well it may work if we are gonna put thorium in the hands of the average joe because some red neck is gonna figure out you can make a giant shower of doom, I might be thinking of something else.
Obama could kill fossil fuels overnight with a nuclear dash for thorium
- Thread starter vallorn
- Start date
Recommended Videos
I am shocked that people on these forums keep on underestimating the sheer amount of debt that the USA has accumulated and overestimating the importance of the GDP in a countries economic performance. It's not just how much money you earn but where you spend it. China has the resources to be able to do this, and more than likely would be interested in developing this kind of technology since their economic boom is in constant need for new energy resources. The USA on the other hand, had to be declared bankrupt so that none of the nations that lent it money come collecting. Shit, they are at least 20 trillion dollars in debt and that number is getting larger not smaller. Yes, they have a high salary, but they've been living well beyond their means and now the banks want to stop giving them loans.Dancingman said:
You're correct in saying that renewable energy sources are already capable of powering the entire world, however you're forgetting to mention that doing so would require a massive consumption of space. Far larger wind farms and solar panels would be required, which would consume a large amount of space. There's also the problem of them being dependent on ideal weather conditions to provide optimal energy. Unlike fossil fuels, solar and wind can't provide a stable output of energy at the moment because of this issue. Hydro has its own problems. Dams, while being renewable energy sources, are no exactly environmentally friendly. The damming of rivers disrupts the flow of water, leading to a build of sediments and contaminants in the water collecting behind the damn, which is hazardous to both humans and wildlife. Dams also disrupt the migratory paths of many fish species, and they can deprive downstream ecosystems and communities of water. Though work has been done to alleviate the damage caused by these issues and improve dams. I admit I don't know to much about hydro power beyond dams, so I can't comment on the other forms of hydro power such as tidal energy (or whatever it's called).ImprovizoR said:
Making a massive conversion to renewable energy source right now would cause a slew of problems. However, just because they can't be used on a massive scale at the moment doesn't mean we should stop developing them. It's the exact opposite. More investment should be put into these energy sources to refine them so that they can be used on a massive scale. Considering that natural progression of humans will most likely be colonizing other planets in our solar system, improving these renewable energy sources will benefit us in that respect as well. I doubt we will be powering the first space colonies with oil or nuclear energy.
I'd rather improve overall energy efficiency to extend the lifespan of fossil fuels than use a "transition energy", as I get the feeling that it won't simply be a transition energy and instead become another finite energy source we all depend on.Dancingman said:
Actually that's not the way U.S. debt or international debt for that matter works. If all the countries of the world played angry debtor whenever someone owed them a ton of money then the formation of an international economy would be impossible. Two things about US debt though: A vast majority of it (and it's 14 trillion, not 20, normally I don't nitpick but 6 trillion is a hell of a lot of money to come out of nowhere) is for lack of a better term money that the federal government owes itself from promised spending on things like Social Security that it then diverted into other things.deadman91 said:
The US also does rotating cycles of debt, essentially, they take out a loan from Country X, repay it, and take out an additional loan later, so it's not like the US has accumulated $843 billion of debt to China over all the years of China granting loans to the US, if that really were cumulatively everything we've ever been loaned from China than that's one Hell of a bargain, $843 billion is a lot but not an incomprehensibly large amount in terms of U.S. federal government revenues. The US has taken big loans from China before and repaid them.
Furthermore, with China's economic growth they're going to need a hell of a lot of conventional infrastructure built in order to fuel their development, so an infrastructure for about a sixth of the world's population is going to be a monstrous drain on China's budget. The economy (with infrastructure and trade subsidies and all) is an all-consuming chore for a government whose credibility is built almost entirely off of economic prosperity, once that little bubble pops China's populace grows dissatisfied and starts clamoring for more liberties that the government may or may not grant, leaning towards not doing so for fear of breaking the Communist Party's grip on power. China is of course going to be investing in research and technology but not to the same extent as the USA or up-and-coming India, though it's getting stronger, a lot of China's technology (for military or other use) is piggybacked off of other things given their historical lack of a strong tech center in recent history. From a pragmatic standpoint, it's much easier for the Chinese government to be kind and charitable to developing countries by giving them money in exchange for favorable trade agreements regarding their resources than fund the development of an energy source that is merely in speculation, it's the same reason that every government in the world is going to have a hard time getting on the alternative fuels wagon, fossil fuels are proven, alternatives for the most part are not.
