I bet there's a lot of geothermal energy under Washington. All that hot air has to be coming from somewhere!
I like science, but I wasted my time with a law degree, so this stuff is all over my head - but are they really going to pull this off, and will it be much more efficient then fission? I remember in the 90s everyone was talking about fusion being the holy grail of energy. It is exciting to think they are breaking ground on something that will work.
Am I selfish for not even giving two (*)(*)(*)(*)s about a powerful energy source with virtually nonexistent pollution and a limitless supply of fuel for the world and little kittens............because I want this? http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=3HYoq6vIVXc
Big Coal will found a think-tank called the "American Energy Safety Board".....which will find "scientists" who "theorize" that a fusion reactor "could ,possibly be turned into a thermonuclear bomb with megaton potential".... they'll then send off a fax to Rush Limbaugh and the Drudge Report....warning people of the dangers of "hydrogen bomb power plants" and reminding them of the "safety of coal-fired plants"..... then immediately the rightwing bloggers will parrot it after the "opening hour monologue" is over at lunch time.
That would work with liberals, if the shoe were on the other foot. Conservatives won't fall for that garbage. I do predict left wing environmental groups organizing against this. Regardless of what has been said so far, there is a major form of pollution caused by fusion--heat or thermal pollution. Heat pollution is already a problem for fission nukes and even coal power plants.
Uh.........Conservatives are the ones that support nuclear power and by extension fusion. Liberals are the ones that actually think the world can run on wind and solar. There is a 100% guarantee that liberals will find some reason to object to fusion even if they have to make something up. I fully expect the "But it doesn't work now, so why should we pursue it" argument just like they did years ago with missile defense. Now that missile defense is a proven technology and liberals have egg on their faces about it I intend to remind of them their phobia about science and technology at ever chance I can get. Liberals HATE progress, liberals hate technology unless it involves sunshine. Liberals are the luddites of the world today.
What a stupid post. Conservatives are the morons that hold back progress. ie.... you think, that you have the answers but actually have no clue what you are posting.
Virtually every post you make is a testament to the idiocy of liberals. You never back anything up with actual evidence meanwhile I show the world how stupid your posts are and what a pack of lies they turn to be with a quick five second google search. Simply verifying information before you post it seems to be beyond your limited abilities since I found those and other links literally on the first page. Everyone that reads your posts laughs at you and mocks you for the simpleton you appear to be because of you ignorant, uninformed, illiterate posts made by technophobic leftwingers like you. http://blogs.discovermagazine.com/gnxp/2013/06/how-opposed-to-nuclear-energy-are-liberals/ Views on nuclear energy N ~ 400 Lib Mod Cons Strongly favor 16 13 12 Favor 49 50 64 Oppose 28 27 16 Strongly oppose 7 9 8 Nuclear power dangerous to the environment N ~ 1300 Lib Mod Cons Extremely dangerous 26 23 16 Very dangerous 25 29 23 Somewhat dangerous 33 32 31 Not very dangerous 14 13 22 Not dangerous 3 3 8 As you can see liberals do tend to be more skeptical of nuclear energy, but it is not stark. In fact, attitudes toward nuclear power seem to be as strongly, if not more so, variant on a populist vs. elite axis than conventional ideology. Here’s the second question replicated for education: Nuclear power dangerous to the environment N ~ 1300 No college College Extremely dangerous 26 11 Very dangerous 27 21 Somewhat dangerous 31 34 Not very dangerous 11 28 Not dangerous 4 7 But, when you look only at college educated individuals the ideology divide doesn’t go away. In fact, it seems more extreme. Nuclear power dangerous to the environment N ~ 370 College educated only Lib Mod Cons Extremely dangerous 14 16 5 Very dangerous 28 22 14 Somewhat dangerous 38 35 28 Not very dangerous 15 24 42 Not dangerous 5 4 11 http://thebreakthrough.org/index.ph...limate/liberals-and-progressives-for-nuclear/ While historically conservatives have been the prominent supporters of nuclear energy, the urgency of climate change has recently compelled liberals and progressives to reconsider nuclear as the best zero-carbon source of baseload electricity for a world with rapidly rising energy demand.
