First  Prev  1  2  3  Next  Last
Post Reply What would happen when unlimited energy is achieved?
11240 cr points
Send Message: Send PM GB Post
45 / M
Offline
Posted 3/6/17 , edited 3/6/17

outontheop wrote:


zangeif123 wrote:

A lot of politics and self interest groups would get in the way. Trying to find ways to ban it or discredit it. Most likely we would end up paying for it in the long run.


Why would they need to? The public does a perfectly fine job of prohibiting the most sensible power sources all on their own, what with their ignorant, environmentally-friendly-virtue-signalling paranoia of nuclear power.



To answer the OP's question, ideally, with unlimited energy, we might finally be able to move to a secular humanist socio-economic framework, but as many other posters have pointed out, incumbent powers will do everything possible to ensure we remain in a capitalist/corporate structure, even going so far as to invent further conflicts with other nations to control other forms of rapidly depleting resources. Thankfully, fresh water will be able to be processed from saltwater with an unlimited energy source, but it will be much more difficult to source rare earth elements used in high technology, as there are a limited amount present on this planet. Capturing asteroids for mining will be mandatory, if we can just stop funding military campaigns for long enough to grow the f*ck up and act like a collectively intelligent life form.

With respect to outonthetop, many of the 'ignorant public' may in fact be simply afraid of the many what ifs of conventional nuclear fission reactors, what with the numerous failures over the past decades, some far more impactful than others, but all with an ongoing and only partially contained leaking of cesium-137 and strontium-90, being two of the more human-tissue-bonding isotopes which progress into the food chain over the long term (half life around 29-30yrs). livescience has some balanced info on Fukushima and related incidents.

This public fear has very little to do specifically with being 'environmentally friendly', or even restricted to nuclear energy, but rather from a justified distrust of governments who claim everything is safe to the public, then take money from the energy companies to rubber stamp their mining & port building, oil drilling, Coal Seam Gas fracking, and who then claim ignorance when news breaks of widespread groundwater contamination ruining farmland & potable water sources, cyanide poisoning of mine outflows, spread of mesothelioma & related respiratory cancers, mass fishkills and destruction of entire coastal regions and reef systems.

The fact is, nuclear fission reactors CAN be built to be extremely safe, and extremely efficient, albeit with a somewhat pressing caveat - they require multiple expensive, continuous systems of redundancy, foolproof safety cutouts, and an independant reliable electricity source to control the reactor when the reactor itself is in a state requiring emergency shutdown. They also require highly trained staff either at the control site, or with reliable, unhackable remote control systems. Fukushima's Daiichi reactors supposedly had many of these systems of redundancy, the infrastructure of which all failed as a direct result of the earthquake & tsunami.

Most importantly of all, (and this is what humans in a capitalist/corporate system will never be able to overcome), nuclear reactors require RESPONSIBLE management from a body which has no obligation to shareholders to reduce costs and cut corners in order to increase profits to shareholders, nor to immediately cover up any imminent risk or safety breaches, which if openly addressed, would prevent a future meltdown or contamination event.

Even with all of those issues addressed, there are still no countries who see the storage of spent nuclear fuel waste as a viable long term option, only as a short term cash grab to profit from the worldwide 'not in my backyard' political suicide pill that it represents. This is primarily because all forms of containment materials designed to date will corrode and degrade long before the nuclear waste becomes relatively safe in 20,000 years or so. (it takes about 40-50 yrs to reduce radioactivity of High Level Waste by a factor of 1000, but this curve flattens and does not completely fall below the radioactivity level of mined uranium for another 500,000 years, or ~1000 years for immediate fission products separate from spent fuel)

Do you still think nuclear fission reactors are a viable 'green' source of energy? Perhaps if we were living in a fantastic utopia where universal goodwill to all man existed, and where individuals could be trusted enough not to abuse any system which doesn't look similar to a nanny state.


