Reply to: Is Nuclear Fusion viable?

I think biodiesel and bioethanol will be the main fuels of the twenty years or so after the Hubbert Peak. They just have so many advantages. they recycle atmospheric carbon, existing vehicles need little or no modification to use them (in Brazil, they use vehicles that you can use petrol or bioethanol in ANY proportion - you just put whatever's available in the tank, and the engine tunes itself for the mixture), and probably most important of all, the existing fuel supply infrastructure (petrol stations, tankers, pipelines, etc.) can be re-used, apart (possibly) from the refineries. They also provide a market for agricultural produce from a lot of poor countries, which have a good climate for growing (non-edible) oil-producing plants that currently don't have a market

Fuel cell technology is still too expensive, though v. small systems, using methanol rather than pure hydrogen might catch on soon in niche markets.

BioDiesel is made from modified vegetable oil, so yes it is oil.

What I meant was can the earth generate enough renewable vegetable oil to replace the mineral oil as our main fuel for transport and power stations?

I thought biodiesel was oil

Actually.

A more serious question. How much of the world energy could come from growing vast quanities of BioDiesel, effectively a green and renewable energy source that does not add to the worlds carbon levels?

If the fuel were produced on a massive scale across all continents and used to produce electricity, would the world be able to give up oil as a fuel?

A quick question.

Billion pounds spent on science. Wouldn't this money be better spent on aid to Africa? Infact should not all the money in the world be spent on Africa?

Sir Bob

If it was up to them we'd still be driving carts with square wheels and dragging our birds around by their hair.

Ah, you've been to Wales? :lol

I actually have clairvoyant powers...

Let me concentrate...

mmmmmmmmmmmmmmmmmmmmmmmmmmmm


OK its going to rain next week.

8)

they can't even tell you if it will rain next week.

It will, it's summer.

What the f *** do they know about nuclear fusion technology, compared to a group of the worlds top nuclear scientists?

Aha. So if if the scientists are doing something the environmentalists oppose they must be right, they are "top" scientists. When scientists support environmental concerns, well what do they know? they can't even tell you if it will rain next week.

One of my companies is building the super-conducting magnets for this and one of my students is leading the plasma dynamics reseach team.

threaded

Blessed is just about anyone with a vested interest in the status quo!!!

Spod.

Of course, highly politically astute greens would object on principle to the experiment as, if it succeeds, they are rendered fairly redundant overnight as we would then be able to produce pollution free energy from water.

If it was up to them we'd still be driving carts with square wheels and dragging our birds around by their hair.

It'd make a change from them dragging us around by our bollox!

Spod - In "Not all change is good" mode!

Some green groups criticised Tuesday's announcement as a waste of money. They are doubtful whether Iter will ever deliver practical technologies.

If it was up to them we'd still be driving carts with square wheels and dragging our birds around by their hair.

Idiots. >: What the f *** do they know about nuclear fusion technology, compared to a group of the worlds top nuclear scientists?

mainly because they have them on Star Trek

I like your reasoning, Lucifer!