Hello. I have a feeling that you may or may have not been reading too much out of the Democratic or of the liberal media, so I think it would be fair
to discuss this out of a neutral standpoint.
From reading the site www.naturalgas.org I can see that natural gas will be the best fuel efficent energy resource within the next hundred years and
before we get started on making the private sectors work on fission with water to get energy, they have to get natural gas to work first.
You can find some unconventional resources which has natural gas but can be altered so that can be changed so that like when you are drilling to
methane or some other rock like surface which has natural gas, even though they do not have the materials to drill it out of now they have a roughly
large percentage of natural gas stored in them.
That being said, I believe we need to work on experimental energy sources in the meantime and in many articles nasa has planned for the development of
new technology for public use that resembles the jetsons by 2050, they could create a new source of energy while they are at it.
Charging your car takes too long, we need a more fuel efficent car that runs on water and can run on electricity as well. Nuclear fission won't work
because we haven't figured out a way to do it yet. All of these commercials that show nuclear fission or some really high up super futuristic
technology will not happen for a while, it may happen in the next 100 years, so of course we should keep our research on it up, but until then we
shouldn't talk about using nuclear fuel for cars yet.
We need hovercrafts so that people don't need to drive with cars and plus if we had hovercrafts we could find some unlimited energy source for cars
and then people wouldn't have to worry about energy but apparently, since people are not smart enough to think that hovercrafts won't work on a mass
scale and that it is some sort of technological fantasy then it probably won't happen.
We probably could form a system where we have hovercrafts and then we completely rebuild our highway system, so that we have magnets, underneath, and
that the transit is directly controlled by the the Department of Transportation and the department of transportation has this one super computer which
takes in all of the suggestions that they are given, and they can create a computer which would be centralized to your hovercraft, and then the
computer connects to a server that connects to your car, and it calculates a route for you, based on the destination you are going. Why would this be
different from what we already have? Because it's simple, it's because the cars can only be determined of where to go, and this way we could
completely eliminate the need for a GPS system in our cars, and so that we wouldn't need to know how to get there and we wouldn't have to worry
about getting hit.
Plus, having hovercrafts would reduce the emissions of carbon monoxide into the Earth's atmosphere, and it would eliminate the need for natural gas
when the technology becomes readily available.
Also, having a hovercraft would greatly reduce the risk of suicide bombings in 100 years because you could not control your transit of the car as it
is being controlled for you, and the alleged people that attempt to crash into you intentionally would not be able to do so because they are not able
to.
It would be safer, and more well suited for travel. Plus, you can travel easier and it would be easier on you since you wouldn't have to worry about
what to do.
I mention the hovercraft idea because the idea that hovercrafts don't release emissions into the atmosphere or that they don't use energy hasn't
been thought out thuroughly before, I however, do think it would be great, because we could eliminate the unecessary energy we use while transporting
ourselves from place to place in the car. Until that time comes, we should use natural gas as our main energy source.
That's what I think about energy. It's not some sci-fi concept it's a technology they are not focusing on because of other important things that
are going on.
Head-2-Head: Building Tomorrow, page
privacy
Pages:
ATS Members have flagged this thread 5 times
ATS Members have flagged this thread 5 times
Topic started on 2-5-2007 @ 02:38 PM by chissler
Welcome to another round of Head-2-Head Battle! This marks the first debate between two political candidates for the upcoming
Above Top Secret Presidential Campaign.
Let's get down to it.
Subject
Building Tomorrow
Each candidate will detail his concept of America's future in the long term (100 or more years from now) with respect to Energy, Transportation, Food/Water supply/logistics, Health Care/Sanitation, and Population Growth, and explain his plan for beginning to guide America toward that vision during his term of office. This is not a pro/con debate, but a qualitative comparison between two ideas.
This debate will not be judged, but open to comments from any "Fighter" once it has been officially closed by myself.
Rules
Each candidate will be allowed an introduction, 5 body posts, and a conclusion. There will be no final rebuttal.
Maverickhunter will post first.
Each response should be made within 24 hours. A 12 hour grace period may be allowed if requested before the expiration of 24 hours. After 36 hours, the overdue post is forfeited, subject to exception by mutual agreement.
No post shall be longer than 5,000 characters. Extra characters will be deleted from the end of the post.
Up to 5 external references may be cited by link, but no direct quotation shall be made from them. One image may be used per post from any source complaint with Terms and Conditions.
Candidates shall not edit their posts, however the H2H FSME may correct board code errors at his discretion when requested. Editing of a post shall result in the deletion of that post.
Violation of debate rules or T&C may result in punitive action at the discretion of the H2H FSME and staff, possibly including forfeiture of the debate.
The Vagabond will recuse himself from any staff responsibility pertaining to this thread.
Maverickhunter and The Vagabond, agree to these rules and publically acknowledge that our adherence to them shall reflect our integrity as presidential candidates.
General Rules
The following General H2H Debate Rules (current at the time this debate started) apply:
1. Any violation of the terms of a debate will result in a forfeiture.
2. Debate posts may not be edited by participants for any reason.
3. Any participant may voluntarily forfeit at any time.
4. Forfeitures are final. If you want a rematch, start a new debate thread.
5. Only agreed-upon participants may post to a debate thread.
6. Disruption by non-participants in debate threads, T&C violations or failure to cooperate with the H2H staff may result in loss of Fighter status.