15149 cr points
Send Message: Send PM GB Post
100
Offline
Posted 3/6/17

morte111 wrote:


outontheop wrote:


zangeif123 wrote:

A lot of politics and self interest groups would get in the way. Trying to find ways to ban it or discredit it. Most likely we would end up paying for it in the long run.


Why would they need to? The public does a perfectly fine job of prohibiting the most sensible power sources all on their own, what with their ignorant, environmentally-friendly-virtue-signalling paranoia of nuclear power.



To answer the OP's question, ideally, with unlimited energy, we might finally be able to move to a secular humanist socio-economic framework, but as many other posters have pointed out, incumbent powers will do everything possible to ensure we remain in a capitalist/corporate structure, even going so far as to invent further conflicts with other nations to control other forms of rapidly depleting resources. Thankfully, fresh water will be able to be processed from saltwater with an unlimited energy source, but it will be much more difficult to source rare earth elements used in high technology, as there are a limited amount present on this planet. Capturing asteroids for mining will be mandatory, if we can just stop funding military campaigns for long enough to grow the f*ck up and act like a collectively intelligent life form.

With respect to outonthetop, many of the 'ignorant public' may in fact be simply afraid of the many what ifs of conventional nuclear fission reactors, what with the numerous failures over the past decades, some far more impactful than others, but all with an ongoing and only partially contained leaking of cesium-137 and strontium-90, being two of the more human-tissue-bonding isotopes which progress into the food chain over the long term (half life around 29-30yrs). livescience has some balanced info on Fukushima and related incidents.

This public fear has very little to do specifically with being 'environmentally friendly', or even restricted to nuclear energy, but rather from a justified distrust of governments who claim everything is safe to the public, then take money from the energy companies to rubber stamp their mining & port building, oil drilling, Coal Seam Gas fracking, and who then claim ignorance when news breaks of widespread groundwater contamination ruining farmland & potable water sources, cyanide poisoning of mine outflows, spread of mesothelioma & related respiratory cancers, mass fishkills and destruction of entire coastal regions and reef systems.

The fact is, nuclear fission reactors CAN be built to be extremely safe, and extremely efficient, albeit with a somewhat pressing caveat - they require multiple expensive, continuous systems of redundancy, foolproof safety cutouts, and an independant reliable electricity source to control the reactor when the reactor itself is in a state requiring emergency shutdown. They also require highly trained staff either at the control site, or with reliable, unhackable remote control systems. Fukushima's Daiichi reactors supposedly had many of these systems of redundancy, the infrastructure of which all failed as a direct result of the earthquake & tsunami.

Most importantly of all, (and this is what humans in a capitalist/corporate system will never be able to overcome), nuclear reactors require RESPONSIBLE management from a body which has no obligation to shareholders to reduce costs and cut corners in order to increase profits to shareholders, nor to immediately cover up any imminent risk or safety breaches, which if openly addressed, would prevent a future meltdown or contamination event.

Even with all of those issues addressed, there are still no countries who see the storage of spent nuclear fuel waste as a viable long term option, only as a short term cash grab to profit from the worldwide 'not in my backyard' political suicide pill that it represents. This is primarily because all forms of containment materials designed to date will corrode and degrade long before the nuclear waste becomes relatively safe in 20,000 years or so. (it takes about 40-50 yrs to reduce radioactivity of High Level Waste by a factor of 1000, but this curve flattens and does not completely fall below the radioactivity level of mined uranium for another 500,000 years, or ~1000 years for immediate fission products separate from spent fuel)

Do you still think nuclear fission reactors are a viable 'green' source of energy? Perhaps if we were living in a fantastic utopia where universal goodwill to all man existed, and where individuals could be trusted enough not to abuse any system which doesn't look similar to a nanny state.




Secular humanism isn't an economic system, it doesn't compete with corporate capitalism. And 'unlimited energy' is a violation of the laws of physics. Whatever we might ideally be able to do with unlimited energy is pointless to discuss because it will never exist.

