Scientists to attempt to create star on earth - Page 2 - Politics Forum.org | PoFo

Wandering the information superhighway, he came upon the last refuge of civilization, PoFo, the only forum on the internet ...

Anything from household gadgets to the Large Hadron Collider (note: political science topics belong in the Environment & Science forum).

Moderator: PoFo The Lounge Mods

#14785290
As far as I understand it, you ultimately need to spin turbines to generate electricity, which makes the "giant laser" approach to generating these reactions require more electricity than it generates even if the amount of raw energy generated is higher than the input. I'm not a physicist but they appear to have been failing to make this useful for several decades now and I don't understand how building an even bigger laser is supposed to help.
#14785299
We already have a giant fusion reactor, conveniently located at the centre of our Solar System. We call it 'the Sun'. Of course, there are certain problems associated with tapping the output of that fusion power plant,and then distributing it to where it's needed on Earth. But solving those collection and distribution problems seems a damn sight easier to me than trying to construct a miniaturised local version of it on Earth. :eh:
#14785305
Potemkin wrote:We already have a giant fusion reactor, conveniently located at the centre of our Solar System. We call it 'the Sun'. Of course, there are certain problems associated with tapping the output of that fusion power plant,and then distributing it to where it's needed on Earth. But solving those collection and distribution problems seems a damn sight easier to me than trying to construct a miniaturised local version of it on Earth. :eh:

But Pote, it is not possible to tax the energy of the sun, add VAT and sales tax, and make a profit.
#14785371
Ter wrote:But Pote, it is not possible to tax the energy of the sun, add VAT and sales tax, and make a profit.

O ye of little faith...

Let's not forget that NASA once argued that water vapor is a greenhouse gas; that if cow farts can contribute to global warming, so can human farts or even human exhalation. If people can imagine it they can tax it.
#14785386
Human exhalation doesn't contribute to global warming because the source of the co2 we breath is the food that we eat which is made of co2 fixed from the atmosphere. So there is no net change in co2 concentration due to it.

Cow farts are a problem because cows make tons of methane (far more than humans because of their digestive systems) and they actually are more cattle in terms of biomass than humans.

Since methane breaks down as a function of time as the population of cattle increases the equilibrium concentration of methane increases. In theory humans would add to it too but we are so outweighed compared to our livestock and produce so much less per pound that it's ultimately a negligible contribution.

Water vapor is also a greenhouse gas, but it's contribution is only important as a positive feedback loop caused by rising ocean temperatures increasing water vapor by massive amounts. It's not a problem in terms of human beings producing water vapor through industrial processes. Anything that can hold heat energy is a greenhouse gas. Water vapor is quite good at holding heat energy which is why the humidity in Florida causes the mightiness temperature to stay in the 80s while the sahara can vary by as much as 70F between night and day due to its dryness.
#14785457
Ter wrote:But Pote, it is not possible to tax the energy of the sun, add VAT and sales tax, and make a profit.


You have been making some excellent posts recently Ter.

“Poverty is not caused by men and women getting married; it's not caused by machinery; it's not caused by "over-production"; it's not caused by drink or laziness; and it's not caused by "over-population". It's caused by Private Monopoly. That is the present system. They have monopolized everything that it is possible to monopolize; they have got the whole earth, the minerals in the earth and the streams that water the earth. The only reason they have not monopolized the daylight and the air is that it is not possible to do it. If it were possible to construct huge gasometers and to draw together and compress within them the whole of the atmosphere, it would have been done long ago, and we should have been compelled to work for them in order to get money to buy air to breathe. And if that seemingly impossible thing were accomplished tomorrow, you would see thousands of people dying for want of air - or of the money to buy it - even as now thousands are dying for want of the other necessities of life. You would see people going about gasping for breath, and telling each other that the likes of them could not expect to have air to breathe unless the had the money to pay for it. Most of you here, for instance, would think and say so. Even as you think at present that it's right for so few people to own the Earth, the Minerals and the Water, which are all just as necessary as is the air. In exactly the same spirit as you now say: "It's Their Land," "It's Their Water," "It's Their Coal," "It's Their Iron," so you would say "It's Their Air," "These are their gasometers, and what right have the likes of us to expect them to allow us to breathe for nothing?" And even while he is doing this the air monopolist will be preaching sermons on the Brotherhood of Man; he will be dispensing advice on "Christian Duty" in the Sunday magazines; he will give utterance to numerous more or less moral maxims for the guidance of the young. And meantime, all around, people will be dying for want of some of the air that he will have bottled up in his gasometers. And when you are all dragging out a miserable existence, gasping for breath or dying for want of air, if one of your number suggests smashing a hole in the side of one of th gasometers, you will all fall upon him in the name of law and order, and after doing your best to tear him limb from limb, you'll drag him, covered with blood, in triumph to the nearest Police Station and deliver him up to "justice" in the hope of being given a few half-pounds of air for your trouble.”


