Follow @PoliticsIE
 
 
 
Page 1 of 5 12345 LastLast
Results 1 to 10 of 46

Thread: Hawking & Cox on Nuclear Fusion

  1. #1
    Politics.ie Member
    Join Date
    Apr 2010
    Posts
    1,540
    Mentioned
    0 Post(s)

    Default Hawking & Cox on Nuclear Fusion

    Gods of science: Stephen Hawking and Brian Cox discuss mind over matter | Science | The Guardian

    What problem do you hope scientists will have solved by the end of the century?

    Stephen Hawking: Nuclear fusion. It would provide an inexhaustible supply of energy without pollution or global warming.

    Brian Cox: I share that view, that the provision of clean energy is of overwhelming importance. What frustrates me is that we know how to do it as physicists, how it works. It is an engineering solution that is within our grasp. I don't understand why we don't seem to want it enough at the moment. As a society, do you think we invest enough in scientific education and research?

    SH: I don't think we invest enough. They are why we are not still in the Middle Ages. Many badly needed goals, like fusion and cancer cure, would be achieved much sooner if we invested more.
    Well said guys.

    The Irish will waste more on wind turbines over the next decade than the entire global budget for magnetic confined plasma fusion research over the same time period. ITER - the way to new energy

    That's what happens when greenie potheads, gombeen developers and former bike shop owners get to act out their "renewable" energy fantasies and scams. We must stop listening to ************************wits like these,and start listening to adults like Hawking and Cox.

  2. #2
    Politics.ie Member
    Join Date
    Jun 2009
    Posts
    158
    Mentioned
    0 Post(s)

    Default

    That's all very well; but where's my damn hover car !!!!

    Bloody scientists; it's all; cheap abundant energy this, & cure for cancer that.

  3. #3
    Politics.ie Member
    Join Date
    Feb 2010
    Posts
    609
    Mentioned
    0 Post(s)

    Default

    Quote Originally Posted by GreenIsGood View Post
    The Irish will waste more on wind turbines over the next decade than the entire global budget for magnetic confined plasma fusion research over the same time period. ITER - the way to new energy

    That's what happens when greenie potheads, gombeen developers and former bike shop owners get to act out their "renewable" energy fantasies and scams. We must stop listening to ************************wits like these,and start listening to adults like Hawking and Cox.
    check out "Our economic recovery has to be green – nothing else will last" – Minister Ryan / Latest news / News / Home - Green Party / Comhaontas Glas

    Green Party Minister Eamon Ryan spoke today at the MacGill Summer School on the topic of ‘A New Economic Vision to Create Employment And Build Sustainable Growth.”

    Minister Ryan said, “The Celtic Tiger was always doomed to unravel because at its heart it was unsustainable. We should not weep its demise. We can take the best with us and discard the rest.

    “Having worked out what went wrong over the last few years we need to start concentrating on what we can get right in the next few years.

    “Our economic recovery has to be green – anything else would be unsustainable, it would not last.
    also The Green Economy is here ? Minister Eamon Ryan - Department of Communications, Energy and Natural Resources
    “We are greening this economy, providing jobs, cutting costs and carbon at the same time. The semi-state sector, private industry and the people are all facing in one direction led by Government.
    Who needs Hawking & Cox when we have the Greens.

  4. #4
    Politics.ie Member Squire Allworthy's Avatar
    Join Date
    May 2007
    Location
    Usually on the move.
    Posts
    1,404
    Mentioned
    0 Post(s)

    Default

    Whoever cracks the problems of production at an affordable price will hold very real economic power. The economics of the world will change. The oil and gas producers will decline and I wonder what will happen to all that trading in CO2.

  5. #5
    Politics.ie Member
    Join Date
    Feb 2009
    Posts
    465
    Mentioned
    0 Post(s)

    Default

    Going Nuclear - A Green Makes the Case

    Dr. Patrick Moore -founder of Greenpeace, is chairman and chief scientist of Greenspirit Strategies Ltd. He and Christine Todd Whitman are co-chairs of a new industry-funded initiative, the Clean and Safe Energy Coalition, which supports increased use of nuclear energy.