7. AP/H2H staff may take action as they see fit to maintain proper H2H forum operation.
8. As with all forums, the AboveTopSecret.com Terms And Conditions Of Use apply.
9. Quoting external sources is strictly forbidden. Members are permitted to reference links as sources, but they are not permitted to quote external sources. The only quotes that should be used in these debates are that of their opponent's replies.
(New) 10. No emoticons are permitted in any Head-2-Head Debate post.
[edit on 2-5-2007 by chissler]
Let's get down to it.
Subject
Building Tomorrow
Each candidate will detail his concept of America's future in the long term (100 or more years from now) with respect to Energy, Transportation, Food/Water supply/logistics, Health Care/Sanitation, and Population Growth, and explain his plan for beginning to guide America toward that vision during his term of office. This is not a pro/con debate, but a qualitative comparison between two ideas.
This debate will not be judged, but open to comments from any "Fighter" once it has been officially closed by myself.
Rules
Each candidate will be allowed an introduction, 5 body posts, and a conclusion. There will be no final rebuttal.
Maverickhunter will post first.
Each response should be made within 24 hours. A 12 hour grace period may be allowed if requested before the expiration of 24 hours. After 36 hours, the overdue post is forfeited, subject to exception by mutual agreement.
No post shall be longer than 5,000 characters. Extra characters will be deleted from the end of the post.
Up to 5 external references may be cited by link, but no direct quotation shall be made from them. One image may be used per post from any source complaint with Terms and Conditions.
Candidates shall not edit their posts, however the H2H FSME may correct board code errors at his discretion when requested. Editing of a post shall result in the deletion of that post.
Violation of debate rules or T&C may result in punitive action at the discretion of the H2H FSME and staff, possibly including forfeiture of the debate.
The Vagabond will recuse himself from any staff responsibility pertaining to this thread.
Maverickhunter and The Vagabond, agree to these rules and publically acknowledge that our adherence to them shall reflect our integrity as presidential candidates.
General Rules
The following General H2H Debate Rules (current at the time this debate started) apply:
1. Any violation of the terms of a debate will result in a forfeiture.
2. Debate posts may not be edited by participants for any reason.
3. Any participant may voluntarily forfeit at any time.
4. Forfeitures are final. If you want a rematch, start a new debate thread.
5. Only agreed-upon participants may post to a debate thread.
6. Disruption by non-participants in debate threads, T&C violations or failure to cooperate with the H2H staff may result in loss of Fighter status.
7. AP/H2H staff may take action as they see fit to maintain proper H2H forum operation.
8. As with all forums, the AboveTopSecret.com Terms And Conditions Of Use apply.
9. Quoting external sources is strictly forbidden. Members are permitted to reference links as sources, but they are not permitted to quote external sources. The only quotes that should be used in these debates are that of their opponent's replies.
(New) 10. No emoticons are permitted in any Head-2-Head Debate post.
[edit on 2-5-2007 by chissler]
reply posted on 3-5-2007 @ 03:30 AM by The Vagabond
Why?
I'd like to thank my opponent for being willing to have this debate. These are serious issues which deserve action, not only lofty dreams. The stakes are high. Current technology cannot support a world of 6 Billion people at an acceptable standard of living. Only the persistence of poverty, in some cases engineered purposefully by powerful economic interests, has sustained us this far. If we do not undertake a technological revolution, billions of people will eventually have to die and ultimately our planet and our species will succomb.
America has the resources and the technical ability to lead this charge, and in so doing we will preserve our great place in this world, not through force but through cooperation. We are undertaking a discussion of issues which affect virtually every aspect of our future. Whether we are at war or at peace, fed or starving, loved or hated, and alive or dead all depends upon our swift and persistent action.
How?
This work is daunting and costly. To achieve it, we must be efficient. We must pursue interrelated technologies which solve as many problems as possible with each discovery and each investment in infrastructure. We must not squander our efforts on pipe dreams or boondoggles. Of the many possibilities before us, we must choose
A Preview of My Plan
Energy
Fusion is almost without doubt the future of energy. The technology is not yet ready to go, but it has been worked on and has been demonstrated in theory, and there are ongoing projects.
Fusion is able to form the basis of the entire system because it can provide virtually limitless power. While fossil fuel deposits can be exhausted, Hydrogen- they fuel of fusion- is the most abundant element in the universe, and constitues a major portion of our oceans.
Increased funding for education and for research is needed to expedite this vital development for our future.
Transportation
The abundance of hydrogen and the fact that we will need an infrastructure to harvest it from our oceans for fusion anyway makes it the logical choice for transporation as well. Hydrogen is a quite versatile fuel. It can power an internal combustion engine, making the switch over for auto makers practical, but it can also be used to power an electric motor without combustion using a Proton Exchange Membrane Fuel Cell. In either case the only byproduct is water vapor, making it completely clean and fully renewable.