Also, while nuclear waste may be special in some ways, there is no such thing as energy with no environmental impact. Hydropower interferes with fish life cycles, solar and wind power take up lots of land area per unit power, oil leads to spills, and so on.
11240 cr points
Send Message: Send PM GB Post
45 / M
Offline
Posted 3/6/17 , edited 3/6/17

gghadur77 wrote:


morte111 wrote:


outontheop wrote:


zangeif123 wrote:

A lot of politics and self interest groups would get in the way. Trying to find ways to ban it or discredit it. Most likely we would end up paying for it in the long run.


Why would they need to? The public does a perfectly fine job of prohibiting the most sensible power sources all on their own, what with their ignorant, environmentally-friendly-virtue-signalling paranoia of nuclear power.



To answer the OP's question, ideally, with unlimited energy, we might finally be able to move to a secular humanist socio-economic framework, but as many other posters have pointed out, incumbent powers will do everything possible to ensure we remain in a capitalist/corporate structure, even going so far as to invent further conflicts with other nations to control other forms of rapidly depleting resources. Thankfully, fresh water will be able to be processed from saltwater with an unlimited energy source, but it will be much more difficult to source rare earth elements used in high technology, as there are a limited amount present on this planet. Capturing asteroids for mining will be mandatory, if we can just stop funding military campaigns for long enough to grow the f*ck up and act like a collectively intelligent life form.

With respect to outonthetop, many of the 'ignorant public' may in fact be simply afraid of the many what ifs of conventional nuclear fission reactors, what with the numerous failures over the past decades, some far more impactful than others, but all with an ongoing and only partially contained leaking of cesium-137 and strontium-90, being two of the more human-tissue-bonding isotopes which progress into the food chain over the long term (half life around 29-30yrs). livescience has some balanced info on Fukushima and related incidents.

This public fear has very little to do specifically with being 'environmentally friendly', or even restricted to nuclear energy, but rather from a justified distrust of governments who claim everything is safe to the public, then take money from the energy companies to rubber stamp their mining & port building, oil drilling, Coal Seam Gas fracking, and who then claim ignorance when news breaks of widespread groundwater contamination ruining farmland & potable water sources, cyanide poisoning of mine outflows, spread of mesothelioma & related respiratory cancers, mass fishkills and destruction of entire coastal regions and reef systems.

The fact is, nuclear fission reactors CAN be built to be extremely safe, and extremely efficient, albeit with a somewhat pressing caveat - they require multiple expensive, continuous systems of redundancy, foolproof safety cutouts, and an independant reliable electricity source to control the reactor when the reactor itself is in a state requiring emergency shutdown. They also require highly trained staff either at the control site, or with reliable, unhackable remote control systems. Fukushima's Daiichi reactors supposedly had many of these systems of redundancy, the infrastructure of which all failed as a direct result of the earthquake & tsunami.

Most importantly of all, (and this is what humans in a capitalist/corporate system will never be able to overcome), nuclear reactors require RESPONSIBLE management from a body which has no obligation to shareholders to reduce costs and cut corners in order to increase profits to shareholders, nor to immediately cover up any imminent risk or safety breaches, which if openly addressed, would prevent a future meltdown or contamination event.

Even with all of those issues addressed, there are still no countries who see the storage of spent nuclear fuel waste as a viable long term option, only as a short term cash grab to profit from the worldwide 'not in my backyard' political suicide pill that it represents. This is primarily because all forms of containment materials designed to date will corrode and degrade long before the nuclear waste becomes relatively safe in 20,000 years or so. (it takes about 40-50 yrs to reduce radioactivity of High Level Waste by a factor of 1000, but this curve flattens and does not completely fall below the radioactivity level of mined uranium for another 500,000 years, or ~1000 years for immediate fission products separate from spent fuel)

Do you still think nuclear fission reactors are a viable 'green' source of energy? Perhaps if we were living in a fantastic utopia where universal goodwill to all man existed, and where individuals could be trusted enough not to abuse any system which doesn't look similar to a nanny state.




