NationStates Jolt Archive

Some questions to get you started:

How long do you think we have to act, before it is irreversible?

Joseph Romm, the executive director for the Center for Energy and Climate Solutions, has said we must build 700 large nuclear plants to stave off climate change. Where do you stand on the need for nuclear energy?

Do you think the earth is significantly overpopulated and that it is a major contributor to climate change? If yes, what do you think is a sustainable population for the planet? (i.e., how many millions need to be killed right away, and how many sterilized immediately).

I'm going to ignore your hysteria and go for my actual answer-

Microgrids. Still got some looking to do, but so far that's the thing I like the most. Along with consolidating traffic and new fuels, thats my current favorite.

Depends on which country you're in. All have different energy 'structures' and needs which would have to be coped with differently. I don't have a problem with our government going with nuclear power, though, so long as it is cost-effective. I'd rather replace all those coal and gas fored power stations with wind farms before I go for the relatively safe Nuclear sources.

It's one of the few things UK government could get right.:eek:

I'm going to ignore your hysteria and go for my actual answer-

Microgrids. Still got some looking to do, but so far that's the thing I like the most. Along with consolidating traffic and new fuels, thats my current favorite.

What new fuels?

i doubt it's fixable. best we can do is mitigate the effects.

Depends on which country you're in. All have different energy 'structures' and needs which would have to be coped with differently. I don't have a problem with our government going with nuclear power, though, so long as it is cost-effective. I'd rather replace all those coal and gas fored power stations with wind farms before I go for the relatively safe Nuclear sources.

It's one of the few things UK government could get right.:eek:

Plausible. How about the overpopulation question?

What new fuels?

Take your pick, what am I, Kresgin? They're all being researched still, I could pick a winner but I could do that for the Kentucky Derby, too. I'm not doing the research science, so why should my 'prediction' about which one is going to work really matter that much?

Some questions to get you started:

How long do you think we have to act, before it is irreversible?

Joseph Romm, the executive director for the Center for Energy and Climate Solutions, has said we must build 700 large nuclear plants to stave off climate change. Where do you stand on the need for nuclear energy?

Do you think the earth is significantly overpopulated and that it is a major contributor to climate change? If yes, what do you think is a sustainable population for the planet? (i.e., how many millions need to be killed right away, and how many sterilized immediately).

don't think overpopulation is the problem. the problem is the dependancy on fossil fuels.

with internet and other Telecommunication means being available, I can see more people working from home, with improvements to mass transit, perhaps more people should use them. and with a growing Obesity problem in America, people need to walk more often.

so I gave up my car, and now use mass transit. and now I'm loosing weight as well. :p

Take your pick, what am I, Kresgin? They're all being researched still, I could pick a winner but I could do that for the Kentucky Derby, too. I'm not doing the research science, so why should my 'prediction' about which one is going to work really matter that much?

One presumes you've read up on what you propose, to some extent at least.

Well, hydrogen isn't really a fuel - it's a method of energy storage, so that energy has to be produced some other way - how would you do that?

Biofuels all emit greenhouse gases. So that's out.

We've already excluded the old types - coal, oil, gas - anything related to petrochemicals.

I wouldn't know, I'm not a scientist.

I wouldn't know, I'm not a scientist.

Opinions please - your gut feelings even.

One presumes you've read up on what you propose, to some extent at least.

Well, hydrogen isn't really a fuel - it's a method of energy storage, so that energy has to be produced some other way - how would you do that?

Biofuels all emit greenhouse gases. So that's out.

We've already excluded the old types - coal, oil, gas - anything related to petrochemicals.
Biofuels emit CO2, but that's reabsorbed when growing them again.

Biofuels emit CO2, but that's reabsorbed when growing them again.

In the meantime, it's in the air.

The overall goal is to reduce the carbon in the air (which is already "too high").

Just breaking even won't cut it.

One presumes you've read up on what you propose, to some extent at least.

Well, hydrogen isn't really a fuel - it's a method of energy storage, so that energy has to be produced some other way - how would you do that?

