|
Register | Sign In |
|
QuickSearch
Thread ▼ Details |
|
Thread Info
|
|
|
Author | Topic: Fusion Power on the way - at last ? | ||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
NoNukes Inactive Member |
But solar, hydro, and wind don't offer us a substantial amount more energy than we can get from fossil fuels. In one of the articles I linked to, an estimation was given that solar power requires about two times the amount of land area as coal power. That statement does not make the case you are claiming. Particularly if the coal land use includes the coal mine. Wind power can in some cases use zero land area. Solar power on roof tops uses otherwise unusable land area. There is not an infinite amount of land. But that observation alone does not show us that there is not enough.
Can you give me some numbers to demonstrate the potential for solar or wind to replace fossil fuels? Isn't this something I should have expected you to do? You have made unevidenced claims that there is not enough capacity. There are no realistic numbers on how much of our energy can be replaced by fusion because we have no idea of the what it will really cost. Under a government which imprisons any unjustly, the true place for a just man is also in prison. Thoreau: Civil Disobedience (1846) I have never met a man so ignorant that I couldn't learn something from him. Galileo Galilei If there is no struggle, there is no progress. Those who profess to favor freedom, and deprecate agitation, are men who want crops without plowing up the ground, they want rain without thunder and lightning. Frederick Douglass
|
||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
Jon Inactive Member |
There are no realistic numbers on how much of our energy can be replaced by fusion because we have no idea of the what it will really cost. Let's leave fusion out of the discussion for now. I think it would be great to get off fossil fuels. My concern is that we don't have any current technologies that can get us there without significant drawbacks. If you want to show how those technologies can work and be comparable to fossil fuels (minus the greenhouse gases), then I'm ready to be convinced. For now, though, it seems we will be stuck with fossil fuels until a suitable alternative comes along. And I think fusion just might be that suitable alternative.Love your enemies!
|
||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
NoNukes Inactive Member |
Of course it matters why I said it. The discussion about safety had nothing to do with fusion. It doesn't matter. You've made the argument that fusion reactors can go everywhere. Here you say that there are limitations on steam so that steam cannot go eveywhere. Your arguments are inconsistent because a culture that cannot operate a steam plant has no business fiddling the dials on any kind of nuclear reactor. It doesn't matter whether you link the arguments or I linked them. Edited by NoNukes, : No reason given.Under a government which imprisons any unjustly, the true place for a just man is also in prison. Thoreau: Civil Disobedience (1846) I have never met a man so ignorant that I couldn't learn something from him. Galileo Galilei If there is no struggle, there is no progress. Those who profess to favor freedom, and deprecate agitation, are men who want crops without plowing up the ground, they want rain without thunder and lightning. Frederick Douglass
|
||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
NoNukes Inactive Member |
Let's leave fusion out of the discussion for now. Okay.
think it would be great to get off fossil fuels. Me too. But failing being able to eliminate the use of fossil fuels, it would be great to reduce their use. Under a government which imprisons any unjustly, the true place for a just man is also in prison. Thoreau: Civil Disobedience (1846) I have never met a man so ignorant that I couldn't learn something from him. Galileo Galilei If there is no struggle, there is no progress. Those who profess to favor freedom, and deprecate agitation, are men who want crops without plowing up the ground, they want rain without thunder and lightning. Frederick Douglass
|
||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
Jon Inactive Member |
That's nice.
Whenever you're ready for an honest discussion, I'll be here.Love your enemies!
|
||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
NoNukes Inactive Member |
Whenever you're ready for an honest discussion, I'll be here So you are backing off of your claim that we can put fusion everywhere?Under a government which imprisons any unjustly, the true place for a just man is also in prison. Thoreau: Civil Disobedience (1846) I have never met a man so ignorant that I couldn't learn something from him. Galileo Galilei If there is no struggle, there is no progress. Those who profess to favor freedom, and deprecate agitation, are men who want crops without plowing up the ground, they want rain without thunder and lightning. Frederick Douglass
|
||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
ringo Member (Idle past 438 days) Posts: 20940 From: frozen wasteland Joined:
|
Jon writes:
That's exactly the point: IF fusion gets going it MAY eventually be something or other. But it ain't going. Right now, it's nothing. It's only a little above fairy-powered hamster wheels on the list of possible replacements for fossil fuels. Solar and wind ARE going. They ARE realistic alternatives. Which is why I said in Message 31 that a real alternative is inherently better than a fantasy one.
We'll never see a fossil-fuel-less society so long as the alternatives can't be at least as good. Fusion, if it gets going, will be better. And that is why it stands an actual chance of replacing fossil fuels.
|
||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
RAZD Member (Idle past 1431 days) Posts: 20714 From: the other end of the sidewalk Joined:
|
The reality is very clear to me: we will continue to use coal until either all the coal is gone or we develop economically-viable fusion. Really?
