[ 3 / biz / cgl / ck / diy / fa / ic / jp / lit / sci / vr / vt ] [ index / top / reports ] [ become a patron ] [ status ]
2023-11: Warosu is now out of extended maintenance.

/sci/ - Science & Math

View post   
File: 96 KB, 648x486, 050517fusion.jpg [View same] [iqdb] [saucenao] [google]
3306834 No.3306834 [Reply] [Original]

"The EU Wants to increase funding to Fusion research. As a green MP I am against this"

What the fuck?? How are MPs this fucking retarded. Fusion is about the greenest powersource its possible to have. Why are these morons running our countries

>> No.3306843

Well they think it's like fission, so they have to be against it or they lose their followers.

>> No.3306841

>>3306834
Welcome to the green hating club. Green and retarded are synonyms in politics.

>> No.3306848

>Fusion is about the greenest powersource its possible to have.
Fusion produces as much radioactive waste as fission, only that it decays faster. It's much cleaner, but far from clean.

>> No.3306847

>>3306834
Everything that isn't sun or water is bad.

>> No.3306853

NUCLEAR fusion.

If it has the word nuclear in it, it's bad. It must be nice to live by such simple rules.

>> No.3306855

Derp. That's Greens for you.

>> No.3306859

>>3306843
Do they actually do any research whatsoever???

Its as if he'd just gone "Oh well it has the word 'nuclear' in it therefore it must be bad".

Jeremy Paxman didn't pick him up on it either, and he's very intelligent and well known over here for giving MPs a hard time about speaking bullshit. He can be very straight talking.

>> No.3306861

>>3306847
>Everything that isn't sun
>Fusion
What?

>> No.3306863

>>3306861
I said everything that isn't sun or water is bad.

>> No.3306864

I am going to react to OPs post in the way Europeans react to negative news coming out of America.

LOL FUKKEN YUROPOORS ENJOY YOUR SHITTY POWER AND SPENDING MUNEY ON STUPID SHIT YOUR ENTIRE CONTINENT IS FUCKING RETARDED YOUR COLLAPSE IS GOING TO HAPPEN ANY DAY NOW MY COUNTRY IS SO MUCH BETTER THAN YOURS AMERICA MASTER RACE LOL

>> No.3306865

Does that mean Greens are also against Nuclear Magnetic Resonance Imaging?

HerpafuckingDerp.

>> No.3306866

The lots of "green" societies are extraordinarily conservative and want to stop scientific progress. They have equated technology with bad.

>> No.3306870

>>3306864
That's seriously so accurate and I am European so I should know.

>> No.3306871

>>3306864
Way to generalize, idiot.

>> No.3306873

>>3306865
You want to combine nuclear power with magnetic power?!?
Are you a fucking retard? do you how much that will fuck up the environment?

>> No.3306876

>>3306863
I know what you said. You're claiming if it's not sun or wind it's bad. The sun is powered by fusion.

>> No.3306877

>>3306866
I lost all my illusions when Nicolas Fucking Hulot said we should go full coal.
Worse is he's not really buttraped in the media, 'cause of Fukushima.
Just some "it's irresponsible" by the government, but well.

>> No.3306880

Wait, was this an MP or an MEP?
I thought there was only one green MP.

>> No.3306879
File: 17 KB, 450x449, germ_wrangler_f.gif [View same] [iqdb] [saucenao] [google]
3306879

>You want to combine nuclear power with magnetic power?!?
Are you a fucking retard? do you how much that will fuck up the environment?

>> No.3306882

>>3306876
>implying the greentards know that
>implying they don't think the sun is made of fire

>> No.3306892

1) fusion research is fucking insanely expensive

2) there is no fusion technology within a even a close margin of "guaranteed" success.

the Tokomaks are basically maxed out at ~70% energy return (meaning they consume 30%), the project in France is going to cost $20 billion (more than LHC), and the national ignition facility is NOT for energy (it is for pure HEP research and nuclear weapons research).


3) fusion research is going to take an extremely long time to come to fruition. even if everything works well, and there is success and rapid development at every level of the process...

it will be at least 20 years before energy production facilities could POSSIBLY be operating.


4) add up 1,2, and 3..... we are talking about POLITICIANS!!!!! Politicians have one job:

get reelected.


20 years is too long for them to care about, and they are not going to stake their careers on betting on successes that will only help their future equivalent.
grow up you naive turd.

>> No.3306894

>>3306876
No, i wrote sun or water. Wind can be fine too.

>> No.3306901

>>3306892
Climate change will take a long time to come into real noticeable affect as well. Your argument is invalid.

>> No.3306907

>>3306880

I'm not sure who he was I didn't catch his identity. I just heard that quote and that he was from some sort of European green party, probably a MEP because the topic of discussion was funding of the EU and the financial crisis the Euro is going through.

The other example given was that they want to increase funding to space exploration. You can guess his reaction to that too.

>> No.3306915

>>3306834
who said this? i need to remember now to vote for them. not that i would vote for a single issue party anyway...

