|
Post by Vurtax on May 25, 2008 13:18:06 GMT 12
I've been thinking about this for a litte while now. I think i've combusted a possible solution to the oil crisis WITHOUT the need of divrsity of fuel. And WITHOUT the use of foreign oil.
Heres the idea: If any of you have heard of the engines that Oil companies buy from people who made it themself. They then patent the engine and stack it on a shelf.
These engines are known to run 150-300 miles to a gallon.
Heres the scoop: If they could replace all the cars engines at roun the same time (as in like a months time frame) with these engines. Just think of how much oil we'd save?
Now of course prices for a gallon would have to go up as well. But i calculated the price is around $60-$50 (I think its 30-20 pounds in british since i heard 2 pounds is about $4) a gallon (or 4.8 liters). So that means that we're about paying $3 (or a pound and half) for every 25 miles (or 40 kilometers.)
So heres the thing: Think how much oil reserve there'd be? Heck people would probably be filling up half a gallon (or 2.4 liters) every time you go to the gas station and your getting the same distance you would with a 13 gallon tank!
Heres the flaw: The flaw is you'd have to exchange engines in cars all about in the same ammount of time. Or else there'd be people spending $60 (or 30 pounds) to go 25 miles distance.
If only there was a way to get around that what do you guys think?
I wish had some political stance because i'd love to introduce this plan.
|
|
|
Post by Praetor on May 25, 2008 19:07:25 GMT 12
This is not some kind of late April fool's joke, right?
This sounds great, but how much does it cost to produce one of these engines?
If it is cost effective and practical, then we could mass produce it.
How does this engine work anyway, and where did you hear about it?
|
|
|
Post by PokeTrance on May 25, 2008 22:21:23 GMT 12
This is not some kind of late April fool's joke, right? This sounds great, but how much does it cost to produce one of these engines? If it is cost effective and practical, then we could mass produce it. How does this engine work anyway, and where did you hear about it? ^this. But I want to add something. Why do you think oil-companies act like this? It's because they gain huge benefit from it. The power oil-companies have is much greater than you can ever imagine. Think about it: almost everything we use in these days was in some way produced with oil. We should look for alternative energy resources, like hydrogen or bio-fuel (dunno if I translated these right). Oh, and another thing... As soon as people can't afford the oil anymore, they will look for something else to use. And this is when the oil-companies come 'to the rescue' with all those great inventions you've mentioned... The only one who can invest in other resources and stimulate it, is the government. But it's very likely that your government won't do that. (well, maybe they will... if it's useful for the military)
|
|
|
Post by XAOTL on May 25, 2008 23:21:46 GMT 12
These technologies have been around for a while now. I belive it's been around since the 90's. Altough the only reason it's popping up now is because of Global Warming, and recent inflation.
Besides, there is a large cache of Oil in countries that do not sell it, but store the oil for when the worlds resourses run out. There fore they would be able top control supply without the intervention of 'opec' (organisation of petrolium exporting countries that trys to keep oil at a level price by affecting supply)
Oil is black gold.
The idea would be brilliant if it was enacted. as welll as more concentrated development on them (rather than conventional engines) sorting out the defficiencies that it may have.
Unfortunately ^ Black gold.
Well if such an item would be put on mass sale to the public, it would be like a miricle. Who wouldn't want one. Especially since the price of everything's going up. It would be bad for the family that wouldn't save money with these.
Even an 'exchange' programme would work where people change their old engines for the new ones.
|
|
|
Post by narutoninja44 on May 26, 2008 3:19:48 GMT 12
I have a better idea: Solar Powered cars.XD
But yes, this would be a nice idea. Especially because the gas station nearest to us has the lowest prices, on Thursday is went from 3.49 dollars (1.79 pounds) to 3.81 dollars (1.92 pounds). Then just yesterday when we were going to eat, the price went up again! It went to 3.91 dollars (1.97 pounds)! And thats the lowest price.
Because of those engines, we'd save tons of money and oil.
I know you can, by contacting your governor, I think.
|
|
|
Post by LuciferIX on May 26, 2008 9:15:35 GMT 12
I think that those engines are just rumors. At the moment what could possibly increase the potential of the combustion would be to harness the heat off of the reaction as well or possibly develop a far more efficient drive train. But with the current engines they only work off of the expansion of the volume by igniting the petrol carbon-chain. Everything else from the reaction is lost. I don't remember where exactly I heard about the myth of the advanced engine but when you look at the mechanics behind it an increase of that magnitude is extremely unlikely.
