Is this a good idea?

[youngborean]

http://www.nature.com/news/2006/061120/ ... 120-4.html

My question is whether or not pursuing nuclear fusion is positive or if this is a potentially dangerous and unethical venture? I would opt for the latter and add it to a long list of Scientists doing whatever they want in the name of their short sighted vision of progress. This article asked a great question though, "Where is the money to invest in renewable energy?"

[juliod]

I'm not sure about dangerous or unethical. But I think we are approaching the point where we can see that fusion will not work (at least not until some unknown discoveries are made that make it more practical).

Science and technology are competative fields. Money is put into fusion research because advocates of that technology are successful in attracting the investments. The only way around that is to develop precognitive abilities. We don't know what technologies will work and which won't.

You might be interested in the Rocky Mountain Institute. They have a plan for our energy future that uses neither oil nor nuclear. I bought the book.

http://www.oilendgame.com/

DanZ

[QED]

I'm not sure about dangerous or unethical. But I think we are approaching the point where we can see that fusion will not work (at least not until some unknown discoveries are made that make it more practical).

There's nothing like pouring 6G$ into research to make a few new discoveries
I'm wondering if the "and" in "Science and Religion" is a stipulation or not

[juliod]

There's nothing like pouring 6G$ into research to make a few new discoveries

But there's the law of diminishing returns. Gigadollars have already been invested in fusion, with no result, and no real hope that it will work in even the distant future.

I'm wondering if the "and" in "Science and Religion" is a stipulation or not

How about this for an alternative debate question: Is fusion science a religion?

DanZ

[QED]

There's nothing like pouring 6G$ into research to make a few new discoveries

But there's the law of diminishing returns. Gigadollars have already been invested in fusion, with no result, and no real hope that it will work in even the distant future.

Very true. We've not even had something useful like Teflon out of it yet. If the money had been invested in Quantum Dot Technology we could all be tapping more efficiently into that giant reactor safely parked out in space.

How about this for an alternative debate question: Is fusion science a religion?

Good idea! It certainly looks like a product of wishful thinking!

[Caligar]

In my opinion nuclear technology is the way to go. Imagine if someday you could throw your garbage in some reactor and have it turn into billions of Joules of energy. Sounds good to me.

[Goat]

I'm not sure about dangerous or unethical. But I think we are approaching the point where we can see that fusion will not work (at least not until some unknown discoveries are made that make it more practical).

Science and technology are competative fields. Money is put into fusion research because advocates of that technology are successful in attracting the investments. The only way around that is to develop precognitive abilities. We don't know what technologies will work and which won't.

You might be interested in the Rocky Mountain Institute. They have a plan for our energy future that uses neither oil nor nuclear. I bought the book.

http://www.oilendgame.com/

DanZ

While renewale energy should be pursued with vigor, I do not see that also pursuing fusion to be wrong. The renewable sources of energy each has their own problems at the moment. I personally do not like fission nuclear power, but I see potential for fusion. We could really cut down on our dependance of fossil fuels if we did use the renewable sources though. I don't think we should just depend on one or another, but look at all angles.
'

[youngborean]

Science and technology are competative fields.

I think this is an interesting point, because culturally the relavance of scientific discovery seems to be what drives trends in research. Although most experiments deal with extremely small sighted observations, there seems to be an inherent pressure on researchers to make their work relavant (in order to get research funding and recognition). I think it is this factor in our society (the pressure to make research relavant) that causes ethical dillemas with science. Science with radical potential outcomes (not matter how insane) will get the cash over science that has already been established but not as technical anymore. The classic example in the medical field to me is a movement away from funding antibiotic research to concentrating more on cellular biology(not that cellular biology is too radical in my opinion), even though we are always been warned of a super bug and we are down to a handleful of useful anti-biotics because of overuse. Thanks for all the responses, I think the main point is that there is a limited amount of finances to support research, so undoubtedly decisions about where the money goes necessarily creates and ethical dillema. Unfortunately, this isn't really stressed to scientists who all just want to research their highly specialized area.