The race for nuclear fusion

[sen-no-sen]

But we will not know anything when a possible electricity production at a certain time.

It does not matter, the research advances and much faster than with ITER, the mastery of the merger on the 2040 horizon seems to me possible.

It is not enough to "control" the merger, but to make it profitable to make electricity by this means (and in complete safety).

Given the huge impact that such technology would have on economic growth, there would be little time to wait between a technical mastery of the merger process and its commercial exploitation.
With the merger, most of the mining peaks will be pushed back in time, because with an unlimited source of energy (on a human scale I mean) it would be possible to extract resources which until now were not possible , we can cite in particular the extraction of gold contained in sea water ...
In the longer term it would even be possible to transmute elements ...

[Exnihiloest]

Me, argument of authority? No, I am referring to the scientific consensus.

What consensus? For there to be consensus, there should have been discussion. There is never confirmation of IPCC findings by independent teams. The conclusions are decreed by the group, which is judge and party, and taken as a reference by the politicians. Discordant paths are marginalized. I don't see it anywhere else in physics.

The sun responsible for the RC ??? https://www.sciencesetavenir.fr/nature- ... ris_108792

The sun fluctuates enormously. The sunspot flares in the 11-year solar cycle are very different from one cycle to the next. And there is also that of 22 and that of 179 years. The sun is not stable, and it is the first source of energy on earth so it is not surprising that the average temperature can vary because of it. The past of the earth demonstrates this moreover.

Then, the greatest distrust is de rigueur as for the control of the subject by climatologists, climatology is far from being an exact science, the unknowns are numerous, and consequently the anthropic cause of the warming is most suspect. Global warming is not properly characterized either in time or in its magnitude (the IPCC temperature increase predictions from 2007 to 2015 turned out to be false in a ratio of 2!).

Finally, the article you are quoting attacks Courtillot because he allegedly denied the extent of the disappearance of mammals, following a misunderstanding between "animals" and "species". If half of the animals have disappeared, the species have not disappeared (apart from 3 according to him). But to whom is the initial source of the misunderstanding due? To strike public opinion with an ambiguous formulation which would suggest that it is half of the species that has disappeared does not surprise me at all by certain militant environmental associations (and in the best case, the cause may also be due to their scientific incompetence in relaying the work of researchers). Courtillot is far from being an idiot that one could underestimate.

[Exnihiloest]

Given the huge impact that such technology would have on economic growth, there would be little time to wait between a technical mastery of the merger process and its commercial exploitation.
With the merger, most of the mining peaks will be pushed back in time, because with an unlimited source of energy (on a human scale I mean) it would be possible to extract resources which until now were not possible , we can cite in particular the extraction of gold contained in sea water ...
In the longer term it would even be possible to transmute elements ...

Yes, it would be a revolution, especially if it is not too expensive to operate.
Clean, cheap and abundant energy will surely revive the economic machine, opening up a considerable number of new applications, new activities, new products. It risks being fought. It is indeed the bane of proponents of degrowth or other ideologies aimed at reducing the production sector, and opponents of capitalist societies in general. I have noticed that quite a few individuals in the ecological movement have absolutely nothing to do with ecology, unless they can take it as a pretext to thwart the capitalist system. Clean, cheap and plentiful energy should instead be widely deployed and used to clean up our environment.

[sen-no-sen]

It risks being fought. It is indeed the bane of proponents of degrowth or other ideologies aimed at reducing the production sector, and opponents of capitalist societies in general.

I don't feel targeted!

I have noticed that quite a few individuals in the ecological movement have absolutely nothing to do with ecology, unless they can take it as a pretext to thwart the capitalist system.

That's not green, it's "watermelons", that is to say green on the outside and red on the inside ...

Clean, cheap and plentiful energy should instead be widely deployed and used to clean up our environment.

This is what everyone thinks and it is a complete reasoning bias.
Energy is what allows the transformation of a system, so with unlimited energy the transformation of our environment would itself be limitless.
Without visible externality (polluting discharge) why deprive yourself?
Merger will be the cornerstone of convergence NBIC, and will mark the beginning of a new era ...