As for the oil reserves, that is completely true. The United Sates alone has enough oil saved away in holding tanks and located under Alaska to fuel the entire country for months without the aid of foreign sources.
Bio-diesel, while a great concept is currently unpractical. Coming from a state that farms a large amount of corn (the husks are the main material component to create the ethanol alcohol), this topic has come up several times. Minnesota already has the highest ratio required of ethanol/petrol of any state in the Union for unleaded gas, but with the increase of the demand for ethanol across the country its putting a strain on the farmers. So much corn is going to the ethanol plants that there is less to be used as feed for the farm animals and for human consumption, thus with the supply and demand aspect of it the price of the rest of corn products and the animal products that depend on them increase. To become a viable way of reducing the cost of fuel they need to either figure out another alternative or be able to get the ethanol from the stalk of the corn which is usually just used as mulch or something else to a similar effect. Currently the bacteria created to acquire the ethanol from the corn can't break down the harder cell walls of the stalk and thus the massive amounts of potential energy in the stalk is lost.
But the real answer is, and always has been, the complete withdrawal from our use of petroleum as a fuel source. The only reason that it has been used all this time is because it was an easily acquired substance that when ignited produces a large volume of gases from a relatively low volume of liquid. Solar, nuclear (both fission and fusion), wind, water, tidal, hydrogen; these are all other ways to create large amounts of electricity to power what we need. Electric cars already exist and can be used, its just that the batteries of said cars just can't match the horsepower and longevity of the current combustion engine.
|
|
|
Post by Praetor on May 26, 2008 12:04:15 GMT 12
If the engine is on the market, and many people had their cars converted to using that engine, then the price of oil would skyrocket even higher. The rational behind the oil company would be since drivers do not refill gas as much, why not charge them high gas prices when they do refill. This high gas price would have a devastating effect on the people who do not have those engines. I think that those engines are just rumors. At the moment what could possibly increase the potential of the combustion would be to harness the heat off of the reaction as well or possibly develop a far more efficient drive train. But with the current engines they only work off of the expansion of the volume by igniting the petrol carbon-chain. Everything else from the reaction is lost. I don't remember where exactly I heard about the myth of the advanced engine but when you look at the mechanics behind it an increase of that magnitude is extremely unlikely. As for the oil reserves, that is completely true. The United Sates alone has enough oil saved away in holding tanks and located under Alaska to fuel the entire country for months without the aid of foreign sources. Bio-diesel, while a great concept is currently unpractical. [glow=yellow,2,300]Coming from a state that farms a large amount of corn (the husks are the main material component to create the ethanol alcohol), this topic has come up several times. Minnesota already has the highest ratio required of ethanol/petrol of any state in the Union for unleaded gas, but with the increase of the demand for ethanol across the country its putting a strain on the farmers. So much corn is going to the ethanol plants that there is less to be used as feed for the farm animals and for human consumption, thus with the supply and demand aspect of it the price of the rest of corn products and the animal products that depend on them increase[/glow]. To become a viable way of reducing the cost of fuel they need to either figure out another alternative or be able to get the ethanol from the stalk of the corn which is usually just used as mulch or something else to a similar effect. Currently the bacteria created to acquire the ethanol from the corn can't break down the harder cell walls of the stalk and thus the massive amounts of potential energy in the stalk is lost. But the real answer is, and always has been, the complete withdrawal from our use of petroleum as a fuel source. The only reason that it has been used all this time is because it was an easily acquired substance that when ignited produces a large volume of gases from a relatively low volume of liquid. Solar, nuclear (both fission and fusion), wind, water, tidal, hydrogen; these are all other ways to create large amounts of electricity to power what we need. Electric cars already exist and can be used, its just that the batteries of said cars just can't match the horsepower and longevity of the current combustion engine. That is how the price of food went up. In trying to solve one problem only made another problem worse, world hunger. As Matt said, petroleum is used most often because it is efficient and practical. Solar power relies on the sun, so what if the day is cloudy or the sun is just not out? If that happens, which it often does, then the whole city will be out in a power outage. Nuclear methods produces a tremendous power output, but the amount of usable-grade uranium extracted from ore is incredibly small, and there is not enough (and we can't produce enough) to power the U.S for an extended amount of time. H2O cars - There is a very obvious problem with this one. As Matt pointed out, just as ethanol from corn puts strain on food supply, hydrogen cars would put strain on our water supply. Think about how many people, animals, and plants use that water, and think about what would happen if cars started to use it as well.