>> No.3306916

>>3306907
"hurr durr dey maek smoke"

>> No.3306918

>>3306901
What he is saying is partially true.

What he didn't mention is that politicians have to make sure problems never get solved, but they still need to look like they are doing something. Hence they bring the most inefficient solutions (solar and wind power, their favourite).

But when it comes to creating new problems, they are all for it. The general rule is problems = votes.

>> No.3306990

>>3306918

>politicians have to make sure problems never get solved


haha, yet another naive opinion.


this assumes that politicians care about OTHER politicians. they do not. they could care less if their constituent politicians fail to receive the requisite vote, or get booted out of office for doing something stupid. Politicians are the ultimate capitalists. they are out for their own good and nothing else. The simple fact that their own welfare depends on legislation aimed at helping the populace is merely coincidence. politicians only care about being reelected. Congressmen and Senators have no term limits. they can be reelected over and over again, forever. they WANT to solve problems because it proves that they are successful and it gets them votes.


they do not care about leaving problems for the next guy so that the next guy has problems that he can use to campaign about and increase his ability to get votes.


No. This does not mean that senators and congressmen actually try to solve problems. it means that they INVENT problems that are easy to "solve" or they solve real problems that have extremely easy solutions.

they do this because the result is guaranteed. leaving problems unfixed, or solutions unfound is something that is AVOIDED by politicians everywhere.

>> No.3307019

>>3306892

When it comes to science, plenty of politicians are actually able to think ahead. Look at CERN as an example, took years to build and might not even do what we set it out to do. If politicians were as retarded as people claim they are, CERN would never have happened.

France has been pumping money into nuclear technology because they see the point in investing billions of dollars over a long period of time in the likelihood of seeing usable technology as a return. Even if it took them 20 years, they'd still keep the program open simply because if it actually pans out it's going to change the world in the same that gasoline changed the world

>> No.3307036

>>3306915
I suspect it was the minister president of baden-wuerttemberg, germany.

>> No.3307029

They hear 'nuclear' and suddenly dismiss it. Seriously, people can be so dumb/arrogant, NMRI was renamed to MRI just because the public became scared of the word nuclear in it. Take it away, and hey everythings alright!

>> No.3307041

Fusion is not as green as you faggots think it is.

It's highly radioactive.

>> No.3307053

>>3306843

But it is like fusion in regards to radioactive waste.

>> No.3307093

>>3306834

you caught Paxman too, bro?

yep, the man was a retard.

>> No.3307919

>>3306892
> 1) fusion research is fucking insanely expensive
Agreed. However, it does have some significant pure-science benefits.

> 2) there is no fusion technology within a even a close margin of "guaranteed" success.
That depends upon how you define "success".
> the Tokomaks are basically maxed out at ~70% energy return (meaning they consume 30%),
Q=0.7 is the current record; that was in 1997. But that's an issue with a specific reactor, not the technology. To get a higher Q value, you really need a larger reactor, i.e.:

> the project in France is going to cost $20 billion (more than LHC),
However, it will achieve over-unity; there are no ifs or maybes here. ITER will determine whether tokamak fusion is viable for electricity generation. Essentially, once ITER is operating at full power, we will have a reasonable idea of the parameters for a commercial-scale plant.

> and the national ignition facility is NOT for energy (it is for pure HEP research and nuclear weapons research).
Correct. This approach isn't feasible for power generation, although the scientific knowledge gained may be of use.

>> No.3307924

>>3306892
Continued from >>3307919

> 3) fusion research is going to take an extremely long time to come to fruition. even if everything works well, and there is success and rapid development at every level of the process...
Again, this depends upon your goalposts. Tokamak fusion is well enough understood that we know that it can be made to work, in the sense that, if every other energy source vanished from the planet and the choice was "make fusion work or face extinction", we'd survive. The question is really one of viability. How much will a fusion plant cost to build, how much will the electricity cost per kWh, how much waste will be generated, etc.

This is the main reason why we're sinking tens of billions into tokamak research when e.g. polywell might turn out to be much better. We know that tokamak will at least work, whereas other technologies might turn out to have insurmountable problems.

> it will be at least 20 years before energy production facilities could POSSIBLY be operating.
I don't doubt it. But 20 years is fuck all, really (disclaimer: I'm over 40; 20 years probably seems a lot longer if you're 20-something or younger).

>> No.3307951
File: 50 KB, 303x268, 1308761790894.gif [View same] [iqdb] [saucenao] [google]
3307951

Aneutronic fusion is harder to obtain than neutronic fusion. The guys standing by the catwalks are going to get a nice dose of fucking neutrons. Thankfully whatever comes out of a fusion reactor, radioactive as it may be, decays so fast it's not a risk worth considering. Especially since it's not like you're going to have people standing close to the reactor.

Fusion, too, has its drawbacks, but it's pretty much near perfect. Yes politicians are retarded. Anything new?

>> No.3307957

Someone wants to make life better for human beings. As a green MP I am against this.

Someone wants to make money. As a green MP I am against this.