[Ahmed]

One of the very important aspects that have led to the current conditions of life on earth is the massive storage of organic matter in the carboniferous, for more than 50 million years (sorry!). The fact of releasing gleefully (sic!) This CO2 in the atmosphere is anything but trivial and the idea that it would even be favorable for plant growth, a simple joke, valid only on paper, at the cost of a simplification outrageous of plant physiology ...

[izentrop]

the article you are quoting attacks Courtillot because he would have denied the extent of the disappearance of mammals ...

You do not see that his arguments are only fallacies. https://www.facebook.com/groups/zetetiq ... xvdA%3D%3D

What consensus? ...
The sunspot flares in the 11-year solar cycle are very different from one cycle to the next. And there is also that of 22 and that of 179 years. The sun is not stable, and it is the first source of energy on earth so it is not surprising that the average temperature can vary because of it. The past of the earth demonstrates this moreover.

I seem to have already given you this link which takes stock of the consensus and the role of the sun http://www.clubdesargonautes.org/climat ... 6.php#role

Perhaps Michel Petit's arguments seem more convincing to you? http://www.pseudo-sciences.org/spip.php?article1450

[Exnihiloest]

... Clean, cheap and abundant energy should, on the contrary, be widely deployed and used to clean up our environment.

This is what everyone thinks and it is a complete reasoning bias.
Energy is what allows the transformation of a system, so with unlimited energy the transformation of our environment would itself be limitless.
Without visible externality (polluting discharge) why deprive yourself?
Merger will be the cornerstone of convergence NBIC, and will mark the beginning of a new era ...

No it's not what everyone thinks, the proof you don't mean it, and there are more people like you than you seem to think, which is why I mentioned it. And there is no "reasoning bias".
"The transformation of our environment would itself be limitless", it is true, and it is desirable. Man is not made to ruminate in his square, the history of humanity demonstrates it. The transformation of our environment is what we spend our time on, both at the family level (housing ...) and social (regional planning ...). Unlike animals which adapt to their environment, we adapt the environment to ourselves, and the system loops back because the adaptation we make to our environment also transforms us. The pure animal option "I adapt" has no chance of spreading to humans because man is art, in every sense of the word. Even ecology has a transformative action.

The problem is not having or not having the means to drastically modify the world, we will have them sooner or later, but to act "properly", that is to say to maintain an environment which is suitable for all and evolves in phase. with humanity. For my part, an environment close to nature suits me, I feel perfectly at ease in the rain in the middle of a forest or in the middle of the mountains with no one around. But I know some city dwellers who get bored there, or even feel bad. It is not just a question of people, it is above all a question of education in particular linked to his childhood. That future generations will have an environment very different from what we know, and where we would not like to live, in no way shows that these generations would not find their pleasure there, they would be adapted to it by birth.

Cheap and abundant energy is desirable, to push man's creative limits further, while reducing the cost of the necessary "cleanliness" that he must maintain for his environment.

[sen-no-sen]

No it's not what everyone thinks, the proof you don't mean it, and there are more people like you than you seem to think, which is why I mentioned it. And there is no "reasoning bias".

Oh yes, there is reasoning bias (ie a systematic deviation from reality, deviation from judgment).
The reasoning is as follows: more energy = more freedom, happiness, knowledge etc ... with extrapolation ad infinitum of the said reasoning.
Except this reasoning is valid only within a given limit, and this limit and quickly reached because any system has thresholds not to be exceeded.

Unlike animals that adapt to their environment, we adapt the environment to ourselves, and the system loops because the adaptation that we make of our environment also transforms us.

It is a humanist and anthropocentric vision ...
From a naturalist point of view, (point which seems to me somewhat more objective) the human being is a biological structure dissipative of energy, provided by a long evolutionary process with a cognitive system carrying Memes(ideas that replicate by imitations)
Out of it is its information that drives us to act through a set of unconscious physical processes.
In reality we adapt nothing, we undergo physical and cultural determinisms and we allot ourselves a posteriori the merits and consequences of his actions...

