3 ms·

Wow, it feels like I stumbled on James Kunstler's site today: http://www.kunstler.com/index.php http://www.kunstler.com/index.php The way I see it, we really

Wow, it feels like I stumbled on James Kunstler's site today: http://www.kunstler.com/index.php http://www.kunstler.com/index.php The way I see it, we really only have two choices: nuclear (fusion) power; or "A World Made by Hand". Solar doesn't provide much energy density. (unless you can build a Dyson sphere or a "Ringworld" and convert huge amounts of solar radiation for transport) Methane has more energy per KG than oil, but much less per cubic meter. (in addition to low density, you need a strong/heavy tank to put it in). And it's a fairly finite fossil fuel. Uranium and the like are also a somewhat finite fossil fuels (even if from extinct supernovas, rather than ferns and dinosaurs). Hydrogen (fusion) on the other hand, pretty much defines the useful lifetime of the universe. That's how I define "sustainability".

pif 14y ago
> Hydrogen (fusion) on the other hand, pretty much defines the useful lifetime of the universe. That's how I define "sustainability". That's true! That's true and funny! Hydrogen fusion does define the "useful" lifetime of the universe (ie: the interval before the entire universe becomes mainly full of cold heavy metals), but the stars are going to be burning for a few more billion years because fusion is an "unlikely" process. Yes! The solar system is still as we know it, with the planets well separated from the Sun and not yet conglomerated into a big red giant, for the same reason for which we are struggling to get fusion in our labs: because that's difficult! You need enormous temperatures to convince hydrogen atoms to come together and mix their nuclei, and so you get a lot of problems in controlling the overall process. Sure, we can try with cold fusion, but unfortunately we have not yet got a useful result. But we can insist. Actually, I think we must insist! I can't imagine a better source of energy than cold fusion, if we ever get there. Yes, we must definitely insist!

pif 14y ago

> Hydrogen (fusion) on the other hand, pretty much defines the useful lifetime of the universe. That's how I define "sustainability". That's true! That's true and funny! Hydrogen fusion does define the "useful" lifetime of the universe (ie: the interval before the entire universe becomes mainly full of cold heavy metals), but the stars are going to be burning for a few more billion years because fusion is an "unlikely" process. Yes! The solar system is still as we know it, with the planets well separated from the Sun and not yet conglomerated into a big red giant, for the same reason for which we are struggling to get fusion in our labs: because that's difficult! You need enormous temperatures to convince hydrogen atoms to come together and mix their nuclei, and so you get a lot of problems in controlling the overall process. Sure, we can try with cold fusion, but unfortunately we have not yet got a useful result. But we can insist. Actually, I think we must insist! I can't imagine a better source of energy than cold fusion, if we ever get there. Yes, we must definitely insist!