We have the ability to use hydrogen now. It will not be the most cost effective or efficient option in the short term, until fusion is our primary power source, but it will help usher in the developments that our long term success depends upon in terms of infrastructure, hands on experience, and market-driven innovation. Through tax incentives and legal requirements I will stimulate greater production of hydrogen fuel and vehicles which run on hydrogen either through combustion or the use of PEM fuel cells.
Food/Water
We are going to have to start using energy-intensive desalination processes to create enough useable water to support agriculture and provide adequate sanitation and hydration for everyone. In some cases it may even prove to be a valuable export commodity as the world population grows. Desalination plants will be well worth their cost, particularly once fusion is providing sufficient energy to support extensive use of this option. I will fund desalination plants in areas of the country most in need of additional water resources in order to improve the energy efficiency of the process and build expertise that will serve us as we expand use of this technology in the future. This is a dual-use technology that can have a positive environmental impact as well.
Healthcare
Development is needed, but now our greatest health concern is ensuring that people are financially able to enjoy the technology we already possess. A series of regulatory reforms on the industry and tax reforms to make our expenditures in this field more efficient are necessary.
Population
Population growth is the overarching theme behind all that we are discussing. We find ourselves in a race to expand the carrying capacity of our planet in order to save lives. With near 100% recycling of all possible materials, and abundant energy, mobile fuel, food, and water provided by the programs described above, we can sustain a responsible levels of growth for at least another century. We need that century to educate and to elevate people world wide, preparing the majority of people to choose, without coercion, to reproduce at replacement rate only.
I'd like to thank my opponent for being willing to have this debate. These are serious issues which deserve action, not only lofty dreams. The stakes are high. Current technology cannot support a world of 6 Billion people at an acceptable standard of living. Only the persistence of poverty, in some cases engineered purposefully by powerful economic interests, has sustained us this far. If we do not undertake a technological revolution, billions of people will eventually have to die and ultimately our planet and our species will succomb.
America has the resources and the technical ability to lead this charge, and in so doing we will preserve our great place in this world, not through force but through cooperation. We are undertaking a discussion of issues which affect virtually every aspect of our future. Whether we are at war or at peace, fed or starving, loved or hated, and alive or dead all depends upon our swift and persistent action.
How?
This work is daunting and costly. To achieve it, we must be efficient. We must pursue interrelated technologies which solve as many problems as possible with each discovery and each investment in infrastructure. We must not squander our efforts on pipe dreams or boondoggles. Of the many possibilities before us, we must choose
- Those which we are best able to accomplish
- Those we can accomplish in a timely manner
- Those we can actually afford to bring into being
- Those which will provide sufficiently for everyone in the long term
A Preview of My Plan
Energy
Fusion is almost without doubt the future of energy. The technology is not yet ready to go, but it has been worked on and has been demonstrated in theory, and there are ongoing projects.
Fusion is able to form the basis of the entire system because it can provide virtually limitless power. While fossil fuel deposits can be exhausted, Hydrogen- they fuel of fusion- is the most abundant element in the universe, and constitues a major portion of our oceans.
Increased funding for education and for research is needed to expedite this vital development for our future.
Transportation
The abundance of hydrogen and the fact that we will need an infrastructure to harvest it from our oceans for fusion anyway makes it the logical choice for transporation as well. Hydrogen is a quite versatile fuel. It can power an internal combustion engine, making the switch over for auto makers practical, but it can also be used to power an electric motor without combustion using a Proton Exchange Membrane Fuel Cell. In either case the only byproduct is water vapor, making it completely clean and fully renewable.
We have the ability to use hydrogen now. It will not be the most cost effective or efficient option in the short term, until fusion is our primary power source, but it will help usher in the developments that our long term success depends upon in terms of infrastructure, hands on experience, and market-driven innovation. Through tax incentives and legal requirements I will stimulate greater production of hydrogen fuel and vehicles which run on hydrogen either through combustion or the use of PEM fuel cells.
Food/Water
We are going to have to start using energy-intensive desalination processes to create enough useable water to support agriculture and provide adequate sanitation and hydration for everyone. In some cases it may even prove to be a valuable export commodity as the world population grows. Desalination plants will be well worth their cost, particularly once fusion is providing sufficient energy to support extensive use of this option. I will fund desalination plants in areas of the country most in need of additional water resources in order to improve the energy efficiency of the process and build expertise that will serve us as we expand use of this technology in the future. This is a dual-use technology that can have a positive environmental impact as well.
Healthcare
Development is needed, but now our greatest health concern is ensuring that people are financially able to enjoy the technology we already possess. A series of regulatory reforms on the industry and tax reforms to make our expenditures in this field more efficient are necessary.
Population
Population growth is the overarching theme behind all that we are discussing. We find ourselves in a race to expand the carrying capacity of our planet in order to save lives. With near 100% recycling of all possible materials, and abundant energy, mobile fuel, food, and water provided by the programs described above, we can sustain a responsible levels of growth for at least another century. We need that century to educate and to elevate people world wide, preparing the majority of people to choose, without coercion, to reproduce at replacement rate only.
reply posted on 7-5-2007 @ 08:54 PM by The Vagabond
Rebuttals
On fusion workability
My opponent has failed to differentiate between the two forms of nuclear energy. First he said fission was impossible. It isn't; we do it all the time. He meant fusion is impossible. That's not either. The technology in is development and showing promise- we just haven't been able to sustain net-gain reactions for a long enough period of time yet.