The pure animal option "I adapt" has no chance of spreading to humans because man is art, in every sense of the word.

It's beautiful! But it's wrong!
The human being is even more dependent than his fellow humans with feathers and feathers on the transformations in which he is the actor.
The effect of Red queen On the contrary, we are forced to readjust ourselves ceaselessly and always more quickly, the "choice" is here again completely absent, we undergo transformations which are beyond us.

The problem is not whether or not to have the means to drastically modify the world, we will have them sooner or later, but to act "properly", that is to say to maintain an environment that suits everyone and evolves in phase. with humanity.

Again it is very pretty, but that does not help us understand the sequence of events.
What does "properly" mean? For who? A European, an Indian Fill,a tiger?
An environment which evolves in phase with a humanity which undergoes the determinisms linked to the dissipation of energy from the techno-system will not evolve in phase with itself (!), Since this one will have to constantly readjust to this one. even if it means disappearing ...

[Ahmed]

Exnihiloest, you write:

I have noticed that quite a few individuals in the ecological movement have absolutely nothing to do with ecology, unless they can take it as a pretext to thwart the capitalist system.

The opposite seems to me to be more true: all of those who support capitalist ideology have absolutely nothing to do with ecology, since these two terms are in absolute contradiction, and are content to pretend to worry about it for precisely conceal this contradiction.

Clean, cheap and plentiful energy should instead be widely deployed and used to clean up our environment.

It is easy to see that fossil fuels were and still are for the moment very cheap, which encourages the destruction of natural resources without leading to compensations other than symbolic (for the same reasons as above), again sources of energy that would take over, and in an expanded dimension would complete the destruction. As for the concept of "perpetual reparation" that it would make possible according to scientist ideology, we do not see the reason for its appearance, except to the least extent that it would prove necessary for the pursuit of this same destruction. This is therefore a fallacious hypothesis intended to reassure public opinion. Basic common sense teaches us that it is easier to destroy than to repair, especially when there are strong incentives for the first of these actions and none for the second.
Another factor weighs even more on the balance: the threshold effects mean that once destroyed, certain elements of reality can in no case be restored. A limited pollution can be more or less fought, not if it is diffuse, the destroyed species will not be resurrected (even if genetic tinkering can amuse the gallery), and I am not talking about the climate ...

[Exnihiloest]

...
It is easy to see that fossil energy was and still is very inexpensive for the moment, which encourages the destruction of natural wealth without causing compensation other than symbolic (for the same reasons as above), again sources of energy which would take over, and in an enlarged dimension would complete the destruction.

Necessity rules: that's why we use fossil fuel. It is about having the means to solve our problems (heating, transport, agriculture ...) and to support the billions of people on earth, born precisely thanks to this life easier today than yesterday.
The problem is not that energy is cheap. It is not. A multitude of applications requiring energy are impossible today because of its cost.
What we expect, in particular from environmentalists since they are the ones who cry the most, is an attractive alternative energy. The fossil energy will then be replaced naturally by the new one, cleaner and at least, not more expensive. So it's not complicated to drop fossil fuels, right ?! You just have to find better.
But here we must confront the realities of real life, the universe and the laws of nature, which do not do the (political) ecologists who for the most part spend their time perishing on an ecologically better world, but without ever getting involved or with absurdities and gabegies à la Royale like the solar routes. They are incompetent ideologues who would kill millions of people on earth if they took power, in line with all the ideologues of past battles (Catholic crusades, Stalinist communism, Maoism ...)

Another factor weighs even more on the balance: the threshold effects mean that once destroyed, certain elements of reality can in no case be restored ...

Free affirmation. And then there is not only the restoration, we can also create new "elements of reality".
And even if this were the case, the future world does not necessarily have to be identical to the present world. This idea is the fad of the present generation, as if it had a say in the way of life of future generations. It is as if the generations of the 19th century had decided to save wood, to promote the sustainable development of the candle industry, or to develop horse breeds, to guarantee in the 20th century the heating of housing , lighting and horse-drawn traffic! It makes us a beautiful leg ...