Biofuels all emit greenhouse gases. So that's out.

We've already excluded the old types - coal, oil, gas - anything related to petrochemicals.
Yes, I have read up on them. And the research is being done. Reading an article about it doesn't magically endow me with the ability to know if they'll be realized. It does, however, show me that you know remarkably little about what has already been determined.

Plausible. How about the overpopulation question?
It's quite possible. As countries develop they generally undergo a population decline and age, like Germany and Japan, and many others may be similar if it wasn't for inward migration. As more countries develop I think population increase will slow down anyway and even start to reverse of it's own accord. Whether this is related to overpopulation - humans instinctively breeding less when local (and when I say that, I mean it on many levels, from cities to countries) population density is high, I don't know.

Yes, I have read up on them. And the research is being done. Reading an article about it doesn't magically endow me with the ability to know if they'll be realized. It does, however, show me that you know remarkably little about what has already been determined.

I'm sure you have an opinion, which you are loathe to express, because you think this is an ambush thread. Which it is not.

I may know more than you expect.

In the meantime, it's in the air.

The overall goal is to reduce the carbon in the air (which is already "too high").

Just breaking even won't cut it.

You seriously don't understand the situation.

But, since I'm not prepared to assume you're that stupid, I'm going to have to assume that you're just being willfully so and not waste my time with it anymore.

ignoring dk's retardation:

some effects of it are already irreversible, and we need to start acting about 100 years ago.

even if we all went carbon neutral tomorrow, the climate would warm in the coming decades - what we really need is carbon capture, we have to go negative and we have to do so now.

the earth is overpopulated, but that is more of a problem for habitat loss and the mass extinction event generally. luckily it turns out that increasing education and rights for women, which are good things in themselves and currently spreading across the world, also have the effect of leading to population declines. and even being overpopulated, it is possible for us to avoid the worst of our wrongs merely by adjusting our lifestyles.

the earth is overpopulated, but that is more of a problem for habitat loss and the mass extinction event generally. luckily it turns out that increasing education and rights for women, which are good things in themselves and currently spreading across the world, also have the effect of leading to population declines. and even being overpopulated, it is possible for us to avoid the worst of our wrongs merely by adjusting our lifestyles.


If we're supposed to go neutral (or negative), and you say the window started 100 years ago, will we be able to reduce the world's population fast enough simply by adjusting our lifestyles?

Actually, I'm going to go for something longer: I've broken it down into four areas: transport, domestic, eletricity and industry.

Transport: We in the UK have a well developed public transport infrastucture, but it won't be enough to deal with everybody who drives as well. We could probably do well to look into biofuels, perhaps starting with a 5% Ethanol/Butanol mandate and increasing it in the future. We could also look at offshore production of Ethanol using GM seaweed, which would give us a large area (for the UK) to grow fuel. Electrifying our remaining diesel railways could be of benefit too, but I don't know how much.

Domestic: Passivhouses to save on energy costs. Switching back to coal gas and reopening our mines would reduce our dependence on foreign gas (Russia), which I'd support, but wouldn't do much to reduce consumption. Most consumer goods are costing less to run anyway, so I think that's less of a problem.

Electricity: Nuclear, plus other renewable sources built locally and using more local grid networks. Offshore wind and wave also looks quite hopeful in the UK, as well as todal barrages on the Mersey, Dee and Severn especially.

Industry: I'm about to have dinner, so I'll just say Carbon-trading.

Energy wise, we sould go with nuclear power plants. I wish that we would have followed the European model, and have a couple of different models, instead of so many different ones. That way, we could more accurately predict how much power can be produced, same safety standards, etc.

If we increase the nuclear plants, we could drastically cut back in the amount of fuels and coal that is now being used.

As for the population growth, I don't see where it can stop. Look at North Korea, and how they are starving, but that is because of their internal politics. If we look at the countries that are having starvation issues, their leadership and military is not going hungry.