|
|
|
Post by LuciferIX on May 26, 2008 14:09:34 GMT 12
Actually Praetor, there are ways around some of the problems that you mentioned. First of all the cloud issue for solar energy could be solved by two things. First if they are finally able to get the formula that some German scientists are working on they could improve the capture percentage of the solar cells from the current average of 10-20% to nearly 70-80%, vastly improving their efficiency (currently the record is ~43% efficiency). This increase in efficiency could then store the excess energy acquired into storage batteries and then used on cloudy days or at night. Second the possibility of building large solar cell satellites and put them into orbit to collect the solar radiation also exists. Then the energy could either be converted into high energy microwaves to be collected or just have a high strength cord (like a tether of sorts) that can provide a physical link to the satellite. But currently the only cord that would be light enough yet strong enough would have to be constructed of carbon nanotubes, which are still being studied and have yet to be able to reach a usable length. And as for the microwaves there is always the possibility of the energy missing the transceiver resulting in some fun times.
Next, while you are completely correct in terms of fission based nuclear energy; if the process of creating and maintaining a fusion based nuclear reaction could be found and harnessed the amount of energy obtained from it is hard to imagine. Most current concepts and designs of a fusion reactor rely not on the radioactive uranium atom but the stable deuterium isotope, which can be found in the ocean and is in enough abundance to fuel the reactors for presumably billions of years. The energy produced by the fusion of two deuterium atoms is 3-4x greater than a simple fission reaction. In all practicality we could create an artificial sun to draw energy from.
And finally for the hydrogen powered cars, again we turn to the sea. If the water used in the cars was from the fresh water supply than there is a good chance that it would start to create more problems for the already lowering water-table and drinking water. But with desalinization you all of a sudden get access to a virtually unlimited source of fresh water. While I will admit that this is the weakest of my arguments considering the amount of energy needed for the desalinization process in the first place, in combination with other sources of power such as the fusion reactor or solar panels this could easily become a viable source.
And if you want to go more into the future of possibilities, the most efficient reaction to pull energy from is the reaction of matter and anti-matter resulting in a complete transition from mass to energy. Though our current processes of producing anti-matter provide yields that are nothing more than an expensive experiment into the realm of physics, let alone a new fuel source.
So while my possibilities are not completely usable at the moment, using other forms to pick up the slack until the innovations are completed would be necessary. Fission energy combined with other forms of cleaner energy production would be a good substitute to support everything until that time comes.
|
|
|
Post by Praetor on May 26, 2008 17:11:39 GMT 12
Matt, it sounds like you have studied this stuff before. Let's see how my sophmore knowledge compares to that. Solar power: The first solution sounds great, but only if the scientists are successful. The second solution is plausible, I guess. My main concern using solar satellites sending down microwaves would be the frequency of the waves might be dangerous to the inhabitants near the the receiver. Second, solar storms might stop these satellites from function properly; even a small flare might disrupt the transmission of microwaves. Third, the idea of sending down power through microwaves might not even work at all. Earth's rotation will pull the tether and drag the satellite out of place. The satellite might even fall back to earth because of the pulling and gravity. Nuclear fusion: The only issues I can find so far are method of extraction, safety, and waste, if any. Hydrogen: The amount of cars that one day will be using the water will exceed the rate that water will reform again from H2 and O2. Not even the ocean would hold even water for all of our engines. Anti-matter: ABSOLUTELY NOT!!! Issues with it: 1. The amount of energy it takes to yield anti-matter is so high that it might exceed the energy that is produced from it. 2. How to produce a large amount of anti-matter. 3. Safety 4. The biggest issue with anti-matter is that once the anti-matter comes in contact with matter, that matter is lost forever. Keep using anti-matter, and in theory, we will run out of matter.
|
|
|
Post by LuciferIX on May 26, 2008 19:25:25 GMT 12
To tell you the truth I actually haven't studied this at all, except maybe in passing in some Ecology course. Mostly they are points that I've put together over the years of watching Discovery Channel and its sister stations. Most of the solar energy knowledge I got from 2057: World. And besides, the future stuff like this interests me to almost no end so it sticks very well.