    In the early 1970s when I helped found Greenpeace, I believed that nuclear energy was synonymous with nuclear holocaust, as did most of my compatriots. That's the conviction that inspired Greenpeace's first voyage up the spectacular rocky northwest coast to protest the testing of U.S. hydrogen bombs in Alaska's Aleutian Islands. Thirty years on, my views have changed, and the rest of the environmental movement needs to update its views, too, because nuclear energy may just be the energy source that can save our planet from another possible disaster: catastrophic climate change.

    Look at it this way: More than 600 coal-fired electric plants in the United States produce 36 percent of U.S. emissions -- or nearly 10 percent of global emissions -- of CO2, the primary greenhouse gas responsible for climate change. Nuclear energy is the only large-scale, cost-effective energy source that can reduce these emissions while continuing to satisfy a growing demand for power. And these days it can do so safely.

    <Mod> Please do not post copyright-protected material to the site. A short extract and a link are generally sufficient. </Mod>
    Last edited by stringjack; 14th September 2010 at 07:56 PM. Reason: Please do not post copyright-protected material to the site.

  6. #6
    Politics.ie Member Akrasia's Avatar
    Join Date
    Oct 2006
    Location
    in Toxicated
    Posts
    1,128
    Mentioned
    0 Post(s)

    Default

    The anti greens are masters of the false dichotomy and declaring that by investing in x means we won't be doing y. when it is highly unlikely that y would be done even if x was not being invested in.
    Example 1. We shouldn't be spending money on cutting carbon, because so many people in the world don't have access to anti malaria drugs, as if the money currently spent on green initiatives was reserved for health initiatives in the developing world.

    Now they are trying to declare that if we didn't build wind turbines, that we would spend all that money on theoretical physics research into nuclear fusion instead.

    It's a ridiculous argument.

    Especially when we consider that most of the money for theoretical physics research comes from state grants, and most of the people who are most voraciously declaring that more money should be invested in nuclear fusion are pathologically opposed to taxation and public spending and would rather see tax cuts for themselves than increases in any form of government spending.

    Also, if the governments of the world did announce today that they were going to spend a trillion dollars on developing nuclear fusion as soon as possible for the good of mankind, half of people on this thread would declare that the money would really be spent on mind control rays, and the other half would be saying it's just a waste of their money on another corrupt and bloated government quango and that we should leave it to the 'more efficient' private sector (despite the fact that they currently are not devoting anywhere near enough resources into this line of research)
    Actual morality is doing what is right regardless of what you're told. Religious morality is doing what you're told, regardless of if it's right.

  7. #7
    Politics.ie Member Akrasia's Avatar
    Join Date
    Oct 2006
    Location
    in Toxicated
    Posts
    1,128
    Mentioned
    0 Post(s)

    Default

    Quote Originally Posted by karldaly View Post
    Going Nuclear - A Green Makes the Case
    You're new here so I'll give you the benefit of the doubt, but it's a requirement to provide a link to the source of your cut and pasted article, and also, it is not permitted to post up copyrighted material in its entirety, Fair use allows sections to be quoted but not the whole thing

    thirdly, this thread is about nuclear fusion, you are talking about nuclear fission, they're two different forms of power generation. Fusion is not currently viable for commercial energy production, fission has its pros and its cons, and that's a different argument for a different thread,.
    Actual morality is doing what is right regardless of what you're told. Religious morality is doing what you're told, regardless of if it's right.

  8. #8
    Politics.ie Member needle_too's Avatar
    Join Date
    Aug 2007
    Posts
    924
    Mentioned
    0 Post(s)

    Default

    Quote Originally Posted by GreenIsGood View Post
    Gods of science: Stephen Hawking and Brian Cox discuss mind over matter | Science | The Guardian



    Well said guys.

    The Irish will waste more on wind turbines over the next decade than the entire global budget for magnetic confined plasma fusion research over the same time period. ITER - the way to new energy

    That's what happens when greenie potheads, gombeen developers and former bike shop owners get to act out their "renewable" energy fantasies and scams. We must stop listening to ************************wits like these,and start listening to adults like Hawking and Cox.
    Its all well and good but theres a catch here.