Vic

How long do you think we have to act, before it is irreversible?

Who knows? We should act now, since the only thing we can be sure of is that dawdling won't fix anything.

Joseph Romm, the executive director for the Center for Energy and Climate Solutions, has said we must build 700 large nuclear plants to stave off climate change. Where do you stand on the need for nuclear energy?

Better than fossil fuels.

But not exactly a perfect solution. With the exception of breeder reactors, which are still really in the development stage and yet to really be used on a commercial scale, nuclear power is an unsustainable resource, and of course, isn't without risks - while they are minuscule individually, with several hundred power stations in operation, the likelihood of an accident rises exponentially. And the results of such an accident can be quite nasty.

And, of course, it's not really feasible to run our cars on nuclear power, and it's only an option for technically advanced nations that can support a nuclear industry. It won't replace fossil fuels.

But maybe as a stopgap.

Do you think the earth is significantly overpopulated and that it is a major contributor to climate change? If yes, what do you think is a sustainable population for the planet? (i.e., how many millions need to be killed right away, and how many sterilized immediately).

lol.

No, I think if we switch to sustainable energy sources and continue to improve crop yields per hectare, we can support a larger population for a while yet - there will, of course, be negative effects, but humanity will survive.

But that's going to require a massive initiative on behalf of the west to reduce the reliance of their own nations as well as those of the developing world on fossil fuels. Of course, we also want to slow down population growth as much as possible. Realistically, I don't think either of those are going to happen.


the earth is overpopulated, but that is more of a problem for habitat loss and the mass extinction event generally. luckily it turns out that increasing education and rights for women, which are good things in themselves and currently spreading across the world, also have the effect of leading to population declines. and even being overpopulated, it is possible for us to avoid the worst of our wrongs merely by adjusting our lifestyles.

That's correct.

Short, medium and long term actions.

Short term, quick imposed curbs on pollution out put. Engergy effciency to reduce polluting electricy production.

Medium term. Geothermal energy is those coutries where it is possible. (which is a lot more than you would think) More cleaner energy production in the west, encourage a shift from energy produce by oil/gas to that by electricy I.E. central heating. Build cities up so they are smaller so we are less depdent on cars and more on electrical public transport.

Long term, air drop the world with condom and books entitled "how to have children in a planned way" get the worlds birth rate right down. Halt population growth and reduce the population to around the 4 billion mark.

Who knows? We should act now, since the only thing we can be sure of is that dawdling won't fix anything.

A much better answer than "ten years".

Well, I think that you should go directly towards the problem and ELIMINATE IT!

If we're supposed to go neutral (or negative), and you say the window started 100 years ago, will we be able to reduce the world's population fast enough simply by adjusting our lifestyles?

well, going into negative carbon emissions is just a matter of implementing large scale capture measures on top of reducing our output - some combination of increased plant growth (to get it into the carbon cycle and out of the air) and straight up burying the stuff again in some form. large populations trying to live like we do makes it a bigger project, but not an impossible one. we just have to get serious about it.

How long do you think we have to act, before it is irreversible?
No idea. Try searching for climatology or something.

Where do you stand on the need for nuclear energy?
I think that nuclear energy is a good idea. People just have an irrational fear of it. It's no more dangerous than many things that people take for granted, like crossing a busy road.

how many millions need to be killed right away, and how many sterilized immediately
Don't troll.

Biofuels all emit greenhouse gases. So that's out.

Do they emit more than they consumed whilst being grown? Because, if not, that's not a problem; they don't increase the total amount of those gasses in the atmosphere in the long term. Fossil fuels do; their carbon etc. has been trapped underground for millions of years, out of the atmosphere, and is now being released.
If they do release more than they consume, it's a problem.