On fusion security risks
Also as a consequence of this failure to distinguish, he believes fusion creates a danger of nuclear proliferation. Fusion does not require fissile materials. There are no weapons currently known to exist which are capable of starting a fusion reaction without a fission primary. By proliferating fusion technology, we would have a valid reason to push for a ban on fission technology which is necessary to nuclear weapons, thus eliminating the "dual use" threat.
Of course there is some concern that ballotechnics will replace fusion primaries, but ballotechnics such as hafnium 178 also have to be bred in a reactor, so the previous argument still applies. Any way you slice it, fusion is far less of a security risk.
The tinwiki article I wrote last year on Red Mercury bombs includes a great deal of the technical information and sources that I am referring to, and can be seen here if you doubt my facts.
On even knowing what the heck we are talking about
Also "water fission" will not generate energy. Binding energies go down as you progress through the early part of the periodic table, meaning that splitting small nuclei doesn't generate power, it consumes power. I'm pretty sure my opponent is talking about heavy hydrogen fusion (not water fusion- the oxygen is removed through electrolysis and discarded, and only deuterium and tritium will do the trick)
On hover cars
On Fusion
Why fusion?
Fusion has a crucial advantage that we will need: it can consistently generate massive amounts of power.
Providing clean water, generating stored energy for transportation, and manufacturing necessities for 6 Billion people now, to say nothing of 10 Billion people in the near future, will require that kind of energy. Maverickhunter may think we're doing OK, but the fact is that 2.6 Billion people don't have basic sanitation and over a billion use unsafe water sources . link
What will it take?
It's on the way. ITER, a testbed, should be running in 10 years. A proof of concept for commercial reactors should be running in 25 years. A timeline of development is available here.
It's only costing us and our 6 partner nations combined 1 Billion annually. What we need to do now is build the heavy water facilities, the hydrogen generation facilities and pipelines, etc to support them when its time, and start a conditional licensing process and ongoing engineering review that will be sure that design and construction begins the day after ITER and DEMO have yielded the information we need. We also need to start setting aside money for construction. A fusion power plant will generate about 2 gigawatts according to current estimates. We are currently using over 500 gigawatts annually. We should be prepared to build at least 50 fusion plants almost immediately upon the technology becoming viable, to provide roughly 20% of our current power needs. If we use the cost numbers for ITER as a predictor, we can expect that to cost around 600 Billion dollars over the course of a decade. That can be managed, but we would be wise to start setting aside money for it now so that we don't have to give control of it over to private investers for profiteering and so that we don't have to resort to massive taxes at that time to fund construction.
On fusion workability
My opponent has failed to differentiate between the two forms of nuclear energy. First he said fission was impossible. It isn't; we do it all the time. He meant fusion is impossible. That's not either. The technology in is development and showing promise- we just haven't been able to sustain net-gain reactions for a long enough period of time yet.
On fusion security risks
Also as a consequence of this failure to distinguish, he believes fusion creates a danger of nuclear proliferation. Fusion does not require fissile materials. There are no weapons currently known to exist which are capable of starting a fusion reaction without a fission primary. By proliferating fusion technology, we would have a valid reason to push for a ban on fission technology which is necessary to nuclear weapons, thus eliminating the "dual use" threat.
Of course there is some concern that ballotechnics will replace fusion primaries, but ballotechnics such as hafnium 178 also have to be bred in a reactor, so the previous argument still applies. Any way you slice it, fusion is far less of a security risk.
The tinwiki article I wrote last year on Red Mercury bombs includes a great deal of the technical information and sources that I am referring to, and can be seen here if you doubt my facts.
On even knowing what the heck we are talking about
Also "water fission" will not generate energy. Binding energies go down as you progress through the early part of the periodic table, meaning that splitting small nuclei doesn't generate power, it consumes power. I'm pretty sure my opponent is talking about heavy hydrogen fusion (not water fusion- the oxygen is removed through electrolysis and discarded, and only deuterium and tritium will do the trick)
On hover cars
- Your hover car will still need a power source for the electromagnets. They would have to be electromagnets in order to toggle on and off to use the
propulsion system you described.
- The power needed would be considerably more than we use for wheeled propulsion because the vehicle would be lifting rather than only rolling its
own weight.
- The freeways would also have to be electromagnets simply because we'd never be able to produce rare earth magnets in sufficient quantity to pave with them (aggregate mines have to produce thousands of tons a day in some cases to keep up with paving schedules. That's fine when any old silicate will do, but that's a lot of neodymium (which, incidentally loses its strength above 176 degrees, a temperature which pavement can approach on a hot summer day in some areas. link) We'd have to repave every single street in the Houston area (and other places, including my home town) every single year, sometimes more than once.
On Fusion
Why fusion?
Fusion has a crucial advantage that we will need: it can consistently generate massive amounts of power.
Providing clean water, generating stored energy for transportation, and manufacturing necessities for 6 Billion people now, to say nothing of 10 Billion people in the near future, will require that kind of energy. Maverickhunter may think we're doing OK, but the fact is that 2.6 Billion people don't have basic sanitation and over a billion use unsafe water sources . link
What will it take?