Except our dependence on Fossil Fuels is not just burning it for energy. a majority of products you see in the industrial sector use Fossil Fuels or Fossil fuel byproducts. our economy is built upon the oil sector, our dependence is more than just burning a couple of barrels to light a few light bulbs.
Ha, I read recently that they reckoned it was over 20 trillion. Perhaps the article I read added national debt with domestic debt, though I'll admit that still seems like a massive number. I'll grant what you wrote about the debt situation and say that should have picked my words better (accumulate was a poor choice). Nevertheless the USA has still been declared bankrupt and a freeze placed on repayments.Dancingman said:
I do think your greatly underestimating the Chinese economy at the moment. Yes the massive increase in infrastructure that they're building is a massive chore, but its a chore that they pulling off with surprising ease. They're opening what, a coal power plant a day and still have around four and a half trillion dollars in available capital (that was the number last year, not sure if it's still there). Not to mention that their expanding industrial capacity is not only supported by foreign demand but from a growing domestic demand. They've managed to pull something along the lines of 300 million people above the poverty line and have cultured a surprisingly content and expanding middle class.
The technology issue is interesting though. Chinese technological development really began to flounder after the separation from the Soviet Union. However foreign industrial development and strong relations with the Russian federation have really increased the rate of technological development over the past few decades. How India reacts to rising China will be interesting. It has shown in the past that it views China as a threat and that it is willing to act aggressively towards the people's republic. And the Chinese have shown that they could wipe the floor with the Indians militarily. Added to this is the Indian rivalry with Pakistan and the cultivation of relations between China and Pakistan (not strong, but still existent).
You are right, fossil fuels are far to reliable a source to just be replaced, but I believe the Chinese would be one of the most likely to try and develop a viable alternative (and this stuff certainly seems viable) because of their stored capital and recent history in investing heavily in energy security (the massive development in their Navy is to protect sea routes from their resource suppliers such as Africa).
Man I'm glad to have a stimulating but civil debate about things like this, the last one I had like this had my opponent accusing me of nationalist bias.deadman91 said:
And in regards to the Chinese energy comment yeah that is true, but the USA does similar things, that's why Operation Enduring Freedom has a portion in Somalia, not only to combat a very real possibility that Islamic extremists are basing in Somalia since it's near anarchy and nobody is able to keep tabs on them there. That's why Combined Task Force 150 has both India and Pakistan actually being on the same side of any pseudo-military operation. The Gulf of Aden is just as important to Western shipping as Indonesia's Malacca Strait is to China. There are just certain things the US will respond with force to defend, the most easy example, and therefore the one I'll use, is energy resources in the Persian Gulf, if Iran were to be cheeky and make a move to cut off the Persian Gulf's oil supply with its navy than the US Navy would honest-to-god Zerg Rush them out of there (except the amount of Zerglings killed you could probably count on one hand). The US would react just as strongly, if not more so given a much stronger navy (the Chinese navy isn't even a blue water navy yet, though it plans to become one) with more flexible attack options, to a threat to its trade routes as the Chinese government would, but touche to both countries for being so determined about it.
Sorry if my post seemed to imply that I thought (like some particularly thick fellow citizens of mine do) that China is a backwater tin-pot communist state, I didn't mean for you to think so. However I wouldn't say that China's economy is weak at the slightest, though the main point of my comments on it was to say that China at the time seems less inclined to pursue alternative fuels than the USA, sure the stereotype is that we'll use fossil fuels until the last drop of oil runs out but some states are already starting to use ethanol/petrol mix fuel and the number one projected industry in terms of people employed for the US in the future is indeed the green tech industry. The US population is getting fairly sold on the whole alternative energy idea but the Chinese aren't going quite so easily (why spend the extra money to regulate all the crap they're putting in their ecosystem for one, at least so they say).
