climate activist on trial.

[j_b]

subsidies should be proportional to likelihood of delivering clean, safe, cheap power for the near future and fusion power isn't anywhere near the top of that list.

Edited March 8, 2011 by j_b

[rob]

Just because it's not the closest to be fully developed doesn't mean it shouldn't be funded. However, note that I didn't say it should be getting THE MOST funding. Just more. There are lots of forms of alternative energy that should be getting more funding.

 

I think that we should be investing more money into long-term scientific research. This would also include things other than nuclear, obviously, but nuclear is still something that deserves more funding than it is currently getting. So is the space program.

 

You can't think only "near future." You have to also think long-term. Fusion power is a necessity for the human race, IMO. It deserves funding -- more than new bombers do.

Edited March 8, 2011 by rob

[j_b]

There are lots of worthy applications both for nuclear fusion and fission, and the needed research should take place but I am not sure that we should think of nuclear fusion as a future source of energy until it appears likely (also note that subsidies for fusion research aren't as bleak as you suggested):

 

"Despite optimism dating back to the 1950s about the wide-scale harnessing of fusion power, there are still significant barriers standing between current scientific understanding and technological capabilities and the practical realization of fusion as an energy source. Research, while making steady progress, has also continually thrown up new difficulties. Therefore it remains unclear whether an economically viable fusion plant is possible"

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Fusion_power#Economics

[tvashtarkatena]

The destructive fallout we're already seeing from fossil fuels in the currently politicized regulatory environment does not suggest to me that we need to move toward an inherently more dangerous form of energy production. When baby shows he can use the potty like a big boy then we take off the diapers. Make sense?

 

Nope. Not a bit.

[KaskadskyjKozak]

There are lots of worthy applications both for nuclear fusion and fission, and the needed research should take place but I am not sure that we should think of nuclear fusion as a future source of energy until it appears likely (also note that subsidies for fusion research aren't as bleak as you suggested):

 

"Despite optimism dating back to the 1950s about the wide-scale harnessing of fusion power, there are still significant barriers standing between current scientific understanding and technological capabilities and the practical realization of fusion as an energy source. Research, while making steady progress, has also continually thrown up new difficulties. Therefore it remains unclear whether an economically viable fusion plant is possible"

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Fusion_power#Economics

 

You could make a similar statement about stem-cell research. You do research to solve the problems that are unsolved. Duh.

[j_b]

but the amount of funding is proportional to our assessment of each technology to provide to our needs in due time

[rob]

Imagine if scientists stopped researching subatomic particles in the early 20th century, because the electron microsope or the particle accelerator seemed plausible. Hell, 50 years before that, chemists still thought that organic compounds could only come from life (VITAL FORCE!!!!), until synthetic urea was finally created. People were convinced humans couldn't even live in zero-G until somebody finally did it.

 

You can't just say, "it doesn't seem likely, so let's abandon it."

[j_b]

I never said to stop research but nuclear fission power has shown to be very expensive and fraught with problems.

[j_b]

In the EU: Nuclear fusion research receives € 750 million (excluding ITER funding [10 billions]), compared with € 810 million for all non-nuclear energy research combined,[18] putting research into fusion power well ahead of that of any single rivaling technology.

[rob]

That's great to hear. DO you know how that compares to US funding of fusion power? I know the japanese are spending money on it, too.

[tvashtarkatena]

The equipment and, ironically, creation of fuel pellets for fusion is probably prohibitively expensive as compared to other technologies like deep geothermal, etc. I don't really see it happening commercially any time soon, if ever.

Edited March 8, 2011 by tvashtarkatena

[rob]

The equipment and, ironically, creation of fuel pellets for fusion is probably prohibitively expensive as compared to other technologies like deep geothermal, etc. I don't really see it happening commercially any time soon, if ever.

 

"Heavier-than-air flying machines are impossible."-- Lord Kelvin, president, Royal Society, 1895.

[ivan]

"Heavier-than-air flying machines are impossible."-- Lord Kelvin, president, Royal Society, 1895.

"i drank what?" - socrates

[JayB]

[tvashtarkatena]

The equipment and, ironically, creation of fuel pellets for fusion is probably prohibitively expensive as compared to other technologies like deep geothermal, etc. I don't really see it happening commercially any time soon, if ever.

 

"Heavier-than-air flying machines are impossible."-- Lord Kelvin, president, Royal Society, 1895.

 

Impractical and impossible are two different things. You can make a heavier than air-craft out of paper, balsa wood, and a rubber band. Fusion reactors? Not so much.

 

The question is what's the most cost effective (including environmental damage) way to generate power. It seems like fusion may never percolate to anywhere near the top of that list. Fusion sounds great in principle, especially in troubled times - endless, free fuel! It turns out to be a pretty expensive free lunch, however, particularly compared to less complicated long term power generation technologies.

 

Fucking financial considerations....

 

 

[j_b]

Nearly a year after the oil disaster began, Gulf Coast residents are sick, and dying from BP's toxic chemicals.

 

[..]

Many of the chemicals present in the oil and dispersants are known to cause headaches, nausea, vomiting, kidney damage, altered renal function, and irritation of the digestive tract. They have also caused lung damage, burning pain in the nose and throat, coughing, pulmonary edema, cancer, lack of muscle coordination, dizziness, confusion, irritation of the skin, eyes, nose, and throat, difficulty breathing, delayed reaction time and memory difficulties.

 

Further health problems include stomach discomfort, liver and kidney damage, unconsciousness, tiredness/lethargy, irritation of the upper respiratory tract, hematological disorders, and death. Pathways of exposure to the chemicals are inhalation, ingestion, skin, and eye contact.

 

[..]

 

"We have sick people from Apalachicola, Florida, to Grand Isle, Louisiana, and it's not stopping and that's what's disturbing," Billups said. "The levels we are seeing are not dropping, and we're seeing new chemicals now. We gave some of our blood test results to [EPA head] Lisa Jackson. They know what is going on, and they are not doing anything about it."

 

"The saddest part is the children," Billups added. "We’re seeing young children with extremely high levels of chemicals. We're altering our DNA and our bodies forever, We're a bunch of guinea pigs."

 

Gulf spill sickness wrecking lives

[j_b]

That's great to hear. DO you know how that compares to US funding of fusion power? I know the japanese are spending money on it, too.

 

US fusion science research gets ~$420 millions, which is ~8% of energy research appropriations.

[tvashtarkatena]

Not necessarily inappropriate for a distant long shot. Nearer term large renewable energy techs should soak up most of the funding.

[j_b]

The flat earth society? Nope, it's only the GOP:

 

"In a vote split cleanly along party lines, the Republican-led House Energy and Commerce Committee on Tuesday rejected measures reaffirming climate change as a scientific reality, with every Republican on the panel voting "nay"