How we will actually lose California?.

[Kyanbu The Legend]

Well California is officially worse then Texas and New Jersey. (no offense)

If the world nations panic about this, I'll support then greatly on the issue

because nothing good ever comes from build a star on a planet.

[TDK]

The people calling this a miniature star in that article are morons trying to stir up controversy. IT IS FUSION YES WE KNOW ITS BEEN AROUND FOR A WHILE.

[Geminex]

I love the fact that they're effectively giving Arnold Schwarzenegger control of the death star.

[Flarecobra]

Nothing'll happon. It'll just be a flash, then people will move on to the next crazy-sounding idea.

[Bob The Mercenary]

So we're smashing neutrons together to form miniature black holes and firing lasers to create miniature stars.

At what point...you know what, never mind.

[Azisien]

Originally Posted by Bob the Mercenary

So we're smashing neutrons together to form miniature black holes and firing lasers to create miniature stars.

At what point...you know what, never mind.

Protons and antiprotons, actually.

Jerk.

[Sithdarth]

Protons and antiprotons, actually.

Jerk.

Just protons and lead nuclei, actually. To get a reasonable amount of data you need millions of particles whipping by a point in very short periods of time so that a few thousand of them at best can actually collide. There is no known source that could supply enough antiprotons for that kind of action. Positrons maybe antiprotons not so much.

So we're smashing neutrons together

If only we could. You see neutrons having no charge are really really easy to smack into each other. (They tend not to push each other out of the way.) Unfortunately having no charge there really is no good way to accelerate them. (They don't respond much to magnetic or electric fields which is pretty much the only way of doing it.)

[bluestarultor]

Originally Posted by Sithdarth

If only we could. You see neutrons having no charge are really really easy to smack into each other. (They tend not to push each other out of the way.) Unfortunately having no charge there really is no good way to accelerate them. (They don't respond much to magnetic or electric fields which is pretty much the only way of doing it.)

Blow on them really, really hard.



On solar, Azi, you DO realize that first off, solar panels, even crappy civilian ones, pay for themselves in roughly eight years, right? That's materials, labor, AND profit there. And yes, they ARE that efficient that it would really take that little area. Add to that that crappy panels have a ~40-year life span and you've got yourself a pretty good energy source.

Also, they can be put nearly anywhere. You don't need blazing sun for them to work. Germany is using them heavily, I hear, and they're not exactly Arizona over there. Solar panels are still capable of generating power even on cloudy days.

To be frank, with thin-film technologies advancing rapidly, there's not a damn reason solar can't power the world. You can put that stuff in SHINGLES, for crying out loud, not to mention windows and even paint.

On the other hand, people are so stuck on traditional power sources that the public mind is blocking integration. Everyone associates solar panels with hippies. Nuclear, on the other hand, is a black hole of funds which will never be profitable, produces more waste than you give it credit for that is MUCH more dangerous than average, and which has already filled Yucca Mountain, and is very inefficient.

To put it this way, wind and solar are renewable, relatively efficient, and pretty darn cost-effective. I think that makes them a superior option.

[Azisien]

Originally Posted by bluestarultor

To put it this way, wind and solar are renewable, relatively efficient, and pretty darn cost-effective. I think that makes them a superior option.

Solar is not efficient in terms of greenhouse gas emissions. The only things it isn't worse than are coal and natural gas. That's what I meant about considering environmental costs. Even nuclear produces way less greenhouse gas.

All I meant in my critique of solar in people's earlier posts is that it was idealistic. I'm not against solar. But half a million square kilometers IS a lot. It's a long term solution, not a short term one. I'm still okay with pursuing it. I fucking am personally pursuing it.

Wind is probably more efficient, particularly those VAWTs for less windy areas. But then there's the whole "People don't want to live near turbines" issue that lowers public interest.

[Mondt]

Oh no, we're doing experiments!

Reminds me of this thing I read where a kid increased the resolution of a computer at school, explained (to computer asstarded people) that he basically opened up parts of the screen and got in trouble because what if they didn't want them to see those parts of the screens.