From the ragged trousered philanthropists.
#14785552
mikema63 wrote:Human exhalation doesn't contribute to global warming because the source of the co2 we breath is the food that we eat which is made of co2 fixed from the atmosphere. So there is no net change in co2 concentration due to it.

Wouldn't this same logic apply to other sources of fixed CO2, such as fossil fuels? Those were once animals that eat things which came from "free" carbon too. In both cases, solid carbon is taken and converted into airborne carbon. The implication here is that the argument against releasing sequestered carbon theoretically applies to any source of carbon release, which would include humans breathing since from a technical perspective it is the same process.

The issue with saying that water vapor is a greenhouse gas is that it suggests people would be able to justify taxing or preventing other people's water usage in order to "save the environment".

The underlying point I try to make about environmentalism is that you can't lead with just non-human technical jargon, telling people who exist at near a subsistence level not to over-fish while you fly around in a private jet or whatever other example of globalist hypocrisy and guilt tripping I might come up. Exist on the same level that you expect other people to exist at before you start talking about how cow farts harm the planet.

tl;dr do you eat beef? If you do, why do you get to lecture people about cow farts?
#14785574
Wouldn't this same logic apply to other sources of fixed CO2, such as fossil fuels? Those were once animals that eat things which came from "free" carbon too. In both cases, solid carbon is taken and converted into airborne carbon. The implication here is that the argument against releasing sequestered carbon theoretically applies to any source of carbon release, which would include humans breathing since from a technical perspective it is the same process.


This is true, and the temperature on earth hundreds of millions of years ago was also higher. The thing to be remembered about global warming is that it's not a threat to the earth itself, or even life on it, it's our societies that developed in a certain climactic period that will be damaged.

Another thing to remember is that animals eating plants and plants absorbing co2 is in equilibrium. So the net content of co2 in the atmosphere doesn't change. Changes of overall co2 content are driven by the capture of co2 in forms that don't get recycled, or the release of those deposits.

Technically the chemical reaction is the same, though the intermediate steps are different between metabolism and just burning it of course, but the problem for us is the raw totals of co2 concentration which is driven by burning large carbon deposits and not the natural carbon cycle.

The issue with saying that water vapor is a greenhouse gas is that it suggests people would be able to justify taxing or preventing other people's water usage in order to "save the environment".


Water vapor being a greenhouse gas does not automatically make it taxable. It also wouldn't make any impact on climate change since you can't tax the ocean to make it release less water vapor.

The underlying point I try to make about environmentalism is that you can't lead with just non-human technical jargon, telling people who exist at near a subsistence level not to over-fish while you fly around in a private jet or whatever other example of globalist hypocrisy and guilt tripping I might come up. Exist on the same level that you expect other people to exist at before you start talking about how cow farts harm the planet.


Sure, which is why most scientists aim to change the gut Flora of cows to produce less methane and aim to create technologies that allow people to live at our standard of living without the climate impact. Scientists =\= hard green activist hippies that want everyone to be vegan.

tl;dr do you eat beef? If you do, why do you get to lecture people about cow farts?


I don't actually, for other reasons. However I haven't lectures anyone that they shouldn't eat beef and neither do scientists. We simply have a fact that must be addressed somehow. Veganism is a little extreme, I would suggest either going with gut Flora or exploring the in vitro meat possibility.

The pertinent information is in the post, for whic[…]

Israel-Palestinian War 2023

It has already been explained that this type of co[…]

Sure, keep thinking that. Election year is caus[…]

Russia-Ukraine War 2022

Again: nope. Putin in Feb 2022 only decided ... […]