350 org Facebook page quote: Looks like facts are against you again. Enjoyby our ability to understand Rebel☮American☆Zen☯Deist ... to learn ... to think ... to live ... to laugh ... to share. Join the effort to solve medical problems, AIDS/HIV, Cancer and more with Team EvC! (click)
|
||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
RAZD Member (Idle past 1431 days) Posts: 20714 From: the other end of the sidewalk Joined:
|
Yes. But can I put those on my car? Can I put coal in my car? You can put batteries in your car and you can put fuel cells in your car (that run off hydogen made by electrolysis) -- amazingly the number of electric cars is booming in response to the demand. You can also get an electric scooter. And most likely you can easily walk or bicycle to places that are close to home (especially if you chose your home wisely). Our buses have bike racks so you can take your bike into the big city or other towns and bike there -- a multi-modal integrated transportation system. The new buses are electric. Enjoy Edited by RAZD, : ...by our ability to understand Rebel☮American☆Zen☯Deist ... to learn ... to think ... to live ... to laugh ... to share. Join the effort to solve medical problems, AIDS/HIV, Cancer and more with Team EvC! (click)
|
||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
ringo Member (Idle past 438 days) Posts: 20940 From: frozen wasteland Joined: |
Jon writes:
I can put a science fiction book about fusion power in my car. Yes. But can I put those on my car? Don't get me wrong. I'd love to be able to go to Home Depot and buy a portable fusion reactor that would power my house. But I can't. I can't even read about an experimental one that's powering a small building for eight million dollars a year. With the technological development that I've seen in my lifetime, I'd hesitate to say it won't happen any time soon but it's pretty silly to dismiss the alternatives that do work in favour of a pipe dream that might someday be a miracle solution. By the way, if I do buy a portable fusion generator that can put out a few thousand kWh, what will it run on?
|
||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
Jon Inactive Member |
Which is why I said in Message 31 that a real alternative is inherently better than a fantasy one. Sure. But you also need to address whether those alternatives can replace fossil fuels. So far, no one has even approached the feasibility of replacing fossil fuels with solar or wind. Earlier I posted figures for land use by solar power. Here is a chart of land use for wind as a function of land area: Area Used by Wind Power Facilities. If we look at the first item on the list, and compare its land use (and assume I can do math”the biggest assumption of our calculations), then we find that coal can generate somewhere around 50,000 times the amount of energy for a single acre of land as wind power. My numbers are probably way off. But I think they still demonstrate how renewable energy is not even close to competing with coal as feasible alternatives to powering advanced, modern, successful societies like the U.S., Canada, Europe, Australia, etc.Love your enemies!
|
||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
Jon Inactive Member |
What are their energy needs?
150% doesn't mean anything by itself.
quote: That's probably true since coal companies are run by rich people looking to make money and solar power is installed by flower-power hippies with a genuine concern for helping others. I can see why those interests would produce different results. But that just speaks of the interests of the parties and not of the physical feasibility of their proposed energy-generation methods.Love your enemies!
|
||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
ringo Member (Idle past 438 days) Posts: 20940 From: frozen wasteland Joined: |
Jon writes:
The question isn't whether or not they can replace fossil fuels completely at some point in the future. The question is whether or not they can replace somefossil fuels now - and the answer is, "Yes." Sure. But you also need to address whether those alternatives can replace fossil fuels. So far, no one has even approached the feasibility of replacing fossil fuels with solar or wind. We don't know when, or if, fusion power will become a reality. For the time being, we have to use real-world solutions, whether they are ultimate solutions or not. IF some day fusion power becomes a reality, it will have to compete with wind and solar. Maybe it will put them out of business. Maybe not.
|
||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
Jon Inactive Member |
The question isn't whether or not they can replace fossil fuels completely at some point in the future. The question is whether or not they can replace some fossil fuels now - and the answer is, "Yes." And that's fine. I've already said a number of times that replacing fossil fuels with wind or solar where it can be done is a good thing. But whether we can replace all of our fossil-fuels with wind or solar is as much of a daydream as whether we can develop fusion power that will replace everything.
For the time being, we have to use real-world solutions, whether they are ultimate solutions or not. And I'm not even talking about ultimate solutions. I'm talking specifically bout the real-world (in)feasibility of large-scale solar/wind power in place of fossil fuels.Love your enemies!
|
||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
RAZD Member (Idle past 1431 days) Posts: 20714 From: the other end of the sidewalk Joined:
|
What are their energy needs? 150% doesn't mean anything by itself. It means they can meet future needs and didn't waste money on installing more than was necessary\prudent. Funny how you keep running away from the obvious: ALL their electrical needs are met with solar, Jon, ALL. And it was cheaper than other solutions.
That's probably true since coal companies are run by rich people looking to make money and solar power is installed by flower-power hippies with a genuine concern for helping others. Which is a reason why coal power companies are bad -- they don't want\care to provide electrical power, they want to make money, lots of money.
I can see why those interests would produce different results. But that just speaks of the interests of the parties and not of the physical feasibility of their proposed energy-generation methods. And when people can get a cheaper solution by going somewhere else then there is absolutely no reason that they shouldn't do that. It's what choice is about. For too long there has not been much of a choice in getting electricity, the "utilities" were basically monopolies that were pretty much free to set what rates they wanted. Solar and wind break that stranglehold. Enjoyby our ability to understand Rebel☮American☆Zen☯Deist ... to learn ... to think ... to live ... to laugh ... to share. Join the effort to solve medical problems, AIDS/HIV, Cancer and more with Team EvC! (click)
|
|
|
Do Nothing Button
Copyright 2001-2023 by EvC Forum, All Rights Reserved
Version 4.2
Innovative software from Qwixotic © 2024