant. And, like all nuclear reactors, they can melt down if mistreated. In fact, all nuclear meltdowns to date could have been prevented with the proper maintenance and care.

Really, why is this necessary? Some of us already have nuclear fusion, some of us don't, and some of us simply don't want it.

Actualy there is no Risk of a meltdown becuase the process can be halted quickly if it gets out of control, the only thing that it produces is He-3 (helium) and one neutron

and it is necessary becuase the fuel is cheapier, there is no radioactive waste, there is no chance for a meltdown, and becuase it produces enourmous power, it is the same process that powers the Sun and Stars.

Greetings.

We cannot approve and urge fellow members of this assembly to note the following.

1. A nuclear fusion industry consumes rare earths and other minerals which in their production also produce waste. Our adventure with steel is a case in point. No amount of free energy short of cornucopia technology compensates for waste gas emission on the route to the fusion-capable state.

2. A nuclear fusion industry requires massive initial investment which not all states can support. Those who are able to support it would then have a monopoly on energy supply should economies of scale dominate.

3. It is clear to us that high energy consumption is the child of high energy production. Even in an open universe, this is a problem as local hyperentropic situations develop.

4. It is therefore our contention that superior energy production cannot be treated as a necessary good. It is merely a means of allowing persons to do more with more. This being the case, it should not be proposed as an end unto itself - as it is here.

5. We suggest that if stellar-level energy processes are requested or required, those who wish should look at their fellow members of this august assembly who have already implemented singularity plants, zero point energy sources and suchlike.

We of Roathin wish to have no part of this potential fusion-energy debacle. Should we wish the stars, best we aim higher than fusion. Should we wish not, we can still be content.

While we agree that the development of nuclear fusion is a worthwhile cause, we cannot support this proposal. Approving it would not suddenly bring about its discovery, and this proposal does not provide any means of implementing the international cooperation it desires.

Effectively, all this proposal says is "nuclear fusion is good, we should have it". It does not propose any ways to achieve this, and that is what a proposal should do.

Try redrafting it to include this.

Actualy there is no Risk of a meltdown becuase the process can be halted quickly if it gets out of control, the only thing that it produces is He-3 (helium) and one neutron

Go back and look at my post and notice what I said about what can prevent a meltdown. Now, assume people are stupid and try your idea again.

and it is necessary becuase the fuel is cheapier, there is no radioactive waste, there is no chance for a meltdown, and becuase it produces enourmous power, it is the same process that powers the Sun and Stars.

Uh, wrong. The materials produced by nuclear fusion are, themselves, highly radioactive. That's why you don't here of people using nuclear reactors to make gold. And as the radioactivity progresses, the materials undergo fission multiple times before eventually stabilizing, at which point they are likely a much different material than they started out as. Note that the Sun uses massive gravity to achieve its fusion, as do all stars, and such gravity cannot be replicated on Earth without the destruction of the planet. That's part of why I tend to keep my larger ships away from Earth.

the only thing that it produces is He-3 (helium) and one neutron

I seem to remember reading something about it not being practical to contain all of the high-energy neutrons emitted from a fusion reaction, so that there would be quite a lot of radiation coming out of the power plant.

Plus I found this in Wikipedia, indicating that there is a potential pollution danger if everyone starts using fusion power - which is what you appear to be encouraging:

Effluents during normal operation
The natural product of the fusion reaction is a small amount of helium, which is completely harmless to life and does not contribute to global warming. Of more concern is tritium, which, like other isotopes of hydrogen, is difficult to retain completely. During normal operation, some amount of tritium will be continually released. There would be no acute danger, but the cumulative effect on the world's population from a fusion economy could be a matter of concern. The 12 year half-life of tritium would at least prevent unlimited build-up and long-term contamination.

Also, isn't there an inherent danger in maintaining a plasma at very high temperatures and pressures? What if the container failed after a few years of holding out against such conditions?

Finally, these things would probably use deuterium, which is generally obtained from water. I know that we don't exactly have a shortage of the stuff (on Earth, at least), but if we rely long term on turning our water into helium might this not have unforeseen impacts on various things, including climate (which would be ironic, given that nuclear fusion is often touted as a replacement for global warming-causing power sources)?

Whilst it does offer potential and I have nothing against continuing research, nuclear fusion is not a perfect solution to our problems. I'd prefer something encouraging research into all alternative energy sources.

Actualy there is no Risk of a meltdown becuase the process can be halted quickly if it gets out of control, the only thing that it produces is He-3 (helium) and one neutron

and it is necessary becuase the fuel is cheapier, there is no radioactive waste, there is no chance for a meltdown, and becuase it produces enourmous power, it is the same process that powers the Sun and Stars.

how exactly do you halt the process that powers the stars quickly and safely? how do you contain the fusion process without replictaing the massive gravity of the sun on the surface of earth?

The Republic of Xentroliat cannot support this proposal, as several key industries in our country depend on the mining of uranium. We would also like to encourage the use of Nuclear fission as a safe and powerful alternative energy source. With the advent of Deep Core Waste Dumps, harmful pollutants can be safely disposed of deep in the earth's mantle, way way below the water table, meaning it will not affect the environment.

And we must oppose Deep Core dumping, as it poses a security risk for us. Our capital city happens to be miles underground, after all. We would move it, but we're not the ones who built it and the city itself it too big to move.