I disagree about the state of the Chinese populace though, sure they're doing pretty well about building a middle class but there's still a huge undercurrent of discontent against Chinese government that is prompting them to make all sorts of bad economic decisions in order to perpetuate economic growth, like the fact that the government still deliberately undervalues the Yuan to keep Chinese goods unfairly advantageous in world markets, well, that and perpetuate their trade surpluses. Just saying, they've got a lot of money running in, but some of their decisions if managed poorly enough are going to make China's economy a flash in the pan. The likelihood of that happening is pretty poor right now, but down the line things like that will bite them in the ass. Also, keep in mind for all their capital that you have to adjust it for China, sure it seems like a lot of money but it won't be quite as much when all the upkeep has been deducted.
Penultimate thing and I'll stop, I promise, but I never meant to say that China isn't getting better leaps and bounds by technological achievement but they've still got a long way to go before they catch up to the US, and by the time they can they'll have to worry about the growing innovation capital of the world, India, actually so will we, damn it if India colonizes the moon we landed on first then I will ragequit this country. It's just that right now, China's tech sector's getting the shunt in exchange for commercial prowess, combined with the fact that they never really had a good one from all of Chairman Mao's little social engineering experiments I can't say that such actions are going to do them any favors for the immediate future. And in regards to those meddlesome Indians, presumably if they go to war it might actually be the precipitate for the Third World War, which nobody has much profit in starting right now but nevertheless, involving India involves Pakistan, on account of significant ties to both Pakistan and China (and India to a slighter extent) the USA at least tries to mediate and at most tries to stop hostilities by force.
Also, not to sound like a "you have no sources" troll, but could you slide me a link to anything about the USA declaring bankruptcy itself or any organizations declaring it to be bankrupt? I keep looking for it and all I'm finding are libertarian fuckwits, things about how we declared bankruptcy in 1933 so that's a little justified, and I think about two Jewish conspiracy theory sites. I don't really like to play the skeptic here since asking for sources implies that a very intelligent poster with whom I'm having a good debate is a dumbass, but something like the USA declaring or being declared bankrupt is uh... to put it mildly, big news.
I'm starting to feel like a bit of an ignorant dumbass because I am trying to find the article and am also only finding shit by libertarian fuckwits. The article was brought into a tute at uni and I'm really starting to worry that the piece of information upon which I based so much of my argument is in fact quite a load of shit. I'm currently searching the World Banks data base for something that might still support my argument, damned if there isn't a whole lot to work through and a whole lot that I don't have access to, as well as a great deal that is completely useless, and I'm getting bored. I gotta say, I'm feeling like a mighty shithead trumpeting this without actually going to the trouble of backing it up. In hindsight, it does seem like a massive thing to keep quiet, and my own 'decline of America' prophecies seemed justified. I'm a little disappointed that someone else had to point it out to me.Dancingman said:
Otherwise you've convinced me on most things, but there are a few areas that I'd continue to dispute, but they're minor things.
The first is the march of innovation in relation to India's own growing strength. While India does seem to be the place where much of the great technological innovation of the future will happen (with its massively expanding IT, medical and and communications industry) the fear that is raised is that will be at to great a cost of its primary and secondary industry. It is moving from an industry based economy to a service based economy, and I'm not sure we can predict how well that will go. If we look at the recent superpowers, such as pre-WW2 Britain (and the rest of Europe), as well as being the cutting edge of technology they also had the largest industrial output. Without the regulations, with the poverty, without the necessary infrastructure, it'll be interesting to see the shift take place. For all we know it'll go the way of Japan and become a massive industrial and technological power, but I wouldn't say that for certain.
The second issue is the nature of the US green industry. Its growth rate is astounding, but the presence of large business is still guiding it in specific areas. The focus on ethanol and bio-fuels is in part driven by large agribusiness looking for new ways to sell their crops rather than compete with foreign imports. Now this is far more complicated an issue than I make it out to be, but the US green industry is heavily invested in specific fields of growth and R&D, and whether many of these industries would be willing or not to sacrifice government and consumer dollars is a matter for debate. And let's not forget the massive taboo on anything nuclear or nuclear related amongst much of what could be called the 'Green lobby'.
What the heck is that gibberish? I believe you are trying to ask me why I am against a forced change to a technology with it's own huge host of problems, and that opposing the change must inherently mean that I wish nothing at all done.Maraveno said:
Probably because the problems with the technology make it work as a niche products, but trying to force it on people as a replacement would be disastrous. The waste and scarcity of the resources needed alone would sway public sentiment away from these types of technologies for generations, like a few scares swayed the US public opinion way from nuclear fuels and still even after 30 years has an impact on investment in nuclear technologies.