Secular humanism isn't an economic system, it doesn't compete with corporate capitalism. And 'unlimited energy' is a violation of the laws of physics. Whatever we might ideally be able to do with unlimited energy is pointless to discuss because it will never exist.

Also, while nuclear waste may be special in some ways, there is no such thing as energy with no environmental impact. Hydropower interferes with fish life cycles, solar and wind power take up lots of land area per unit power, oil leads to spills, and so on.


Not disagreeing with you on any points you've made, and certainly there is no such thing as an 'unlimited energy source' in a closed system - even if there are potential sources which if we could properly harness them, (e.g. fusion) could provide more energy than we need only as long as we can source sufficient fuel and sustain an ongoin reaction while safely containing the plasma in an EM barrier. That's not likely to be feasible for the foreseeable future, given the overwhelmingly high energy input requirement.
Thermal rock /heat exchange systems are expensive to maintain and susceptible to leaks, thermal chimney turbines are expensive infrastructure only useful in desert-like conditions, kinetic wave/tidal energy may be an option except for the deleterious effects the ocean environment has on the generators - there are numerous downsides to most renewable energy options, but we're better off trying to get better at them, and at trying to either come up with some o2/nitrogen production plants to replace the phytoplankton losing their ability to mature, or to genetically engineer some which are more resilient to CO2 ocean surface acidity. More efficient desalination plants are going to become critical as snowmelt and rainfall/monsoonal patterns change in the coming decades.

On economic frameworks,
If anything I should only express a need for wider transparency within both corporate and government sectors, and an attempted balance between a reduction in corporate legal 'rights of the corporate entity as a person', and an increase in the powers of effective regulatory bodies without going so far as to create yet another system open to abuse by special interest groups. Secular humanism is more related to the establishment of ethics to favour 'the rights of the many' and the disenfranchised, within governing & statutory bodies - whereas with current capitalist corporate framework, the ethos favours self-interest to the point of abasement and exploitation of the many'.
5503 cr points
Send Message: Send PM GB Post
31 / M
Offline
Posted 3/6/17 , edited 3/6/17


Not disagreeing with you on any points you've made, and certainly there is no such thing as an 'unlimited energy source' in a closed system - even if there are potential sources which if we could properly harness them, (e.g. fusion) could provide more energy than we need only as long as we can source sufficient fuel and sustain an ongoin reaction while safely containing the plasma in an EM barrier. That's not likely to be feasible for the foreseeable future, given the overwhelmingly high energy input requirement.


Precisely my point, check out ITER fusion reactor https://www.iter.org/proj/inafewlines. Well they suggested 20 years to build with a 200 billion funding to be operational in 2035.

The good side is, almost everyone will be self sustainable providing that you got heat and shelter. I need AC and heater D: running 24 hours McDonald


P.S They should 3d print the structure, what would this thing power?
11240 cr points
Send Message: Send PM GB Post
45 / M
Offline
Posted 3/6/17

fredreload wrote:



Not disagreeing with you on any points you've made, and certainly there is no such thing as an 'unlimited energy source' in a closed system - even if there are potential sources which if we could properly harness them, (e.g. fusion) could provide more energy than we need only as long as we can source sufficient fuel and sustain an ongoin reaction while safely containing the plasma in an EM barrier. That's not likely to be feasible for the foreseeable future, given the overwhelmingly high energy input requirement.


Precisely my point, check out ITER fusion reactor https://www.iter.org/proj/inafewlines. Well they suggested 20 years to build with a 200 billion funding to be operational in 2035.



fredreload, this takes me back 20 years to the first working tokamaks, when we were told fusion would be feasible within 10-15 years - unfortunately just as penguincat pointed out, it is common nomenclature in scientific research facilities when quoting '10-15 years' to mean they only have a theory and maybe a semi-functional prototype (which is more than can be said for Oppenheimer's team in New Mexico 1942, even though Oppenheimer began his research in 1925, and others some time before that, based on Einstein's three 1905 papers.

