[ / / / / / / / / / / / / / ] [ dir / caco / chemo / dempart / general / idchan / vg / vichan / wmafsex ]

/leftypol/ - Leftist Politically Incorrect

A collective of people engaged in pretty much what the name suggests
Winner of the 77nd Attention-Hungry Games
/x/ - Paranormal Phenomena and The RCP Authority

April 2019 - 8chan Transparency Report
Comment *
Password (Randomized for file and post deletion; you may also set your own.)
* = required field[▶ Show post options & limits]
Confused? See the FAQ.

Allowed file types:jpg, jpeg, gif, png, webm, mp4, pdf
Max filesize is 16 MB.
Max image dimensions are 15000 x 15000.
You may upload 5 per post.

Tags: leftism (CLICK HERE FOR MORE LEFTIST 8CHAN BOARDS), politics, activism, news

File: 395f2e4663fe46c⋯.jpg (173.48 KB, 1500x998, 750:499, nuclearplant.jpg)


Why are no one, literally no one, in this board talking about nuclear fusion as the potential perfect energy source, which could dab on fossil fuels, solar/wind/water power and coal?

>completely renewable, only uses abundant resources

>no dangerous production

>no pollution or waste

>will likely be commercially viable by the next 30 years

It'll cause a boom in the global economy like the industrial revolution because this large amount of power generation enables things that weren't possible in the past. Think of very energy intense processes that just aren't done because they aren't profitable due to the cost of energy.

Fusion is basically going to make energy "free" like internet is right now. You most likely pay a monthly subscription fee and get unlimited power usage out of that.

Things that we could do with that involve transmutation which is make Lead or Mercury into Gold or turn any other matter in another matter with a very energy intensive process. This will rapidly push down the price of exotic metals such as gold and platinum.

Another thing we could do is use superconductors that need very intense cooling. This cooling becomes profitable and sustainable if we have enough energy to throw at it meaning we will most likely see computers become millions of times faster due to switching to superconductors instead of semiconductors like silicon.

Last but not least we could use the energy to reverse chemical processes such as we could literally suck out CO2 from the atmosphere and turn it back into oil that we pump back into the ground or something. Meaning we could retroactively reverse the damage already done if we have enough energy to do so.

Interstellar space travel also becomes possible and a Fusion engine could reach 30% the speed of light meaning the closest habitable planet (4.2 light years away) could be reached in ~20 years.

So while some countries will "suffer" as in their power will diminish relative to other countries. Every country will become richer as a result of this. Russia and the Middle East will stop being big players in the world because of the independence of the west from fossil fuels.

But, of course, people will just autistically screech fukushima and chernobyl just like capitalists schreech about the gorillions. And people will just spread misinformation about it ad infinitum, instead of actually reading about it.


This is a pro-nuclear board, we've had threads about it before. There is a broad concensus about it so there's no need to make threads about it all the time.


Because they haven't got it to work yet maybe?



There is, however, way more discussion about the harmful effects of "idpol" taking over leftism, and pro-nuclear activism is something we should be really concerned with. Hell, even capitalists (barring fossil fuel profiteers) would want nuclear fusion energy to be possible, but widespread misconceptions about nuclear energy makes talking about it and realising it difficult.



Capitalists are too irresponsible to be trusted with nuclear energy though, they'll just fuck it up - and also, the profits are too insecure for them to bother with. It's pointless to 'critically support' nuclear oligarchs. If it's nationalised that's another thing maybe.


>will likely be commercially viable by the next 30 years

Fusion will never, ever be economically viable under capitalism. The cost will be exorbitant due to the sheer nature of how nuclear energy release happens, no matter the setup. Conversely, the amount of power generated once you make it actually worth the investment will set the price of energy so low that you'll never make any profit on the fusion plant. It's the same problem fission has but multiplied by ten.



Nationalized energy should be pushed for as a sucdem reform.


>We need to lobby private companies to invest more in nuclear power to generate an economic boom and increase profitability!

Wew lad, I knew /leftypol/ is desperate for traffic after banning all those actual socialists but this level of porkyposting is a little pathetic tbh


utility plant nuclear fusion competes with space based solar collectors like this https://www.smithsonianmag.com/innovation/whats-next-solar-energy-how-about-space-180961008/

The sun basically is a big fusion reactor that already works. So space solar is "only" a engineering problem, doesn't have on top of that, a physics problem (Fusion needs advances in plasma-physics)

Your project of using limitless energy for sci-fi stuff like industrial scale mater-transmutation, is basically not possible on earth because you won't be able to get rid of all the waste heat. Your fusion plant infrastructure will be limited by thermal converter efficiency, ie steam turbines or in the future maybe the supercritical CO2 turbines. https://www.machinedesign.com/mechanical/supercritical-co2-path-less-expensive-greener-energy. While your Space solar will have converter losses. And the RF or Light transmission might heat up the atmosphere if it were to be scaled up to a scale where mater-converters can be powered. The only viable matter-conerter technology we have at the moment are particle accelerators, and those tend to be enormously large if they can reach high power out-puts. Trying to build one that can do lead to gold transmutation for more than just a few atoms, one might look into combining this with an orbital ring project https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=LMbI6sk-62E

On top of that it seems questionable how much utility you will get from this, because advanced material science might develop super-materials made out of common elements. To be fair undoing scarcity of materials is probably a worthwhile political project to end reification of precious metals, and/or to full-fill latent Alchemy dreams.

