Discussion on the Future of Energy Policy

[ParadiseLost]

The new design uses less energy because the fuel pellets come with a copper and/or gold sheathing, which decease the energy needed to contain the fuel as it achieves fusion, even if the difference is just a few milliseconds.

The metal carries it's own magnetic field, where as a raw fuel pellet would not.

The theory is sound, seems to work, and is now an engineering challenge to see if the same results can be achieved with other sheathing materials that are cheaper to burn than copper or gold.

This doesn't really address @Robovski and his concern about the "Perfect" Fusion being the enemy of the "Good" Nuclear at all.

 

[Marduk]

They shouldn't, but there have to be better uses for long-chain hydrocarbons than burning them as the first use for everything.

Any reasonably competent industrial chemist knows how to synthesize those, it's only a matter of price and energy.

 

[Robovski]

Any reasonably competent industrial chemist knows how to synthesize those, it's only a matter of price and energy.

And what energy do you propose we use to make these hydrocarbons? See, we could generate electricity with fission so we could just use the hydrocarbons we have on tap instead of burning them AND if we need more make more. Seems like the better economic and environmental solution all the while reducing our need for fossil fuels while maintaining our standard of living. But the Greens hate people so don't want real solutions like that.

 

[Marduk]

And what energy do you propose we use to make these hydrocarbons?

If you have neither hydrocarbons nor energy to make hydrocarbons then you have a bigger problem than not having energy to make hydrocarbons, that means you have no reliable energy at all.

See, we could generate electricity with fission so we could just use the hydrocarbons we have on tap instead of burning them AND if we need more make more.

>we
All the logic of global resource conservation strategies fail to take into account the existence of the global resource market. If "we" use less oil now to have cheap hydrocarbons in the future, that doesn't mean "we" will have cheap hydrocarbons in the future, it means China and India will be able to buy hydrocarbons a little cheaper for a little longer. Is that a cause "we" should be sacrificing current economic opportunities for?

Exactly the same problem applies to economically dubious recycling pushes. It won't get *you* better future access to resources, it will give other, more pragmatic countries lower prices for these resources now (as there are less competing buyers) and a manufacturing costs advantage now on top of that.

 

[Robovski]

If you have neither hydrocarbons nor energy to make hydrocarbons then you have a bigger problem than not having energy to make hydrocarbons, that means you have no reliable energy at all.

>we
All the logic of global resource conservation strategies fail to take into account the existence of the global resource market. If "we" use less oil now to have cheap hydrocarbons in the future, that doesn't mean "we" will have cheap hydrocarbons in the future, it means China and India will be able to buy hydrocarbons a little cheaper for a little longer. Is that a cause "we" should be sacrificing current economic opportunities for?

Exactly the same problem applies to economically dubious recycling pushes. It won't get *you* better future access to resources, it will give other, more pragmatic countries lower prices for these resources now (as there are less competing buyers) and a manufacturing costs advantage now on top of that.

If this is some argument we shouldn't have nuclear fission to generate electricity I'm not seeing it.

 

[Marduk]

If this is some argument we shouldn't have nuclear fission to generate electricity I'm not seeing it.

It is an argument to follow pragmatic market pricing and what sources they point at on energy and other resources.

 

[Simonbob]

In other words....

Stop spending money like water, and let us choose what we're willing to pay for. After all, nukes are the safest power type.

 

[Captain X]

I'm still cool with keeping my gas and diesel engines, even if there is widespread use of nuclear energy.

 

[Bacle]

And what energy do you propose we use to make these hydrocarbons? See, we could generate electricity with fission so we could just use the hydrocarbons we have on tap instead of burning them AND if we need more make more. Seems like the better economic and environmental solution all the while reducing our need for fossil fuels while maintaining our standard of living. But the Greens hate people so don't want real solutions like that.

Nuclear, and backup-baseline geothermal; Iceland has a lot of low cost energy and other hotspots could be similarly tapped.

There are a few places where even just long burning coal seam fires could be used to generate power if you worked out the engineering to run heat tolerant piping into the coal bed where it's burning.

Centralia, PA for example could be converted into a large geothermal plant if pipes were run up near where the coal is actively smoldering.