It's on the way. ITER, a testbed, should be running in 10 years. A proof of concept for commercial reactors should be running in 25 years. A timeline of development is available here.
It's only costing us and our 6 partner nations combined 1 Billion annually. What we need to do now is build the heavy water facilities, the hydrogen generation facilities and pipelines, etc to support them when its time, and start a conditional licensing process and ongoing engineering review that will be sure that design and construction begins the day after ITER and DEMO have yielded the information we need. We also need to start setting aside money for construction. A fusion power plant will generate about 2 gigawatts according to current estimates. We are currently using over 500 gigawatts annually. We should be prepared to build at least 50 fusion plants almost immediately upon the technology becoming viable, to provide roughly 20% of our current power needs. If we use the cost numbers for ITER as a predictor, we can expect that to cost around 600 Billion dollars over the course of a decade. That can be managed, but we would be wise to start setting aside money for it now so that we don't have to give control of it over to private investers for profiteering and so that we don't have to resort to massive taxes at that time to fund construction.
reply posted on 14-5-2007 @ 10:31 PM by The Vagabond
Alright, there is much to say and few words to say it in so here we go.
Transportation
My opponent's further explanation of his magnetic transportation system simply does not answer the problem I have presented (which I understood perfectly).
His support for natural gas is ill-founded as well. Natural gas is cleaner (around 30% cleaner than petroleum) but not clean. It is composed of carbon as well as hydrogen, and that means CO2 emissions, which contribute to global warming. The useless carbon in the fuel also takes up a disproportionate amount of space.
Hydrogen on the other hand can be used in a PEM fuel cell with only water as an emission. A natural gas powered internal combustion engine would generate NOx if it ran hot, but a PEM fuel cell would not. So why transition our cars over to natural gas combustion and enlarge our natural gas infrastructure just to phase it back out in short order when internal combustion is done with? The hydrogen we can use in internal combustion will also be the fuel of choice for the next vehicle power system, so the infrastructure only needs to be built once, and it will be more efficient because we are not expending energy moving useless weight in the form of carbon.
Also, generating renewable natural gas would mean establishing plants at landfills and waste water treatment plants all over the country. On the other hand, using the abundant power provided by fusion to get it from sea water would only require a few large plants, operating more efficiently than thousands of small ones.
This, combined with national urban development standards designed to plan future expansion in our country in ways that make mass transit a viable option for more major population centers and other advanced planning can meet out transportation needs far more effectively than "hover cars".
Food and Water
We don't appreciate water as we should because we can get it in almost any room of our homes, but water is a precious commodity. We are exhausting fresh water sources. The Colorado River no longer reaches the Gulf of California- it gets tapped out, and nobody is getting as much of it as they want. Serious water disputes have been seen in this country in Klamath Falls and on the Chattahoochee. It will get worse. We need an abundant supply of water for crops, for sanitation, for industrial use, and of course for less important things like not dying.
The answer covers most of the Earth's surface. It's just full of salt. Desalination is expensive because it is power intensive, but this is yet another problem that fusion can solve for us. By building a network of desalination plants around the country we can provide for our agricultural, industrial, and personal water needs virtually without limit, which will be an economic advantage to us as growing nations, like China (which at present seems prepared to eclipse us in many ways) start wondering how they will feed their populations and provide water resources for their industrial needs. At the same time, we will be able to solve environmental problems in places such as the Salton Sea, Klamath River, and elsewhere using the same infrastructure which safeguards us against future needs.
Summing up
The beauty of my proposals is the interrelation of them all. We do not need many small facilities drawing on many different technologies. The power we can derive from fusion will allow us to use the same sea water from which we derive our fusion fuel to fill our gas tanks and be cleaned and piped to our homes. We must begin planning and budgeting and where practical building right now so that 20, 30, and 50 years from now our preparation and efficiency put us at the head of the pack and provide us with the boost we need to remain relevant in an increasingly more competitive world.
It's not hover cars and free energy, but it will work. I love science fiction, but right now we're talking about how we're going to support ourselves and our children and grandchildren for the long haul, not just about what would be really neat.
Transportation
My opponent's further explanation of his magnetic transportation system simply does not answer the problem I have presented (which I understood perfectly).
His support for natural gas is ill-founded as well. Natural gas is cleaner (around 30% cleaner than petroleum) but not clean. It is composed of carbon as well as hydrogen, and that means CO2 emissions, which contribute to global warming. The useless carbon in the fuel also takes up a disproportionate amount of space.
Hydrogen on the other hand can be used in a PEM fuel cell with only water as an emission. A natural gas powered internal combustion engine would generate NOx if it ran hot, but a PEM fuel cell would not. So why transition our cars over to natural gas combustion and enlarge our natural gas infrastructure just to phase it back out in short order when internal combustion is done with? The hydrogen we can use in internal combustion will also be the fuel of choice for the next vehicle power system, so the infrastructure only needs to be built once, and it will be more efficient because we are not expending energy moving useless weight in the form of carbon.