Sucking out CO2 from the Air in a reverse oil industry kind of way seem unlikely, because even in a full socialist society that does labour time calculation, making & pumping oil back into the ground is a giant "labor-voucher-pit". Consider that atmospheric CO2 is measured in parts per million. There are a lot of carbon capture schemes, regardless which one you end up using is probably going to be a enormous undertaking and justifying this will probably be easier if you get some other benefit from this. You can make graphite from captured carbon, via already existing industrial processes and is less likely to be re-emitted back into the atmosphere, as well as having a lot of industrial uses. Also Oil is basically toxic sludge and it might be really hard to pump that into the ground with out poisoning the soil.

Fusion-powered interstellar space travel is viable, but still has a rocked-equation-type problem where you get compounding fuel related costs. Basically you end up with a powerlaw that increases your fuel-tank and thruster requirements because you speed fuel on moving fuel. You can still use fusion but you need to decouple the powerplant from the space shit, conceptually much like a Chairlift with a elastic rope, you could have a space-ships with a giant reflector mesh and shoot microwaves at it and have fusion power stations much like chairlift pylons along the way to both accelerate outgoing and decelerate incoming spaceships.

As for your geopolitical preview , The middle east still has a lot of fossil-money they can use to buy solar collector technology and as well as having deserts to put them. https://bigthink.com/technology-innovation/dubai-solar-power

Russia's "Oil-ligarchs" will be screwed, but that doesn't mean that Russia is out of the game when it comes to fusion consider that they used to be Pioneers producing "game-changeing" fusion tech break-throughs, way back when still the correct flag was waving above the kreml. And most of the industrial and scientific base was untouched by the turmoil in the 90s.

I don't think the anti-fission sentiment is affecting fusion, because on the emotional side the glowing torus images of fusion-reactors are pretty looking, and lack the danger-lurking in the deep of spend fuel-rods in cool-off water-pools. And from the scientific side, they don't produce any long term problematic waste-byproducts. Also I don't think that fission power is really permanently blocked either, because neither China nor India are affected by anti-fission sentiment, and most of the rest of the world will buy nuclear reactors if they are cheap enough.


You're completely right I just don't know what else there is to say.


File: 409a6638a3f3cc0⋯.png (389.28 KB, 608x564, 152:141, 1.png)

>sci-fi thread



broke: bunkers all over the country

WOKE: building nuclear plants near your borders so that if they get attacked they poison the invader



>Actual socialism is when you shill for American imperialism

Wow amazing.


I believe we'll have the trend of fusing hydrogen atoms before we harness the power of fusing carbon atoms like how neutron stars use their energy.


File: 5602883ed458cd8⋯.jpeg (7.16 KB, 206x245, 206:245, hoxha.jpeg)


Stop giving me ideas.



Isn't it impossible for a fusion reactor to cause a chernobyl tier catastrophe?



yes since a fusion reactor that generates more power than it uses has been impossible to create at all



>Isn't it impossible for a fusion reactor to cause a chernobyl tier catastrophe?

Yes, in the event of a containment failure the reaction will cease. Even if the reactor was completely split open, say, if it were bombed, it would only release a small amount of radioactive gas into the environment (and most of those radioisotopes would have a very short half life).


>yes since a fusion reactor that generates more power than it uses has been impossible to create at all

Net power production changes nothing with regard to danger (or lack thereof) in this particular context.


>will likely be commercially viable by the next 30 years

H-how? ITER is going nowhere, and researchers I've talked to have been extremely sceptical about it ever being viable…



I'm for hardcore denuclearization on Earth, both militarily and civilian, until the waste issue is fixed. However, lunar nuclear power to extract silicon from lunar regolith/"Soil" would give us the ability to mass-manufacture silicon crystals in vacuum conditions, aka solar panels. Likewise, lunar nuclear power would be useful without the contaminating effects of terrestrial accidents. Solar power for Earth, Nuclear Power for the Moon.



Because cold fusion is a fantasy technology.

There are actual existing nuclear technologies that could be deployed RIGHT NOW, we don't need to go chasing after magic.



>cold fusion

OP never mentioned *cold* fusion - something that is total fucking nonsense, but was talking about real fusion, which has a sizable amount of money being invested in it. While fusion may turn out to be impractical as a form of electricity generation, it is a thing that actually exists. To suggest that fusion research is "chasing after magic" is really fucking ignorant.


File: e873f9eb3103f30⋯.jpg (184.1 KB, 1200x675, 16:9, e873f9eb3103f303fb7b1b5a8d….jpg)


Soviet Union was a project that turned Sci-Fi into reality steadily one step by another.

Deal with it.


Is your opinion about earth denuclearization influenced by experience of nuclear power being in the control of imperialist states and them racing for nuclear weapons was the primary driver for many accidents?

Or is it because you believe that transmutation chain of several stages to stable isotopes, or isotopes of chemically inactive elements cannot be found and exploited in power generation, and it will always lead to disasters, contamination, despite the nuclear industry being motivated by well-being of humanity once the capitalism has been chucked into the dustbin of history along with imperialism and military-industrial complex?

[Return][Go to top][Catalog][Nerve Center][Cancer][Post a Reply]
Delete Post [ ]
[ / / / / / / / / / / / / / ] [ dir / caco / chemo / dempart / general / idchan / vg / vichan / wmafsex ]