Personally, in the short term, nuclear fission is (IMHO) the solution. Yeah, it's got problems, but what hasn't?
In the long term - and this is something that's starting to happen in the UK, I don't know about elsewhere - hopefully more and more buildings will be built with their own renewable electricity sources built in (solar panels and wind turbines on the roof for instance), and existing buildings, if it's economical, will be upgraded by their owners (/me prods government: Oi, subsidise!). I doubt this would make enough electricity to completely replace central power plants, even with surplus sold back to the grid, but it could reduce their use considerably. It also spreads around the relatively bulky and weather-dependent renewable sources, with various obvious benefits.

As for the human population size, it will of course contribute; more people = more cars, more power use, etc. It would be better if the population were lower, I think, but I don't know how much lower would be ideal. Five billion, maybe? Four? I don't seriously think that going out and killing millions of people is a good way to achieve this, but a global limitation of the number of children per couple (to one, probably, for the time being) and a goodly dose of mandatory sterilisation would be a good idea, I think. I leave the actual details for people who do Maths and have population models to work out.
Would I complain if I were one of the mandatory sterilisations? Nope, so long as it's done in a manner that's unlikely to harm the patient or have significant side effects (the common-or-garden vasectomy, for instance). If they wanted children, I imagine there will still be plenty available for adoption.

I would ignore it.

Fossil fuels are a finite commodity. On that basis alone their cost basis will rise to the point where they are no longer economically viable, thus forcing a cut back in emissions. This will happen whether you believe in this man made global warming rubbish or not.

Of course, a cynic would point out that all these planned reductions in consumption are little more than an excuse to dribble out the finite life span of extractive industries over a longer period and therefore all they really do is benefit big oil. But I'm sure that escapes most of the most rabid emissions reduction people.

Damn, dude, do you just have a nipple attached to The Drudge Report (http://www.drudgereport.com/flash2.htm)?

I mean...
Joseph Romm, the executive director for the Center for Energy and Climate Solutions, has said we must build 700 large nuclear plants to stave off climate change. Where do you stand on the need for nuclear energy?

Mr. Gore: Do you think the earth is significantly overpopulated and that is a major contributor to your view of climate change. (If yes, what do you think is a sustainable population for the planet?)

...word for word? At least you could have cited the hand up your butt.

If they do release more than they consume, it's a problem.

possibly for physics itself

I don't think there is any one answer. I think most proposals for reducing the amount of carbon is on the right track. Some won't work. Some need to be tweaked. But I don't think that there is one solution. I think all proposals should be studied and as many as possible should be implemented.

Let's nuke global warming.

Some questions to get you started:

How long do you think we have to act, before it is irreversible?

Joseph Romm, the executive director for the Center for Energy and Climate Solutions, has said we must build 700 large nuclear plants to stave off climate change. Where do you stand on the need for nuclear energy?

Do you think the earth is significantly overpopulated and that it is a major contributor to climate change? If yes, what do you think is a sustainable population for the planet? (i.e., how many millions need to be killed right away, and how many sterilized immediately).
Some answers to get you startled. ;)

None, it already is irreversible. The question is what can we do not to further it!
We can only slow it down by massively reducing greenhouse gases of all sorts (investments do pay off when compared to the damage increased weather phenomena have),
switching from fossil fuels to renewables (e.g. wind, solar, geothermal), making our energy use more efficient (e.g. forbidding "stand-by" on electrical appliances, installing energy-saving lamps, etc. ),
and stopping wasteful use of fossil ressources as energy source (e.g. better mileage, hybrids, etc.).
Also, one could build CO2-neutral coal powerplants.

http://i6.photobucket.com/albums/y223/GermanNightmare/AtomkraftNeinDanke.jpg
Joseph Romm is an idiot for nuclear power is not CO2 neutral and the supply of Uranium, just like that of fossil fuels, is limited.
Therefore, nuclear power is a dead-end just like fossil fuels. Besides, we still haven't found a safe way to store nuclear waste for the next couple of millenia.