Also, generating renewable natural gas would mean establishing plants at landfills and waste water treatment plants all over the country. On the other hand, using the abundant power provided by fusion to get it from sea water would only require a few large plants, operating more efficiently than thousands of small ones.
This, combined with national urban development standards designed to plan future expansion in our country in ways that make mass transit a viable option for more major population centers and other advanced planning can meet out transportation needs far more effectively than "hover cars".
Food and Water
We don't appreciate water as we should because we can get it in almost any room of our homes, but water is a precious commodity. We are exhausting fresh water sources. The Colorado River no longer reaches the Gulf of California- it gets tapped out, and nobody is getting as much of it as they want. Serious water disputes have been seen in this country in Klamath Falls and on the Chattahoochee. It will get worse. We need an abundant supply of water for crops, for sanitation, for industrial use, and of course for less important things like not dying.
The answer covers most of the Earth's surface. It's just full of salt. Desalination is expensive because it is power intensive, but this is yet another problem that fusion can solve for us. By building a network of desalination plants around the country we can provide for our agricultural, industrial, and personal water needs virtually without limit, which will be an economic advantage to us as growing nations, like China (which at present seems prepared to eclipse us in many ways) start wondering how they will feed their populations and provide water resources for their industrial needs. At the same time, we will be able to solve environmental problems in places such as the Salton Sea, Klamath River, and elsewhere using the same infrastructure which safeguards us against future needs.
Summing up
The beauty of my proposals is the interrelation of them all. We do not need many small facilities drawing on many different technologies. The power we can derive from fusion will allow us to use the same sea water from which we derive our fusion fuel to fill our gas tanks and be cleaned and piped to our homes. We must begin planning and budgeting and where practical building right now so that 20, 30, and 50 years from now our preparation and efficiency put us at the head of the pack and provide us with the boost we need to remain relevant in an increasingly more competitive world.
It's not hover cars and free energy, but it will work. I love science fiction, but right now we're talking about how we're going to support ourselves and our children and grandchildren for the long haul, not just about what would be really neat.
reply posted on 15-5-2007 @ 09:42 PM by The Vagabond
First and foremost, I never said everyone would have their own fusion generator. That is a ludicrous concept at this point in time. We're talking
about multi-million dollar facilities that put out 2 gigawatts of power- the average person neither could have one nor would want one. I suggest using
a series of large plants to serve major industrial electrical needs such as purifying water, powering our homes through the grid and generating
hydrogen that can be used in smaller applications.
My opponent has repeatedly suggested that he has not been properly understood. This is perhaps because being inarticulate would be slightly less damaging to his case than acknowledging that his science just isn't sound. (He's also not very good at Sim City, which he apparently things has something to do with either science or government- it doesn't).
The science behind his "hover cars" is sloppy and inefficient. People won't want hover cars when they find out that the freeway can be demagnitized by a hot day, when they find out that their favorite small businesses are going out of business because they can't afford a multi-million dollar magnetic parking lot, when they realize that it wastes several times more energy than traditional vehicles, or when they find out that these cars will handle like a boat running across its own wake because of the constantly shifting upward repulsion/downward attraction on the front and back of the vehicle respectively.
Natural Gas is history. My opponent claims I don't know what it is, yet never showed any understanding himself. The ironic thing? Natural gas is hydrogen essentially. The operative chemical element in that compound, in respect to combustion, is hydrogen- the fuel I suggest using.
In Natural gas, 4 hydrogens are bonded to one carbon. Heat energy from the device being used must be wasted to break that bond before the exothermic bonding of hydrogen and oxygen can take place- it's inefficient, and it generates CO2 as a byproduct. It also happens to be a non-renewable resource, as acknowledged by The Natural Gas Supply Association. The suppliers themselves admit that its not renewable, and my opponent is suggesting that there are local renewable sources all over the place to just tap into. I'd love to see some evidence that we have the ability to capture enough cow farts to power our industrial infrastructure in perpetuity, but I don't see it happening.
On the other hand, we can all see the vast reserve of hydrogen sitting in our oceans, which can be broken down ahead of time using fusion generated power creating only oxygen as a byproduct, then shipped at a higher energy density and thus more efficiently for use as a portable fuel just like natural gas, however it will be more efficient and it need not be limited only to combustion technology.
So much for my opponent's views on transportation.
Then my opponent seems to think that the food problem on our planet is one of needing to eat less french fries. Is it that simple? Can we solve our food concerns by telling the 850 million people who the WHO found to be malnourished from 1999 to 2005 that they need to cut back on fast food? All this time I thought that drought and supply interruptions caused by civil unrest were causing much of the famine in the world, but apparently people are starving to death because they eat too many big macs. Thanks for clearing that up.
Water and energy are the keys to food supply. 70% of our water use is spent on irrigation. Only 2.7% of Earth's water is fresh, and 2/3s of that is in glaciers (link). Surprise surprise then when it turns out that aquifers in many places are becoming dangerously depleted. The eventual result? Famine. It takes about 100,000 liters of water (among other things) to raise a kilogram of beef. The energy efficiency of burning fossil fuels in the process of raising and processing beef is 54:1 input to output. (link)
We can manage the land and the fertilizer at least in the near term (although we will have to begin providing incentives for efficiency, because vegitables fish and chicken are both healthier and significantly more efficient than beef and pork, which is the key to the more distant future) but right now we a source of water and a source of energy that can match any demand. That's fusion and desalination, no doubt about it.