That's not to say human-built fusion reactors are not feasible, or that it will never happen, it just means that research is still awaiting a critical breakthrough, and that it isn't necessarily a case of linear progression of known steps to a predicted or foreseeable milestone.

Ganbatte, ITER and pretty much every other Fusion research team quoted in New Scientist's brief 2009 article :-)

Keep up the optimism, fredreload! :-)
I've got my fingers crossed in hope, just no breath held in waiting ;D
Posted 3/6/17 , edited 3/6/17
If we have unlimited energy, I personally hope that our Earth begins to learn how to self-maintain....

*imagines several humans thrown off the planet*

.... Yup! :'D
57934 cr points
Send Message: Send PM GB Post
32 / M
Offline
Posted 3/6/17 , edited 3/6/17
Idea are unlimited, and look how much those cost.
Airvh 
5236 cr points
Send Message: Send PM GB Post
Offline
Posted 3/6/17
There will come a time when we have access to massive amounts of energy, BUT getting that energy to your home is going to still cost money. Try to think of the "electric companies" as a "maintenance of the electric network company"
17973 cr points
Send Message: Send PM GB Post
M
Offline
Posted 3/7/17
I'd really like it to be compact and portable. I want my jet-pack.
5503 cr points
Send Message: Send PM GB Post
31 / M
Offline
Posted 3/7/17 , edited 3/7/17

Mistrylocks wrote:

If we have unlimited energy, I personally hope that our Earth begins to learn how to self-maintain....

*imagines several humans thrown off the planet*

.... Yup! :'D


Someone is trying to put a straw on earth in this thread

P.S Not that I could argue his point, welp
5503 cr points
Send Message: Send PM GB Post
31 / M
Offline
Posted 3/7/17

Airvh wrote:

There will come a time when we have access to massive amounts of energy, BUT getting that energy to your home is going to still cost money. Try to think of the "electric companies" as a "maintenance of the electric network company"


That's when I think we need a better electric network, Tesla tower should be pretty handy, well, minus the health hazard
5503 cr points
Send Message: Send PM GB Post
31 / M
Offline
Posted 3/7/17

bronzefoot wrote:

I'd really like it to be compact and portable. I want my jet-pack.


We really should look into more of this wireless method of transmitting energy, unfortunately from my Physics class back in High school I learned that wireless energy have enough power to alter the DNA, which is not a good thing
24320 cr points
Send Message: Send PM GB Post
25 / F / in the land of th...
Offline
Posted 3/7/17
Nuclear fusion???
is that what ya all are yappin over?

Humms 
11887 cr points
Send Message: Send PM GB Post
25 / M / CAN, ON
Offline
Posted 3/7/17
We would be paying for it regardless.

Don't let these people Bullshit you, nothing is in our hands anymore.

It's funny. In Ontario, that fucking cunt decides she can magically give us money back for all the money she stole from us using hydro. Go fuck yourself Wynne and the donkey you came in on.
5503 cr points
Send Message: Send PM GB Post
31 / M
Offline
Posted 3/7/17

-Requiem wrote:

Nuclear fusion???
is that what ya all are yappin over?



Ya, a fusion reactor. We will still need to work for another 20 years for it to come though. Ultimately we want to get the most amount of energy for a set maintenance price, we might even be able to run a large scale company back home for a set price depending on how many fusion reactors you are building on the planet.
19880 cr points
Send Message: Send PM GB Post
24 / M / missouri
Offline
Posted 3/7/17
Kill everything. Killing is what we humans do best.
First  Prev  1  2  3  Next  Last
You must be logged in to post.