If we stop all them damn volcanoes from spewing out megs-tons of green house gasses, we wouldn't need to worry about the crap we spew out too
There is no point in this... You see, the subject is Climate Change and the consequences it will have. The question is how much sense it makes to hope that the power that be will prevent it, which is a childish idea... I simply say, that you want to keep the quality of life that you enjoy now, look at the facts and what will change where you live, and what you have to do about this coming change in YOUR life. That has nothing to do with the description of how the good people of the USA will overcome all problems, as in the past...
The only childish person here is you - constantly trying to patronise everybody with "what they have to understand".... GROW UP, FFS!!!
I am sorry. Maybe I missed something. There is absolutely no cold fusion. It's actually a bold way to fool people out there...it's nothing to do with science. There is missing: Evidence of energy gain due to fusion and detection of products resulting from a fusion. Prove of transmutation. It's just (plasma) electrolysis which is energy consuming as result. It's like one would weld under water....this experiment is far off....It is an audaciousness. (at least he should have spelled Tungsten rightly) To use fusion as energy source at ambient or nearly ambient conditions is hardly possible... BTW any reactor that is based on nuclear fission should be shut down and dismantled, this tech is too dangerous. Energy from renewable sources is the way to go. Also wind/water....tides....solar, (sun generally)...
@Yen: That's why I don't call it "Fusion" per. se. I did call it an Electrolytic Plasma reactor. The key point here is that we must be open minded and examine any and all technologies for answers to our pollution problems. Also, about the spelling error: We both understand that people who do not speak english as a first language can and will make mistakes from time to time. We don't hold that against them, do we? Edit: I added some interesting, albeit it debatable information from Wikipedia https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Fleischmann–Pons_experiment and https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Cold_fusion I stand by my original statement that it's -definitely- research worth pursuing, as opposed to building weapons of mass destruction.
"The key point here is that we must be open minded and examine any and all technologies for answers to our pollution problems." That is absolutely right. I totally agree. Also I know that many breakthroughs in science had been accidentally...I'd consider myself as a researcher...but... When I saw the arrangement of the experiment OMG..no honestly...it's purely made to fool people...that's why I became 'bad' complaining about a spelling error...nitpicking. There's no approach at this experiment which would make sense. The experimental setup is dreadful, no intent to strike an energy balance noticeable. -one would need to measure the overall energy input which should be exceeded!!! This is purely electricity related. On the side to compare: -caloric energy gain of the water -gas volumes and their components besides of hydrogen and oxygen (electro-chemical energy), evidence of transmutation (mass spectrometer) -other electrolytic side reactions. It is no question the research on fusion must not stop. It would be clean energy. The question is: Do we have to try to get fusion on earth when we already have got the sun??? The sun is the key. Other keywords are wireless energy transport and energy storage technologies...
The sun is a fair-weather friend. This limits the energy to being available in places where the sun shines (i.e deserts and places with no clouds) Yes it works, but it's an energy source that will be capitalized on and only be made available to those who live in those regions. The same thing holds true for Wind tech. It too works, but is only available in places where wind can be capitalized upon. The problem here is that the tech is initially expensive, and thus becomes a tech that will be monopolized by those with the monies to pay for it.
Huge projects requiring enormous amounts of land and money are -not- the answer to the worlds' energy problems. Decentralizing power systems and minimizing distribution costs is the only sensible answer. If each house was equipped with a small power generation system, this would eliminate the need for a power grid. That removes the possibility of electromagnetic pollution as well as toxic chemical spills from cooling / insulating oils. A conglomerated system consisting of resource reclamation in the form of gray water processing and trash reuse would be the perfect compliment to the smart home. That's the direction that we need to go in. And we need to do this before we even think about conquering space. Because that same technology will aid us in settling on other worlds.
This is true for wind energy. It requires special places because you cannot install effective wind turbines locally at home. It isn’t for solar and photovoltaic energy. Both can be installed locally on the roof. (Decentralized energy production) and also very reliable and suitable in the US! Yes I agree. Some facts to illustrate the electricity production: Average duration of sunshine Germany year 2015 1585 hours. (To compare US states. Each state has more: https://www.currentresults.com/Weather/US/average-annual-state-sunshine.php) German statistics. (http://www.umweltbundesamt.de/theme...gien/erneuerbare-energien-in-zahlen#statusquo) Renewable energies: 376 terawatt hours. From those are 50% for electricity production and 42% for the heating sector. Electricity itself is obtained from 31.5% renewable energies in Germany. Those 376 terawatt hours consist of i.e.: 21% wind energy (for electricity 42.35%) 10% photovoltaic = 38.7 TWh (for electricity 20.75%) That means a country (Germany) with 1585 hours average duration of sunshine produced in the same year 38.7 TWh energy from PV The U.S. state with least of all duration is Alaska, but it’s even more than Germany…furthermore the Chinese have got already more than the US. Duration of sun is absolutely no con argument for local PV in the US. Payback period of PV is 11-13 years. That means after this the energy gained is actually for free. Another idea for the future (I named it wireless energy transport) would be satellites with solar panels which are able to send energy to special regions. Hmm electromagnetic pollution. As soon as there are electrons moving you have such....also each satellite that sends. You actually cannot escape from it anymore...and it strongly depends on their frequency and energy. I would be careful to consider it as pollutant...