Health and sanitation follow just as naturally. 3 of the top 5 killers in the world are cardiac or vascular in nature- reduced by better nutrition. Another is respritory- potentially improved by clean energy. AIDS is the only of the 5 leading causes of mortality listed by the WHO which won't be helped just by following my earlier proposals.
With a little planning and efficiency, it all comes together beautifully.
My opponent has repeatedly suggested that he has not been properly understood. This is perhaps because being inarticulate would be slightly less damaging to his case than acknowledging that his science just isn't sound. (He's also not very good at Sim City, which he apparently things has something to do with either science or government- it doesn't).
The science behind his "hover cars" is sloppy and inefficient. People won't want hover cars when they find out that the freeway can be demagnitized by a hot day, when they find out that their favorite small businesses are going out of business because they can't afford a multi-million dollar magnetic parking lot, when they realize that it wastes several times more energy than traditional vehicles, or when they find out that these cars will handle like a boat running across its own wake because of the constantly shifting upward repulsion/downward attraction on the front and back of the vehicle respectively.
Natural Gas is history. My opponent claims I don't know what it is, yet never showed any understanding himself. The ironic thing? Natural gas is hydrogen essentially. The operative chemical element in that compound, in respect to combustion, is hydrogen- the fuel I suggest using.
In Natural gas, 4 hydrogens are bonded to one carbon. Heat energy from the device being used must be wasted to break that bond before the exothermic bonding of hydrogen and oxygen can take place- it's inefficient, and it generates CO2 as a byproduct. It also happens to be a non-renewable resource, as acknowledged by The Natural Gas Supply Association. The suppliers themselves admit that its not renewable, and my opponent is suggesting that there are local renewable sources all over the place to just tap into. I'd love to see some evidence that we have the ability to capture enough cow farts to power our industrial infrastructure in perpetuity, but I don't see it happening.
On the other hand, we can all see the vast reserve of hydrogen sitting in our oceans, which can be broken down ahead of time using fusion generated power creating only oxygen as a byproduct, then shipped at a higher energy density and thus more efficiently for use as a portable fuel just like natural gas, however it will be more efficient and it need not be limited only to combustion technology.
So much for my opponent's views on transportation.
Then my opponent seems to think that the food problem on our planet is one of needing to eat less french fries. Is it that simple? Can we solve our food concerns by telling the 850 million people who the WHO found to be malnourished from 1999 to 2005 that they need to cut back on fast food? All this time I thought that drought and supply interruptions caused by civil unrest were causing much of the famine in the world, but apparently people are starving to death because they eat too many big macs. Thanks for clearing that up.
Water and energy are the keys to food supply. 70% of our water use is spent on irrigation. Only 2.7% of Earth's water is fresh, and 2/3s of that is in glaciers (link). Surprise surprise then when it turns out that aquifers in many places are becoming dangerously depleted. The eventual result? Famine. It takes about 100,000 liters of water (among other things) to raise a kilogram of beef. The energy efficiency of burning fossil fuels in the process of raising and processing beef is 54:1 input to output. (link)
We can manage the land and the fertilizer at least in the near term (although we will have to begin providing incentives for efficiency, because vegitables fish and chicken are both healthier and significantly more efficient than beef and pork, which is the key to the more distant future) but right now we a source of water and a source of energy that can match any demand. That's fusion and desalination, no doubt about it.
Health and sanitation follow just as naturally. 3 of the top 5 killers in the world are cardiac or vascular in nature- reduced by better nutrition. Another is respritory- potentially improved by clean energy. AIDS is the only of the 5 leading causes of mortality listed by the WHO which won't be helped just by following my earlier proposals.
With a little planning and efficiency, it all comes together beautifully.
reply posted on 18-5-2007 @ 10:54 PM by Maverickhunter
My opponent does not understand how much the physics of science will change within the next fifty years so that he cannot fathom how a hover car which
is different than the cars we have today. I have played Sim City and I am good at that game but that is besides the point I was bringing up an
example.
My opponent also does not relaize that natural gas and oil can be renewed. My opponent clearly is under the illusion from the Western Media that natural gas and oil are really harming the environment and that they will cause global warming plus that they will release emissions into the air... please, if you are going to talk about global warming, keep in mind that THE EARTHS OIL IS NOT RUNNING OUT.
The process takes place deep within the Earth and stuff that gets under the Earth below the Earths crust will eventually melt because the magma and will turn into Rock oil. According to this link 321energy.com... the Russians know that the Untied States is under the misguided way of thinking that they think that natural gas and oil is running out and cannot be renewed.
Plus, natural gas uses hydrocarbons, and hydrocarbons is one of the most common elements in the Universe. You should read a periodic table. If you read a periodic table you would know that it would appear in the Universe more frequently and it will not run out and once before it runs out here we can get it from other places in the Universe.
What you're saying is what you learn in Elementary school. I know that 2/3rds of the worlds water can be found in Glaciers and that there is only 3% of fresh water in the world and that streams are becoming full with saltwater that I already I know because I PAID ATTENTION IN CLASS IN ELEMENTARY SCHOOL.