And no, I don't want the world to "first hit rockbottom," are you crazy? I don't want people rushing into new technologies that will most likely leave us in a worse situation then we are presently just because the felt social pressures to do something. We are not to that point yet.
As a side note, trying to be snide in the snip, especially because of the length of the previous post won't win you any cool points, or friends.
India's economic growth is of course going to happen, whether it's going to take a hit to industry (especially trying to break in against Chinese and US production) is another query. However in regards to their poverty keep in mind that they're essentially like China in terms of having not only a lot of rural but also urban poor as well, China's stabilizing now but it's just because we Westerners are seeing industrializing, urban China, not rural, 80% of population, sometimes only lives to be forty, of China. In terms of actual stability, aside from the Red Corridor India's actually rather enviable, gotta admire a rowdy, 1-billion man democracy.deadman91 said:
Well actually there's one more industrial-to-services economy to look at, and that's right here, though we still do quite a bit of industry and such, though we're now a primarily services economy, that's part of the reason we had "stagflation" back in the 70's (which was eventually solved by the Federal Reserve, which arguably knew it would cause a recession to do that, and it did in the 80's right after). However, as you may well imagine, we have since recovered. Industry-to-services has been done and as new innovations come out that make industry a lot easier and requiring less labor in the developed world most of the developed nations are probably going to do the same.
Our nuclear taboo is an odd one, mostly from Three Mile Island and the whole thing that we lived under constant threat of nuclear war with Mom Russia for quite a while and the current generation of leadership isn't keen to forget that. However in regards to my Green tech comment (and the fact that you taught me some pretty cool stuff about current green tech) I mostly referred to the future of the industry, basically the time when it's become advanced enough to be butting heads with whatever's left of the petrochemicals corporations. Basically think of that EnviroMission solar tower you Ozzies came up with over there (which despite the hefty price tag is pretty effective, about 150 of those could power every home in the USA), things like that and god knows whatever inevitable thing gets more advanced than that is going to be the future of the green industry.
Very true, very true. Nevertheless the USA was already the leading world economy before it made the shift, and it's financial infrastructure allowed for a much easier transfer than what India is likely to go through.Dancingman said:
I'm eagerly awaiting the excuses people will make for not using this stuff.
'I couldn't move because I locked myself in my Lamborghini from Saudi Arabia'.
'I couldn't move because I locked myself in my Lamborghini from Saudi Arabia'.
I have already heard about this. Thorium reactors may not be the ideal decision, but they would give us enough time to reach nuclear fusion or make renewable energy sources efficient enough.
And of course the bottom line-worshipping corporate morons would rather doom our ENTIRE-FUCKING-SPECIES to slow and painful decline into wars, povetry, and eventual nothingness than let this shiny new technology deprive them of their huge sacks of money they don't really need anyway. Way to ruin it for the rest of us, you pipeline jerks.
Now excuse me, i need to go get drunk.
And of course the bottom line-worshipping corporate morons would rather doom our ENTIRE-FUCKING-SPECIES to slow and painful decline into wars, povetry, and eventual nothingness than let this shiny new technology deprive them of their huge sacks of money they don't really need anyway. Way to ruin it for the rest of us, you pipeline jerks.
Now excuse me, i need to go get drunk.
Oil is not going to run out tomorrow. In fact we may or may not have even hit peak oil production. Oil is not even going to come to an abrupt end. The people drilling it are not just going to all run out one day, and then tell people "well, that all folks!"Maraveno said:
No when oil hits peek production demand will outstrip supply, and the margin will only get worse. As that happens prices will skyrocket. It's the rising costs that will finally get people to accept viable alternatives like nuclear, and it's the money flowing into nuclear that will allow the technology to grow, fund new research, and increases it's efficiency. Even if the bugs with thorium fuel process are not worked out by then, they will settle in and get to work on that as well. And if it takes them a while? Well we still have uranium. There is enough uranium in the US to supply out energy needs for, well, longer then you will ever need to worry about it.
Everyone is shooting down ridiculous ideas that are more harmful in the long run. I also don't recall very many people saying that investing in what could turn out to be a plentiful energy source being a bad idea.