    In the first instance both seem to imply that these issues are financial problems, not scientific ones. That is patently wrong.
    Its an FF-style argument, we have the brains but they wont fund us.

    Secondly the amount of funds needed to achieve either of these is astronomical. Its not like they are 20 million short of a cure for cancer in the next year. Its in the hundreds of billions and decades before any of this stuff arrives.

    Looking at scientists like they are some secret sect holding knowledge that has been repressed is a load of boll0x. They are a component of society that lobbies for funding like everyone else.
    They decry ignorance of their work and yet leverage that ignorance to generate funding. Its as cynical and manipulative as any other social group.

    Good thread for politics.ie, though.

  9. #9
    Politics.ie Member
    Join Date
    Apr 2010
    Posts
    1,540
    Mentioned
    0 Post(s)

    Default

    Quote Originally Posted by Akrasia View Post
    The anti greens are masters of the false dichotomy and declaring that by investing in x means we won't be doing y. when it is highly unlikely that y would be done even if x was not being invested in.
    Example 1. We shouldn't be spending money on cutting carbon, because so many people in the world don't have access to anti malaria drugs, as if the money currently spent on green initiatives was reserved for health initiatives in the developing world.

    Now they are trying to declare that if we didn't build wind turbines, that we would spend all that money on theoretical physics research into nuclear fusion instead.

    It's a ridiculous argument.

    Especially when we consider that most of the money for theoretical physics research comes from state grants, and most of the people who are most voraciously declaring that more money should be invested in nuclear fusion are pathologically opposed to taxation and public spending and would rather see tax cuts for themselves than increases in any form of government spending.

    Also, if the governments of the world did announce today that they were going to spend a trillion dollars on developing nuclear fusion as soon as possible for the good of mankind, half of people on this thread would declare that the money would really be spent on mind control rays, and the other half would be saying it's just a waste of their money on another corrupt and bloated government quango and that we should leave it to the 'more efficient' private sector (despite the fact that they currently are not devoting anywhere near enough resources into this line of research)
    gibberish.

    harnessing fusion is an engineering problem, not a problem in theoretical physics.

    the global budget for fusion plasma prototype over the next decade is 10Bn. Eamon Ryan wants to piss away 20Bn+ on wind turbines and associated costs. We know this won't work. It just makes a few greenie gombeen wind developers rich. These are the guys telling Ryan he is the great green messiah.

    the irish need to cop themselves on. we have to stop wasting our childrens' money on whackjob eco-bling.

  10. #10
    Politics.ie Member
    Join Date
    Aug 2009
    Posts
    5,306
    Mentioned
    0 Post(s)

    Default

    Quote Originally Posted by Akrasia View Post
    The anti greens are masters of the false dichotomy and declaring that by investing in x means we won't be doing y. when it is highly unlikely that y would be done even if x was not being invested in.
    Example 1. We shouldn't be spending money on cutting carbon, because so many people in the world don't have access to anti malaria drugs, as if the money currently spent on green initiatives was reserved for health initiatives in the developing world.

    Now they are trying to declare that if we didn't build wind turbines, that we would spend all that money on theoretical physics research into nuclear fusion instead.

    It's a ridiculous argument.

    Especially when we consider that most of the money for theoretical physics research comes from state grants, and most of the people who are most voraciously declaring that more money should be invested in nuclear fusion are pathologically opposed to taxation and public spending and would rather see tax cuts for themselves than increases in any form of government spending.

    Also, if the governments of the world did announce today that they were going to spend a trillion dollars on developing nuclear fusion as soon as possible for the good of mankind, half of people on this thread would declare that the money would really be spent on mind control rays, and the other half would be saying it's just a waste of their money on another corrupt and bloated government quango and that we should leave it to the 'more efficient' private sector (despite the fact that they currently are not devoting anywhere near enough resources into this line of research)
    Gibberish indeed.

    The anti Watermelons suggest that rather than burn piles of perfectly good money, instead do something wild and crazy like not burn piles of money and put it to some productive use instead.

    Watermlons hate logic and common sense.

Page 1 of 5 12345 LastLast

Posting Permissions

  • You may not post new threads
  • You may not post replies
  • You may not post attachments
  • You may not edit your posts
  •