you think, that you have the answers but actually have no clue what you are posting. you are still posting stupidity. First off, the surveying is on nuclear energy as a blanket. Nothing to do with fusion as it is not even the option. The thorium usage is perhaps the worse of the group because of the uranium. But the information above points at a few items. First off that the liberals are not so much against as the article shares as i quote What confuses me is that I don’t understand the specifically conservative tilt here, as I have many friends who evince a nuclear-friendly tilt without seeming politically conservative. Perhaps a generation ago anti-nuclear sentiment was strongly ideological colored, but more recently there has been a boomlet on the enviro-Left in favor of nuclear energy So that in itself shares what you apparently do not comprehend. Second, nothing stark about the divide. See above Third, please note that the people that are educated (college level), are the ones that comprehend that nuclear energy is dangerous. You must lack an education as it is clear that the reading comprehension is definitely out of whack. i said, that the conservative is the morons as they stymie progress. And this thread shares why; lack of comprehension! go lay by your dish
Conservatives support fission power. It was the liberals who were against it. They preferred coal/natural gas to nuclear. Conservatives have nothing against progress by the market and the scientific community. We oppose using the government's power to enforce progress via social engineering. There is a major difference between the two.
They don't have to make up a problem. It's inherent in all steam power generation. That problem is excess heat that needs to be dissipated.
ie... most conservatives are conservative. like supporting prayers in school and letting business rule. Centralizing utilities production is not good, nor is supporting israel THEY? All three are stupid in that all three, are heating water to turn a generator. A thinking mind, comprehends that the steam engine era is over. invisible hand is not nice. Edison (GE) hav stymied many venues of progress because of the abuse of the invisible hand (ie... flourescent lights have been around for 100 yrs but were slowed to production because the utility companies and GE made more money with the incondescent) Israel is social engineering and the idiots support that mess And if government wants to assist, then the new law should be that any patent that is not brought to market and proven to benefit mankind, is lost within 3 yrs I know, the idiots like to divide people by stupid flavors and often have no idea that what they are doing is stupid. How come no one likes cold fusion?
who here comprehends why this assumption is made? Does anyone on this thread even know what the fields are that contains the reaction? ie.... the waste is still there, just contained within the fields The heat and momentum to the mass is just not affecting other mass, because the whole reaction is within a cloud of mass, that heats up, to both contain the heat and sustain the subsequent reactions The problems with fusion are that there has not been a sustainable reaction that releases more energy than put in and the material to house the reaction does not exist, hence the fields (magnetic torus). If they line the reactor with graphene layered junctions (casimir bilayers of graphene nano tubes), they can reap far more energy from the chamber.
You flat out lied and I called you out on your lie and proved you wrong. You said conservatives are the ones that hold back progress. I showed you proof that in fact is not the case. Only in recent years has there been a change in environmentalist attitude regarding nuclear, which I mentioned earlier, and that is only because the conservatives had to drag them along kicking and screaming. You can only defend renewables as the future of the world's power generation so long before all those damn facts and figures and basic math and phyisics start getting into the way. Simply put the liberals were the last ones to get it. Liberals also were opposed to waiting for LED bulbs to reach economy of scale and instead they became impatient and pushed those (*)(*)(*)(*)ty CFL bulbs of which only 3% are actually recycled. The rest are going into your local landfill. Thanks liberals for forcing people to buy bulbs and allowing all the mercury it end up in your landfills. Liberals also pushed for ethanol in gas when every Formula 1 or Nascar mechanic or any engineer for that matter was telling them that you CANNOT do that for American cars. But liberals are self absorbed and narcissist and the only thing they cared about is how good they looked in front of their friends when they talked about "caring about the environment" and "saving the planet". Only after the harm was done and ethanol developed a large lobbyiest network ensuring that it was be next to impossible to get rid of did Al Gore and friends decide......"Ooops...we might have been wrong about ethanol after all".
