(Re: the previous discussion on the "Politics and Religion" board -- which is the appropriate place for a discussion of "global warming.")

You are the one who refuses to discuss the science relating to carbon dioxide and any effect it has in regulation of atmospheric temperatures on the planet.

You think dogma is science.

You treat those of us who reject the dogma of "global warming" in the same manner that religious fanatics treat those who do not accept their fanaticism.

It still won't do jack to curb our foreign oil dependence.

Our transportation infrastructure is still virtually 100% based on (foreign) oil importation. We could have fusion come online tomorrow, or open 1,000 new fission reactors. It'd mean we'd have tons of cheap, easily-available electricity for home/office/public use, but it be virtually useless to running our cars, buses, trains, aircraft, boats, etc.

We need huge, sweeping advances in electrical storage (battery) technology if an electric-based transportation system is ever going to be viable. MUCH better than we currently have. Somehow the thought of substituting several thousands of pounds of toxic batteries for several hundreds of pounds of fossil fuel emissions over the life of every vehicle on the roads doesn't strike me as so great a swap. Step in the right direction perhaps, but until the battery technology is several orders of magnitude better than it is today, ultimately it's not a long-term solution.

Would you get on an electric airplane? I sure as hell wouldn't. Not for a long time.

These are the sorts of problems that confront us - technological AND perceptual. Yes, they can both be solved, but it won't be overnight and fusion technology, while definitely worth pursuing is not a "silver bullet" for all of our energy consumption problems.

I disagree- I think that if we had virtually limitless electricity, we wouldn't need to worry about batteries, at least for cars. Hydrogen combustion engines are already here, but they are stupid at the moment due to the amount of energy needed to make the hydrogen. With nukes generating tons of electricity, I think that hydrogen engines would be the obvious choich for cars and trucks.

That's a possibility. I think the viability of a hydrogen-based transportation infrastructure is a heck of a lot better than that of a straight-electric-based infrastructure. Of course there are losses every time you change energy form and at every link in the chain, but if there's such an abundance of power at the root of it all (fusion), it just may work. Encouraging research.

I don't want to be the one anywhere near the first fusion reactor that blows up or loses containment though... ;)

In the form of carbon, not a good idea to release it all at once, or over the last couple hundred years.

Only if you believe the nonsense from the political operatives who are trying to create a "new religion" about "global climate change."

The climate may be changing, but I have never seen any experimental data showing how slight variations of the trace amounts of carbon dioxide in air creates changes in the radiation of energy through that air -- at least not to any level that it could "warm the earth."

The "claims" by those screaming about "global warming" just don't hold up when examined scientifically.

Like it or not, the earth is a net loser of energy; we radiate more energy out into space than we receive from the sun.

Retention of the earth's heat should be a priority -- we should be looking for ways to keep the heat energy in the earth.

It would be wonderful if we could add trace amounts of carbon dioxide to the atmosphere and create a "green house" effect on the planet; sadly, the science, from those claiming this is possible, just doesn't work.

The planet is doomed to an eventual freezing cold death.

It's called Venus.

Dubya being an oil guy and all......that's a coincidence.

Some of you guys are really good at criticizing everything you hear. I had a wife like that. I figure some of you guys have levels of intelligence similar to hers. Based on the criticism thing. I learned a few decades ago as a debater and philosophy student that attacking is WAY easier than defending. One day we will gain energy independence, unless the oil companies have their way. And we will probably use a combination of solar, wind, wave, etc. Despite you guys' brilliant criticisms.

And one more thing. Quite frankly, when we do harness fusion power, we'll have more power than we know what to do with.

You can't be serious.
You're comparing apples to koala bears.

Exactly. It will really be the biggest thing mankind has ever done.

Besides the whole sex for pleasure thing. That's pretty damn awesome too.

It really doesn't matter if you believe it or not - tail pipe emissions are just plain bad for you. Period. If not, you would have folks hooking up pipes to them and pumping the exhaust into their cars as to committ suicide.

Global warming? Who the F*** cares! The fact of the matter is that emissions are harmful.

roflmao

Nuclear fusion will probably be solved sometime within the next 50 years, in my opinion.

It will probably solve all of the energy requirements of the human race, as long as we don't destroy ourselves in wars.

-The problem of fusion is so horrendous that it requires not only minds that are incredibly smart...but they also probably need to be minds that are in their 20's. A steady of supply of young physicists will eventually solve this problem, but most people after 40 won't contribute to the eventual solution. My post isn't about fusion, it is about the performance curve of the human mind with age. What I wonder is if the physics community realizes this. Most job communities have a "hierarchy", and the junior people get disregarded as an automatic response...

N!

You put the hat next to your 200mpg carburetor. ;) :D

While I am all for cleaning up areas that can be cleaned up.... The reason people die from exhaust in their car is because all of the O2 is displaced. Same as if you put your head in a plastic bag. I guess breathing out is harmful as well.

In the future all energy will come from koala bears!

Now you've got it!
:D

Venus is indeed extra-super-hot because of greenhouse gas effects.
And... if Mars was larger, there is a possibility thay a green house effect could make it have an Earth-like climate.

Earth is nicely balanced -- or was.

I used to use all 3 planets as lecture examples for carbon cycles -- this was before we had the warnings re global warming.

I don't know what competone's problem is....

Obama's Dept. of Energy leader will be Steve Chu. He is almost pathologically brilliant. He sees the big picture and understands the importance of nuclear power development and is one of the worlds fusion experts. Dr. Chu will be fascinating to watch.