The earth might be overpopulated, but when I look at the obesity figures of the First World in comparison to the rest of the world, it really is more a problem of wrong distribution instead of not having enough food for everyone available.

possibly for physics itself

I thought that was the case, but wasn't certain and didn't want to look (more) stupid ;)

People were moaning on the radio the other week about wasted food rotting in landfills and making greenhouse gasses ><.
Now, there are lots of good reasons for not wanting to waste food, and not wanting to grow food that will be wasted. But because rotting food releases greenhouse gasses? Oh dear.

I think that nuclear energy is a good idea. People just have an irrational fear of it. It's no more dangerous than many things that people take for granted, like crossing a busy road.Busy roads don't radiate for thousands of years and cause all kinds of genetic damages, e.g. cancer, birth defects, sterility. The problem of nuclear energy is not the production, it's the radioactive (and often toxic) waste.

The only way to stop and reverse it would be to immediately force everyone to use public tranist. Preferably pedal-powered trains or buses because Americans are all too fat and only fat Americans pollute. This has the added bonus of making everyone a little more reliant on the government and is a great excuse to raise taxes. But that's not enough, we must go into peoples homes and take away all electrical equipment and even their fireplaces because fire bad. FIRE BAD!

Also, since the world is overpopulated and humans are nothing but a blight on nature I've also come up with a solution to that woe as well. Kill all the first-born sons around the world for the next 10 years. This will help reduce the population and the strain it causes on the environment.

We only have 10 years to act before it's all irreversable. To the trees!

http://i6.photobucket.com/albums/y223/GermanNightmare/AtomkraftNeinDanke.jpg
Joseph Romm is an idiot for nuclear power is not CO2 neutral and the supply of Uranium, just like that of fossil fuels, is limited.
Therefore, nuclear power is a dead-end just like fossil fuels. Besides, we still haven't found a safe way to store nuclear waste for the next couple of millenia.

Not all nuclear power plants produce all the waste of today's nuclear power plants (which were, at least in the UK, built 50 years ago) and some can reuse waste in order to produce more nuclear fuel - killing two birds with one stone.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Integral_fast_reactor

I mean, it's something that would have to be worked on, but I think it's a suitable source of power in the medium term for densely populated countries that don't have the space for endless wind farms. Even as a scarcely used 'top-up' of the national grid when renewables don't pump enough juice, I think it's a useful idea.

Busy roads don't radiate for thousands of years and cause all kinds of genetic damages, e.g. cancer, birth defects, sterility. The problem of nuclear energy is not the production, it's the radioactive (and often toxic) waste.
Which is underground in concrete bunkers. Unless you want to get it out, strip it of its shielding and hug it, it's not really a problem. And as I said previously, modern reactors can use it as fuel.

The only way to stop and reverse it would be to immediately force everyone to use public tranist. Preferably pedal-powered trains or buses because Americans are all too fat and only fat Americans pollute. This has the added bonus of making everyone a little more reliant on the government and is a great excuse to raise taxes. But that's not enough, we must go into peoples homes and take away all electrical equipment and even their fireplaces because fire bad. FIRE BAD!

Also, since the world is overpopulated and humans are nothing but a blight on nature I've also come up with a solution to that woe as well. Kill all the first-born sons around the world for the next 10 years. This will help reduce the population and the strain it causes on the environment.

We only have 10 years to act before it's all irreversable. To the trees!
I've seen better trolls.

Bigger air conditioners. *nods*

Not all nuclear power plants produce all the waste of today's nuclear power plants (which were, at least in the UK, built 50 years ago) and some can reuse waste in order to produce more nuclear fuel - killing two birds with one stone.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Integral_fast_reactor

I mean, it's something that would have to be worked on, but I think it's a suitable source of power in the medium term for densely populated countries that don't have the space for endless wind farms. Even as a scarcely used 'top-up' of the national grid when renewables don't pump enough juice, I think it's a useful idea.
Sounds a lot like the Fast Breeder Reactor, only that you'd use Sodium (Na) as coolant. Highly flammable in contact with air or water. Sounds to me like building a bomb.
And it still doesn't address the problem what to do with the highly radioactive waste that those NPPs would create. Even storing it for "only" 300 years could prove a problem.