You are proof of the opposite. neither conservatives or liberals had anything to do with nuclear fission being brought into operation. The problem you have is you think that human being are all divided into these types of classifications. Honest people will make choices that make sense for what is known, at the time. The word conservative invoke the opposite of what you thing. I wonder why I even have to point out how ignorant your point of view is. www.thefreedictionary.com/conservative‎ con·ser·va·tive (k n-sûr v -t v). adj. 1. Favoring traditional views and values; tending to oppose change. 2. Traditional or restrained in style
You just said that conservatives were the ones that opposed progress and then you accuse me of seeing people in classifications. In the space of three posts you manage to contradict yourself completely. And then you trot out a dictionary definition to try and defend your position? I posted links of actual data on who supports and who opposed nuclear power and it showed that clearly conservatives have long favored it over liberals and you grab the definition from a dictionary as you counterargument? So I suppose it was actually the liberals that were for reforming welfare in the 90s and conservatives were trying to keep it from being change......oh wait it didn't happen that way it was in fact the conservatives that wanted reform. Just like the conservatives want school reform and liberals want the status quo and conservatives want SS reform and liberals defended the status quo. You are blatantly dishonest and everyone that is reading your posts is laughing at you right now.
i basically shared that 'conservative' as the label (word) represents are the restrained and it is you that claims a reallybigjohnson, that is full of yourself. People like you are a dime a dozen but the truly good are often the people that you would not believe exist. “I built a fusion reactor when I was 14 years old.” http://blog.ted.com/2012/03/01/like-want-to-see-my-nuclear-fusion-reactor-taylor-wilson-at-ted2012/ He also built a device to make medical isotopes–and he says, he’s learned how to make yellow cake in his garage lab, so he personally has the same nuclear capabilities as Iran.
You do realize that the fusion reactors being proposed will use steam turbines, just like current power plants. Not really. Fluorescents were not patented until 1927--86 yrs ago. GE actually made the first commercial fluorescent lamp which was first marketed in 1938 by GE. Because it doesn't work--it's a fraud.
and why i call it stupid. All them wavelengths and they heat water?????? Fricken stupid! but tesla created a version that was 50yrs older. Edison/GE are perhaps the best example of how 'invisible hand' has little use of virtue. Is that based on YOUR research and work or what you believe?
Yes, but he didn't invent the part that made the fluorescent bulb commercially viable. He made something that made light. The problem is that the light was harsh and unusable. If he had figured out coating the inside of the bulb to change the wavelength of the light to a humanly usable one, I would grant your point. He didn't invent the fluorescent light, he invented a light that was a forerunner to it. It's based on what I have read. I have read no valid study of it that shows that it works. The thing is, you are rapidly showing your ignorance of accepted history, why would anybody listen to you on your views of science?
he didnt care about business. He died broke but did more for the science than edison ever did Business is not what represents a success. wow.... You really didnt know this Tesla holding a gas-filled phosphor coated wireless light bulb which he developed in the 1890's, half a century before fluorescent lamps come into use. Published on the cover of the Electrical Experimenter in 1919. http://www.teslauniverse.com/nikola-tesla-photos-start_6 see for yourself I dont think you are up to speed nor realize what you are saying.
do you like to read? i see. Have you read anything current on the matter? http://arxiv.org/ftp/arxiv/papers/1305/1305.3913.pdf Indication of anomalous heat energy production in a reactor device May 16, 2013 i dont accept what a bunch of people accept, of history. For example; Jesus aint Christ, per him. As for the sciences, well lets give you a fact to chew on. I have been on more university campuses, within the United States, than perhaps anyone that you've ever even heard of, besides perhaps Mary Jane. i dont want people to like me. I expect responsibility or shut the blank up!
Once again..........you claimed that conservatives were against progress. I showed you definitive proof including froma liberal blog so you couldn't go "Faux News......blah blah blah blah blah.........Faux News", that showed that in fact it was liberals who opposed nuclear power more than conservatives. Your response was to post a dictionary definition as your defense? Really? Not only did you lie about a fact that I proved you wrong on but your reply was to run to the dictionary and copy/paste a response that had nothing to do with the subject at all. http://news.discovery.com/tech/alternative-power-sources/5-reasons-cold-fusion-bunk-130528.htm http://www.forbes.com/sites/markgibbs/2011/12/31/2012-the-year-of-cold-fusion/ http://newenergytimes.com/v2/reports/LENR-is-Not-Cold-Fusion.shtml
and the article that YOU shared, represented that the divide, as YOU choose is not as vast as YOU think. I shared to YOU what the word conservative means, which apparently, you had no idea of. actually, most everyone here can comprehend that the people that claim a 'reallybigjohnson' are oooosually the idiots with an inferiority complex. But let's be clear, your rant on conservative versus liberal and which likes or dislikes nuclear, is not my tangent to the thread. You're on the troll roll