Additionally, my opponent does not realize how the impact of having many plants that would create a grid would affect the country for the long run. My opponent has said before that nuclear fusion and nuclear fission is best... but what if something goes wrong? What if they make an error? What if they don't build it correctly? There are too many random variables for accidents in my opponents equation for success that it won't ever happen.
My opponent does not understand the science behind hovercars. All that would be different about the cars would be that there would be a generator under the Earth that powers the highway with electricity to levitate the cars above the ground and send it to where it needs to go. There is nothing too hard to understand about that. It is not "clumsy".
Plus... I have to say that we can solve all of the worlds hunger by taking money out of the global corporations and then give it to the people. But why won't we be allowed to do that? We'd solve the world's hunger problem instantly! However-- the government, does not want to give money out to those who need it most. Maybe if we solved the worlds hunger problem they would not be intent on spending their money on fast food while the rest of the people in the world are suffering... maybe that they are starving because they do not have some of the services we do in the United States... maybe they do not have as much money as we are... maybe they are starving because too many people are dying each minute and we cannot help all of them.
The world's hunger problem will not be solved immediately, but under my plan, to give money out to the people who need it, it will. Under my plan I believe that the world will be able to live with hapyness, rather than following in the pursuit of it. We have the money. We spend it on war bills. If we stop spending it on useless projects and give our money out gradually over time to those who are in needs... surely they will not say bad things about us in debt, it will increase our diplomatic relations with other countries, and it will get people to stop being starving. Once we do that we can give money to people who want to create small businesses and restaraunts... but they don't do that now because they do not want people to be successful, they would rather take money away from them.
I would love to see a world where our government would give at least $50,000 to every citizen in the nation. I am sure then other countries would follow suit and do the same and then our economy would boom and then people would not need to be starving and they would not be slaves to the system anymore. The system is a monster... and it's gobbling up money from the people who need it most... that they need it to have money for food. That's about as simple as it gets.
That's my $.02.
- maverickhunter
My opponent also does not relaize that natural gas and oil can be renewed. My opponent clearly is under the illusion from the Western Media that natural gas and oil are really harming the environment and that they will cause global warming plus that they will release emissions into the air... please, if you are going to talk about global warming, keep in mind that THE EARTHS OIL IS NOT RUNNING OUT.
The process takes place deep within the Earth and stuff that gets under the Earth below the Earths crust will eventually melt because the magma and will turn into Rock oil. According to this link 321energy.com... the Russians know that the Untied States is under the misguided way of thinking that they think that natural gas and oil is running out and cannot be renewed.
Plus, natural gas uses hydrocarbons, and hydrocarbons is one of the most common elements in the Universe. You should read a periodic table. If you read a periodic table you would know that it would appear in the Universe more frequently and it will not run out and once before it runs out here we can get it from other places in the Universe.
What you're saying is what you learn in Elementary school. I know that 2/3rds of the worlds water can be found in Glaciers and that there is only 3% of fresh water in the world and that streams are becoming full with saltwater that I already I know because I PAID ATTENTION IN CLASS IN ELEMENTARY SCHOOL.
Additionally, my opponent does not realize how the impact of having many plants that would create a grid would affect the country for the long run. My opponent has said before that nuclear fusion and nuclear fission is best... but what if something goes wrong? What if they make an error? What if they don't build it correctly? There are too many random variables for accidents in my opponents equation for success that it won't ever happen.
My opponent does not understand the science behind hovercars. All that would be different about the cars would be that there would be a generator under the Earth that powers the highway with electricity to levitate the cars above the ground and send it to where it needs to go. There is nothing too hard to understand about that. It is not "clumsy".
Plus... I have to say that we can solve all of the worlds hunger by taking money out of the global corporations and then give it to the people. But why won't we be allowed to do that? We'd solve the world's hunger problem instantly! However-- the government, does not want to give money out to those who need it most. Maybe if we solved the worlds hunger problem they would not be intent on spending their money on fast food while the rest of the people in the world are suffering... maybe that they are starving because they do not have some of the services we do in the United States... maybe they do not have as much money as we are... maybe they are starving because too many people are dying each minute and we cannot help all of them.
The world's hunger problem will not be solved immediately, but under my plan, to give money out to the people who need it, it will. Under my plan I believe that the world will be able to live with hapyness, rather than following in the pursuit of it. We have the money. We spend it on war bills. If we stop spending it on useless projects and give our money out gradually over time to those who are in needs... surely they will not say bad things about us in debt, it will increase our diplomatic relations with other countries, and it will get people to stop being starving. Once we do that we can give money to people who want to create small businesses and restaraunts... but they don't do that now because they do not want people to be successful, they would rather take money away from them.
I would love to see a world where our government would give at least $50,000 to every citizen in the nation. I am sure then other countries would follow suit and do the same and then our economy would boom and then people would not need to be starving and they would not be slaves to the system anymore. The system is a monster... and it's gobbling up money from the people who need it most... that they need it to have money for food. That's about as simple as it gets.
That's my $.02.
- maverickhunter
Pages: ^^TOP^^