Besides, producing nuclear fuel is not CO2-neutral, nor friendly, thus not really doing anything for the greehouse-gas output.

I would have mankind cast aside technology. The horse would again become the fastest means for land travel. People would live as they were meant to, active, free, and in the wild!

I've seen better trolls.

All the inbreeding has made them a weaker race.

Sounds a lot like the Fast Breeder Reactor, only that you'd use Sodium (Na) as coolant. Highly flammable in contact with air or water. Sounds to me like building a bomb.
It's still a common coolant in nuclear power plants (along with liquid Potassium) which don't use water. If it's possible to contain water at high temperatures and pressures as coolant, I have no doubt the same can be done for sodium. In some ways liquid metal reactors are safer, because they don't run at high pressure and lose all coolant at a leak, as PWRs do.

And it still doesn't address the problem what to do with the highly radioactive waste that those NPPs would create. Even storing it for "only" 300 years could prove a problem.
I don't have a problem with sticking it underground and sealing it off, as we do now. 10,000 years is too long for comfort, but 300 seems acceptable to me.

Besides, producing nuclear fuel is not CO2-neutral, nor friendly, thus not really doing anything for the greehouse-gas output.[/QUOTE]
The CO2 emitted from producing nuclear fuel is produced in the mining process, which can be replaced by using biofuels as in transport, or whatever futuristic fuel people want to stick in their cars.

We could cause some volcanic eruptions. That would cool things off a bit. :)

Short term: Conservation, more reliance on mass transit, bio-fuels, renewables, and nuclear.

Long term: Hope ITER pans out. http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/ITER And also put more money into developing and deploying atmospheric CO2 scrubbers and sequestering devices.

As to current population, it's not that big of a deal. Though reducing it over the long term could be beneficial. The best way to do that is to educate and liberate women. Educated, empowered women tend to have fewer children. Educated women are also far more likely to ensure that their children (both male and female) are educated than men are. It starts a positive feedback loop.

Depends on which country you're in. All have different energy 'structures' and needs which would have to be coped with differently. I don't have a problem with our government going with nuclear power, though, so long as it is cost-effective. I'd rather replace all those coal and gas fored power stations with wind farms before I go for the relatively safe Nuclear sources.

It's one of the few things UK government could get right.:eek:

The UK doesnt need to do that much it only contributes to 1% of mans total Co2 emissions. It's gas guzzlers like China and America that need to crack down. Thats if you believe that global warming is real and is not just a conspiricy to make you pay EVEN more tax...

Do you think the earth is significantly overpopulated and that it is a major contributor to climate change? If yes, what do you think is a sustainable population for the planet? (i.e., how many millions need to be killed right away, and how many sterilized immediately).
lol

I'd solve climate change by using Americans as fire logs.

I'd solve climate change by using Americans as fire logs.

Good idea!!:p

Is the Earth overpopulated? Not by a long shot. We could support a lot more people than we currently do; the problem is that the places where population is growing aren't the places where agricultural productivity, technology and economic development are advancing at a rate necessary to accommodate that growth.

So the result is that these populations put a disproportionate strain on local environments and that causes the overpopulation problems seen in parts of the developing world. Carrying capacity is extremely flexible, but there's a huge difference between the capacity of Europe or North America and Africa and Asia due to the technological and economic divide between the two.

And solve GW? I don't know, but I imagine controlling emissions, increasing efficiency standards and reducing our consumption of fossil fuels in favor of cheaper, cleaner and safer alternatives is a step in the right direction.

Long term: Hope ITER pans out. http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/ITER And also put more money into developing and deploying atmospheric CO2 scrubbers and sequestering devices.
Why do I get the feeling that it won't work?

From theFusion Research Consortium (http://www.fusor.net/board/view.php?site=fusor&bn=fusor_historynews&key=1120058165):
Andy has a viable concern based on a newcomers first glance at both the world wide fusion effort being so serious AND expensive, seen against criticism here of the entire fusion biz. Most of the worst of this criticism is mostly my doing in these forums, though I know I have a lot of folks rooting for me on from the sidelines, and, a few openly agreeing with me in replies.