@Yen: About solar. There was a time when there were tax incentives to encourage alternative energy. Home owners were given tax breaks if they went solar, and if they sold power back to the "grid" they were able to reap a reward. More and more, you see cities putting legislation in place designed to minimize that, so that the bond issues incurred to build reactors and subsidize utility companies could be paid. About Wind: In New York City, you can't have a vertical wind turbine on your roof because it might harm the pigeons, a parasitic and disease carrying species of bird with no natural predator. But we all know the real reason why: Because the utility companies do -NOT- want it. It cuts into their profit margin. It's already been thought of, both in Science Fiction stories and in practice by Darpa. The idea was to send a beam of Microwaves from geosynchronous satellites in space. (I read the Darpa research papers more than 25 years ago) The problem with it is that it creates a "dead zone" (The sahara desert comes to mind) where life can not exist. Even now, the life supported in the deserts contributes to the world wide ecosystem. To do this would be catastrophic, and was abandoned for that reason, as well as the fact that a microwave beam could be used as a weapon if the satellites were taken over by hostile forces. Tell that to the people of Long Island who live under 270kv power lines (60 hz) and have very high incidences of breast cancer and developmental disabilities (e.g. Autism) where no chemical pollutants or toxic metals were found. Not to mention the shellfish beds whose mating grounds are disturbed by the temperature changes and the low frequency hum. There are still ongoing studies. I wear a bra. We (women) don't have pockets in our jeans. So, a bra seems to be a -great- place to put your cell phone. But ask yourselves: Do you want to constantly bombard your breasts with the 960 / 970 mhz uplink RF that cell phones radiate? Would you as men want to bombard your testes with above said radiation? I would be careful to dismiss it as a pollutant.
Wind and solar are great ideas, but for residential home owners the cost of installation and maintenance negate any energy savings, I'm sure it's better for the ecology but that never caught on since it was first tried back in the 70's. In Mich we do have windmills for energy, (massive giant things) I've seen them in Texas too, they not not do much for a scenic landscape, but they are becoming very popular. The idea of little nuclear powered batteries for each home might work???
@Joe C: Maybe not nuclear, but Low Energy Nuclear devices. You could always check the black-market for a SNAP-27 and retrofit it in your home. See here https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Radioisotope_thermoelectric_generator https://airandspace.si.edu/multimedia-gallery/5259hjpg
My home would need about 10- 15kw to run appliances and A/C in the summer, a larger one would get the govt after me for all that radio active material, if I could find some
The snap 27 was a 35 watt reactor. I'm sure that a collaboration between the USA and other countries of the world could and would be able to come up with a suitable system and an infrastructure for safe refueling.
Heh, there is no such thing - the real costs of decommissioning such facilities and depositing the spent fuel rods safely are never calculated into the price of electricity and companies running it never pay for it.i.e. it is socialised (the tax payers pick up the bill), on the back of "national interest" [in nuclear military capacity]. And we know that we do not know if it is safe at all... Very dangerous game to play!
About SPS (Space Powered Solar system) I know that tech sounds dangerous due to influences on organisms and abuse potential, but it’s not science fiction anymore (Mitsubishi Heavy Industries). Maybe the way of transmission can be optimized. Well at least wireless energy transmission should be a subject of research….I mean the sun also sends its energy ‘wirelessly’….the pro and cons have not changed since Tesla. About electromagnetic radiation. You are right, also. As said it depends on frequency and energy. Most interesting: overhead power line and mobile phone (GSM, both Wi-Fi frequencies, Bluetooth) There are not enough results yet. AFAIK current scientific statement is: There is no evidence that there is causality. I actually carry my mobile in my pants pocket, but whenever I can I leave it at home (also not to become a smart-phone addicted, lol)..or I put it into a drawer at work.... Whenever I have an alternative to the pants pocket I use it of course. I switch off Wi-Fi if not needed and Bluetooth, but only because it is reasonable and saves electricity. I don’t have fear of getting cancer because of it, though. After all everybody behaves the way one thinks about the potential of a harmful action. But there is a reasonable conclusion: The less exposure the less risk. This applies to the sun’s rays and skin cancer as well.. Paracelsus applies very well: “'All things are poisons, for there is nothing without poisonous qualities. It is only the dose (here exposure) which makes a thing poison.” Are you aware of the destructive potential of nuclear power and its waste???? Not to speak of dangers when manufacturing and dismantling them again and the long term radioactivity of the products. IMHO Nuclear power (fission) has to vanish on earth. It had its time but it is of no practical responsible long term use. I wish it had remained an academical approach to research only. But the greed for 'energy' made it to a more or less controlled weapon (time) bomb....better said the nuclear plants and their waste...
@Yen: I don't see how punching a hole in the ionosphere can do anything but harm this world, possibly in an irreparable way. So, I don't see microwaves from space as being plauseable. Take a look at the H.A.A.R.P. project, and how tightly focused RF energy is being explored as a mechanism to enhance communication. https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/High_Frequency_Active_Auroral_Research_Program 60-70 years ago, we thought radiation was a panacea. Now we know better. Let's hope that the research that we do does not destroy our world any further. P.S. I purposely left out the conspiracy theory aspect of HAARP, because there's just not enough proof. People thought Area 51 (Groom Lake) was a UFO haven. 50 years later, we find that the USA was testing the latest in aerospace technology there.