♪alt13
Well-Known Member
We're likely not close at all.
Serious quesiton for people who deny human involvement in climate change/global warming
- Thread starter HighlandHomie
- Start date
We're likely not close at all.
I disagree. Some entities, like Lockheed, claim to have working small-scale prototypes that are nearly ready for deployment. A large number of other groups have demonstrated very promising approaches to achieving above unity reactions in the past few years. Even if all of those efforts end up short, the 20b+ ITER effort should yield workable results before 2040, which is still in the relatively near future.
♪alt13
Well-Known Member
I was under the impression that the ITER was an experiment that would run for the most a few seconds. I don't believe Lockheed. To my knowledge no one has ever achieved more than a second and no one has ever pulled out more energy than they used to get the damn thing going. It seems to me that physicists without a financial incentive are crazy cynical about it. Could somebody make it work? sure. Is it likely? I don't think so.
I definitely agree. But I do think negative reactions to things such as the current Iran deal can impact the overall opinion in a negative direction.
It's true that ITER's goal is to achieve 500MW reaction sustained over 1000s. That is because the dynamics of large scale tokamak magnetic confinement need to be more closely studied, as well as evaluating strategies to contain the high energy neutron emissions from the reactions. But if those goals are achieved, then a large reactor with a continuous reaction will be built shortly after. That's the whole point of ITER.
It's not exactly true that nobody has pulled out more energy than they put in. That was achieved by NIF last year, if only juuuuuust barely.
Lockheed may or may not have made a breakthrough. The problem with academic labs is that they are relatively underfunded. I think there is a chance that a private company can crack a commercial design before the scientific community. But since Lockheed is supposed to unveil their reactor within the next couple of years, I guess we'll soon find out.
From all I've read and heard, I think fusion energy have a very high chance of being commercially viable within the next 25 years. But I don't want to play the game of probability. We'll know more in the next decade.
Darkwing Duck
Well-Known Member
I do find it amusing that you post with such general ambiguity that to ANY response made you can claim strawman. Makes for quite entertaining thread derailment.
D
Deleted member 848
Guest
I think I'll side with nearly every climate scientist who's looked at Bangladesh over someone who would probably have difficulty naming a single city from the country.
Darkwing Duck
Well-Known Member
To be fair, a climate scientist has no need to know any the name of any city in Bangladesh and is completely unrelated to his/her work.
D
Deleted member 848
Guest
you'd have to have the IQ of a chair to think that that was the point I was trying to make.
/end thread
jimmy eat jazz
Well-Known Member
As a purely methodological issue, I think some form of risk/reward or cost/benefit calculation should be part of all such policy deliberations. There is no policy option that does not have costs and benefits, both actual or potential, and thus it makes sense to have some method for systematically considering them in relation to each other.
Note that as someone who does cost-benefit assessments routinely as part of my job, I have a certain amount of skepticism about them--they often, in my opinion, assume too much certainty. (I tend to do numerous alternative scenarios and use them to frame the likely C/B within a particular range.) I like to think of them more as trying to work through the ball park order of magnitude cost/benefit of different decisions or policies.
jimmy eat jazz
Well-Known Member
I make assumptions all the time. So do you. So does everyone else.
So what???
Noting this is hardly an insightful or particularly helpful revelation.
I still fail to see any evidence that you actually know what strawman means.
You're scary to crows.
Why would you insult frank with this attack of his manhood?
framer
Well-Known Member
There are different types of reactors. The large Cold War era ones are for generating power AND fissable material. for use in other areas (like weapons.) Smaller modern reactors are safer and less volatile. Think of the reactors on navy ships. They have tremendously good safety record, and yet we cannot build them in the US because of FUD. Were you aware that the United States, because we are idiots, does not even produce any of its own radioactive medical supplies? Sure would be nice to have some nuclear powered desalination plants about now as well. . .
So I read the OP, and I have a succinct response.
Since the AGW/climate change issue is rhetorically constructed to produce a conclusion that we humans must relegate our future into the hands of global fascism, my opposition to it is purely political. I'm not a fascist, and anyone who follows the argument to the conclusion that mandates global fascism is a fascist. /discussion.
Actually, I accept some human component to modification of our weather patterns and the global average temp. I think the rational response to it is educational, and individual conscientious behavioral changes that rationally follow from the facts, whatever they are.
I like the idea of good personal education and good planning of our lives in individually responsible ways, and we just don't need any government supervision or imperative commands.
If you feel differently, I believe you have been indoctrinated with a politically motivated rhetorical schema.
Since the AGW/climate change issue is rhetorically constructed to produce a conclusion that we humans must relegate our future into the hands of global fascism, my opposition to it is purely political. I'm not a fascist, and anyone who follows the argument to the conclusion that mandates global fascism is a fascist. /discussion.
Actually, I accept some human component to modification of our weather patterns and the global average temp. I think the rational response to it is educational, and individual conscientious behavioral changes that rationally follow from the facts, whatever they are.
I like the idea of good personal education and good planning of our lives in individually responsible ways, and we just don't need any government supervision or imperative commands.
If you feel differently, I believe you have been indoctrinated with a politically motivated rhetorical schema.
Serious quesiton for people who deny human involvement in climate change/glob...
Well the same can be said about Holocaust deniers, 9/11 deniers, conspiracy theorists of various stripes and those who generally feel the government ("gubmint") is out to get them.
While I agree with the idea of good personal education and planning and individual responsibility, I don't agree that it negates the need for some degree of government regulation.
Well the same can be said about Holocaust deniers, 9/11 deniers, conspiracy theorists of various stripes and those who generally feel the government ("gubmint") is out to get them.
While I agree with the idea of good personal education and planning and individual responsibility, I don't agree that it negates the need for some degree of government regulation.
jimmy eat jazz
Well-Known Member
With the caveat that I know little about nuclear power and nuclear science, I do suspect that much of the US's objection to nuclear technology does stem a bit from irrational fears. I'm all for taking a serious look at developing and using this technology as an alternative to fossil based fuels.