I am an old engineer and engineers either see results off an idea, or, if it ifails, we then we modifiy and redo. If the effort looks like a double failure, the wise engineer moves on to another effort. This is a grizzled and hard-bitten, but realistic approach mostly through having to watch the money trail in such work.

Fusion is a project that has had literally hundreds of iterations of about 6-10 machine types and is now moving into its 6th decade. Each machine has shown some promise to seemingly push us ever so much closer to the goal than the last.

Unfortunately it, intellectually, looks like the old theoretical mathematics tale of.... "with each step, the distance to the goal line is cut in half". The result ,of course, is that you would never reach the goal, regardless of the number of steps.

Being un-intellectual and down right mean spirited, the effort reminds those in the energy biz of the perpetual motion crowd (free energy folks). To them, each machine they build is also a step closer, but alas, the magnet chasing a magent makes the wheel go around for maybe 6 times with a light push but, ultimately, it locks up and stops. The next machine has better bearings and higher energy product magnets and goes around 30 times before locking up....and so on and so on.

Standing off form it all and viewing it coldly, a hard bitten engineer sees little difference between the new energy freaks and the heavily funded Phd's other than education on the one side and a beautiful but misguided spirit on the other.

Using public treasure, we are letting them "take another whack at it".........The question is, like the old TV commercial said,..... How many "whacks" do they need? How many whacks can we afford and, if successful, will the energy payback rival coal or fission or anyother in-place process, economically? Will the fusion reactor be so costly and so marginally productive that it will be an edifice to show how far out on a limb we will go to achieve a pyrrhic victory; winning, effectively, nothing?

Once again, we are forced to sit on the side lines, have others spend our money and see what happens.

It may just be that you have to be a certain age, (read old), and to have seen this whole biz play out over your entire life time. You would have to have heard the battle cry, of a few generations of fusioneers of "real soon now" and "this is it". For me, now, enough is enough. After actually getting into fusion personally, I have a better understanding of what is envolved and it doesn't look good.
Oh Boy! hold on to your hat, yet again! Same old pitch. Same old spin. Brand new machine. .... with the following from the PhysOrg site.............

"A prime example is the Sun, where huge gravitational pressure allows fusion to take place at about 10 million degrees Celsius. At the gravitational pressure we experience on Earth, higher temperatures are required to generate fusion, and to date only tokamak-type reactors are capable of reaching the 100 million-degree-Celsius threshold where energy can be produced. "..........

Yes, we know that only the tokomak-type reactors have ever done real fusion, don't we? How long will we continue to endeavor to heat vaporous plasmas?

More of the same old hooey blow up the skirts of the ever faithful and conveniently refluffed pillows for the casually interested.

I wish I didn't have to say this, but...... let's wait and see.....maybe real soon now.......

In doing this we join billions of others since 1950 who were waiting, but are now passed away. A new cadre of hopefuls queue up at the sidelines of fusion waiting for the promised breakthrough.
And he ain't the only one. Before you go criticizing Dick, he has actually built fusion reactors. A lot of people have and done it for a lot less than ITER.

Why do I get the feeling that it won't work?

I don't think it will be so much that it won't work but rather we just won't need it. I mean, the energy we can currently tap from viable sources is massively cheap and abundant, and by the time that fusion becomes economically viable our society and economy will likely have advanced so far that such sources of power will no longer be necessary.

Why try to replicate the sun (or any star...someday) when we can just let it do the work and capture the energy it produces?

Controlled fusion would be interesting for physics research, but not for power; I could see it playing a similar role as supercolliders or other tools.

Sulphur rockets. :)

http://news.bbc.co.uk/1/hi/programmes/6369971.stm

If yes, what do you think is a sustainable population for the planet? (i.e., how many millions need to be killed right away, and how many sterilized immediately).

Uh... What?

