2 ms·

>The world _will_have_ an energy generation problem. It will not. We orbit a self-sustaining fusion reaction which by definition will last our habitable life.

by Cushman 14y ago

>The world _will_have_ an energy generation problem. It will not. We orbit a self-sustaining fusion reaction which by definition will last our habitable life. The Earth, at least, is pretty much set. > If it was so absurd then there would be environmentalists who would argue for nuclear and thorium reactors. >That is not the case. Many environmentalists argue for nuclear and thorium reactors. What decade do you think it is?

ThomPete 14y ago
"It will not. We orbit a self-sustaining fusion reaction which by definition will last our habitable life. The Earth, at least, is pretty much set." We are set if we are allowed to find new ways to generate the energy. I don't see that happening right now or in the near future, in fact what I see is primarily an attempt to replace current usage. Perhaps you have different sources that shows we have no problem and I would be happy to have a look at them. Otherwise we have to agree to disagree. "Many environmentalists argue for nuclear and thorium reactors. What decade do you think it is?" Perhaps our definition of environmentalists differ and perhaps it's because I am from Europe. But again if you have sources showing that the waste majority of envorimentalists are pro nuclear and pro thorium I would be happy to be proven wrong. In fact this was the only thing that showed up. http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Environmentalists_for_Nuclear_Energy http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Environmentalists_for_Nuclear_E... In which even they argue that environmentalists anti-nuclear views are a misunderstanding. So as it stands right now I have a hard time believing your claim to be true.
- Cushman 14y ago
  We could easily generate enough power for the world using solar, nuclear, or coal, with solar being the longest lasting. What we cannot do presently is store or transmit that power to the point of use in a way which meets current expectations. This is why oil, though rarely burned for electricity, remains one of our primary energy sources-- #1 in the US, at least. I'm curious what part of this stretches credibility. > But again if you have sources showing that the waste majority of envorimentalists are pro nuclear and pro thorium I would be happy to be proven wrong. I have claimed no such thing. Decide what you're arguing about.

by Cushman 14y ago

ThomPete 14y ago

"It will not. We orbit a self-sustaining fusion reaction which by definition will last our habitable life. The Earth, at least, is pretty much set." We are set if we are allowed to find new ways to generate the energy. I don't see that happening right now or in the near future, in fact what I see is primarily an attempt to replace current usage. Perhaps you have different sources that shows we have no problem and I would be happy to have a look at them. Otherwise we have to agree to disagree. "Many environmentalists argue for nuclear and thorium reactors. What decade do you think it is?" Perhaps our definition of environmentalists differ and perhaps it's because I am from Europe. But again if you have sources showing that the waste majority of envorimentalists are pro nuclear and pro thorium I would be happy to be proven wrong. In fact this was the only thing that showed up. http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Environmentalists_for_Nuclear_Energy http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Environmentalists_for_Nuclear_E... In which even they argue that environmentalists anti-nuclear views are a misunderstanding. So as it stands right now I have a hard time believing your claim to be true.

Cushman 14y ago
We could easily generate enough power for the world using solar, nuclear, or coal, with solar being the longest lasting. What we cannot do presently is store or transmit that power to the point of use in a way which meets current expectations. This is why oil, though rarely burned for electricity, remains one of our primary energy sources-- #1 in the US, at least. I'm curious what part of this stretches credibility. > But again if you have sources showing that the waste majority of envorimentalists are pro nuclear and pro thorium I would be happy to be proven wrong. I have claimed no such thing. Decide what you're arguing about.