Trying to take a long view of environmental issues, and the long view is the only one that counts for environmental issues, is hard. Conservifags handle it by sticking their fingers in their ears and going lalalalala. Greenfags handle it by noticing the correlation between humans and environmental damage, and deciding that hurting people helps the environment.

>> No.3307982
File: 261 KB, 300x306, riker.gif [View same] [iqdb] [saucenao] [google]
3307982

>>3307957

Well said.

Personally I think if we keep it in mind we will be better off.

>> No.3308162

>>3307951
> Thankfully whatever comes out of a fusion reactor, radioactive as it may be, decays so fast it's not a risk worth considering.

That's a significant overstatement. Most of it has relatively short half-lives, but some if it is very radioactive in the meantime.

Also, it's not just a safety issue. There's a very real possibility that large-scale D-T reactors would suffer embrittlement on such a scale that they'll end up "consuming" steel like coal-fired stations consume coal.

>> No.3308188

>>3308162

>Most of it has relatively short half-lives, but some if it is very radioactive in the meantime.

It's better than burying something for millions of years.

>Also, it's not just a safety issue. There's a very real possibility that large-scale D-T reactors would suffer embrittlement on such a scale that they'll end up "consuming" steel like coal-fired stations consume coal.

Yes, this is correct too. But if I understand correctly, Carbon is not embrittled like metals are, no? And, for another thing, it does not become radioactive when radiated. It's better than steel and other metals for neutrons and gamma.

>> No.3308237

Too bad fusion REQUIRES energy to keep it going.

It's never going to work

>> No.3308244
File: 55 KB, 504x568, 20100501.gif [View same] [iqdb] [saucenao] [google]
3308244

>>3308237

>> No.3308445

>>3308244

SMBC as the greates comic ever.

>> No.3308479 [DELETED] 
File: 7 KB, 350x346, 1265856257910.png [View same] [iqdb] [saucenao] [google]
3308479

>>3306847
Forgot wind.

Also mfw wind turbines chop up birds, dams flood acres upon acres killing all the wild life in them, and solar panels are generally toxic but all three are considered the pinnacle of the green movement.

>> No.3308492

>>3308244
OMG I TOTALLY MADE A POST OF THE EXACT SAME JOKE AS THAT COMIC IN A FUSION THREAD ON /sci/ ONE TIME
i wonder if that fucker saw my post and stole my joke

>> No.3308494

>>3308479
>wind turbines chop up birds
you know, i think at that point its just helping speed up natural selection

>> No.3308500

>>3308492
http://www.smbc-comics.com/index.php?db=comics&id=1927

>> No.3308529
File: 1.06 MB, 1600x1200, 1304853823485.jpg [View same] [iqdb] [saucenao] [google]
3308529

>>3308479
iknorite I tried to convence them to poisen dehidrate and burn the corpses of animals for fuel instead of coal but they just wouldent listen

(-_-)

>> No.3308635

>>3308529
The only alternative source of energy (except nuclear) which would be feasible to farm on a massive scale would be geothermal.

It's only major problem is that the depth of the crust varies (more or less digging meaning more or less set up cost).

>> No.3308645

>>3306834
Because people are stupid. I'm not sure if the rep is that stupid, or if the rep is pandering to the stupid populace.

Also, thorium is the future.

>> No.3308668

>>3306834

Where are you quoting your source from? I want to read the article.

>> No.3308691

op's post is just more evidence that the green party is fucking useless no matter where you are in the world.

the green party candidates in my area are so _incomprehensibly_ bad that i can't help but think the party is partially financed by the conservatives.

>> No.3308743

Don't kid yourself. Practical fusion power would be a bigger nuclear weapons proliferation threat than fission power ever was.

Due to the vast numbers of neutrons produced, it makes all sorts of nuclear transmutations feasible. Breeding weapons material would be absolutely trivial.

>> No.3308793

A scientific consensus has confirmed with great confidence that there has been a small amount of nuclear material inside all the atoms of every child born since the first nuclear power plant was constructed.

As a green MP, I am against this.

>> No.3308843

Guys, have you been paying attention?

The people doing fusion power plant design have been talking about using URANIUM as a neutron multiplier so they can breed enough tritium to continue operating. Yes, that means fission, with all of the dirtiness you'd expect.

So much for "no dangerous waste". Anyway, the idea that you're going to be able to pick and choose your materials so you don't breed large amounts of extremely dangerous and long-term radioactive wastes from the high neutron flux is a total fantasy: the engineering demands of containment and power extraction are extreme, and you're not going to meet them by pussyfooting around environmental concerns.

>> No.3309263

>>3308793
i derp'd then i lol'd

>> No.3309286

Fusion power is for faggots, real men use matter-antimatter reactions (Ultimate energy source).

Give it 30-40 years for full commercial fusion plants.
Give it a couple hundred years for the first feasible antimatter reactor.

>> No.3309288

>>3309286
You sir are a retard. Oh where are we going to mine this anti-matter?

>> No.3309299

>>3309288
In an anti-matter mine.

>> No.3309304

Anti-matter is not an energy source. It is, however, a perfect means of storing energy(so far).