I don't think it will be so much that it won't work, but rather we just won't need it. I mean, the energy we can tap from other sources is massively cheap and abundant, and by the time that fusion becomes economically viable our society and economy will likely have advanced so far that such sources of power will no longer be necessary.
And just what massively cheap and abundant energy sources do you speak of? Contrary to what the 1998 Activision classic BATTLEZONE may have led you to believe geysers are not that abudant, do not provide enough power to run a whole base of hovertank factories, and geothermal power is not sufficent to destroy a planet as it did in the last 2 NSDF missions. Sorry, I just couldn't resist throwing in a random vg reference.

But seriously, wind is out because it's too weak. Same with solar. Hydro is limited by location. Geothermal power is limited by location. Tidal is way too weak. The more you think about it the more you come to the realization that the only thing that's going to meet demand all over for the next 50 years or more is coal and fission.

Off on a tanget, why do you keep saying 'we' for everything as though you're personally involved in it? Is it too much trouble to just say the names of the parties involved or do you want to feel like you belong and leech off the success of others?

And just what massively cheap and abundant energy sources do you speak of? Contrary to what the 1998 Activision classic BATTLEZONE may have led you to believe geysers are not that abudant, do not provide enough power to run a whole base of hovertank factories, and geothermal power is not sufficent to destroy a planet as it did in the last 2 NSDF missions. Sorry, I just couldn't resist throwing in a random vg reference.

There is a lot of geothermal energy; the only downside is that it's presently limited to certain locations and you have to be careful not to draw down the resivoir or hit a fault line.

But seriously, wind is out because it's too weak. Same with solar. Hydro is limited by location. Geothermal power is limited by location. Tidal is way too weak. The more you think about it the more you come to the realization that the only thing that's going to meet demand all over for the next 50 years or more is coal and fission.

Yes, but combined they can produce a huge amount of electricity, far more than we use now. You need load stabilizers in the form of fission or coal to balance them out, but the actual power itself is abundant, cheap, and very useful. Besides, we have massive amounts of coal and uranium and the technology to very efficiently use those fuels; all things equal, we could continue to develop those sources for centuries at high growth in consumption.

There isn't a magic bullet for our energy, and never has been, but there are enough sources out there to more than supply anything we could ever possibly need.

Off on a tanget, why do you keep saying 'we' for everything as though you're personally involved in it? Is it too much trouble to just say the names of the parties involved or do you want to feel like you belong and leech off the success of others?

I plan to go in to VC in the technology industry. So, there's a pretty damn good chance that I'll personally be involved in bringing new energy innovations to market.

Ice Cream. Lot's and lot's of ice cream.




Well, what are you waiting for? The earth ain't coolin' itself ya know! Get to Ben and Jerry's!

Ice Cream. Lot's and lot's of ice cream.

Well, what are you waiting for? The earth ain't coolin' itself ya know! Get to Ben and Jerry's!
And how do you get Ice Cream cold? By removing the heat from it.

Vetalia, I had no idea you wanted into the Viet Cong.

And how do you get Ice Cream cold? By removing the heat from it.

Vetalia, I had no idea you wanted into the Viet Cong.

Shut up!

ICE CREAM!!!


(You're no fun.)

Shut up!

ICE CREAM!!!


(You're no fun.)
I'm an engineer.

I'm an engineer.

Ah! You're the poor bastard who has to put my 'Ice Cream for Global Warming' political platform into reality.

Well too bad. Make it Happen!!

I'd solve climate change by using Americans as fire logs.
Tonight We Dine in Hell! (http://www.encyclopediadramatica.com/index.php/TONIGHT_WE_DINE_IN_HELL)

Vetalia, I had no idea you wanted into the Viet Cong.

The Viet Cong were good at digging tunnels, and tunnels mean geothermal.

We "solve" global warming the way we "solve" all human problems, by forming into two equally-matched teams and having a vindicative head-banging contest until every workable option has either expired or been deliberately sabotaged. Then some smartass solves the problem by accident.