---
Alright then we'll start with the solar energy then. Currently the scientists that are working on the new type of solar cell formula are very close to making the breakthrough. To make it as efficient at collecting the solar radiation as possible they need to make the new formula into a uniform crystal lattice. The main problem that they are having is that there are a few points in the lattice that don't want to get into place, thus pretty much making it probably about as useful as the current ones until that problem is fixed.
Ya I know that the microwave one is a stretch once you factor in the living being aspects of it. I needed to think of a way to keep one option wireless so to say. But other than that, it should be possible to convert it into high energy waves, collect those waves and translate them back. Exactly how I can't say, but from what I do know about the subject I believe that it should be possible.
As for the tether option it should stay in place as long at it doesn't break. From what I can tell you seem to be most worried about it falling through the atmosphere either by Earth pulling it down by the tether or by it getting too close and getting caught into Earth's gravity well. The reason that it should stay up just like most satellites is that for one the effect of "weightlessness" in space at the Lagrange points actually isn't completely true. At that height away from Earth you are at about 50-75% your normal weight (I don't remember the exact number), so Earth's gravity still has an affect on you. The reason that the affects of this weightlessness is felt is simply that the person and everything around them is in free-fall, being pulled back to Earth but not directly at the planet and thus fall more around the planet. A little complicated and maybe not completely exact near the end but its the effects of orbit basically. Then the second part of the equation for this is that the tether should stay taught from the effects of centrifugal force made by the Earth's rotation. So if you can get it into the altitude of other satellite orbits then it should stay in place as long as the tether holds.
---
Next with the fusion. Extraction of the Deuterium from seawater is a question that I cannot answer. Deuterium has properties that are different than the normal Hydrogen atom so there should be a way to separate them. I've never had to separate anything like that before so I can't really say exactly how. The safety factors would be pretty close to what the safety with the current fission reactors would be except it would need to withstand a more powerful reaction. As for the waste, a basic Deuterium/Deuterium reaction would produce one stable Helium atom. Although along with the helium there would be massive amounts of radiation emitted from the fusion in the from of alpha, beta, or gama waves. It is this energy that is converted into electricity.
Although the Deuterium/Deuterium reaction is virtually without waste, currently the easier way of achieving nuclear fusion reaction is reacting Deuterium and it's sister isotope Tritium. Tritium isn't as stable as Deuterium and doesn't occur naturally, though it can be crated by reacting Deuterium and lithium. With the reaction between these two the helium atom and a spare neutron would be the waste.
---
And there should be no way that the water should run out with the combustion of hydrogen. I think that you don't understand the reaction thats occurring. To quickly define a combustion reaction it would be the breaking of molecular bonds in the presence of oxygen. The broken "pieces" of the compound than combine with the oxygen present and form a new compound with the oxygen. Gasoline after it reacts forms mostly CO2 and H2O. The reaction of the Hydrogen molecule goes like this:
2 H2 + O2 -> 2 H2O + energy
To summarize; the combustion of the hydrogen produces heat and water. The water would then drain out of the vehicle and reenter the water cycle. So it would be virtually impossible to run out of water even if this is used worldwide.
---
The anti-matter is just one idea that I have in my head in terms of energy simply because it is so efficient. If you wanted an energy source I can't think of any better one.
At the moment you are correct, the amount of energy put into creating a few atoms of anti-matter far outweigh the energy that would be gained by using it. Thus a more efficient way would have to be found. And again the efficiency is the issue of the second one, new ways would have to be figured out.
Currently the storage of anti-matter is done through the use of magnetic fields. Being only no more than a few particles large they are heavily affected by the fields and as long as they are active the anti-matter wont react with each other or anything else. The problem would be to keep the fields in place. By using an electromagnet one would have to make sure that there would be a consistent flow of electricity to the magnet to keep it operative. I don't believe that any type of conventional magnet would be powerful enough to hold the particles. A superconductor might be able to be used as well but to keep that working temperatures must be kept around 70 kelven (-2030C, -3330F).
And yes theoretically you could run out of matter, but when you consider how much actual matter is in the universe that would take a while. And with the energy yield that it would give the amount of power that would be produced could also offset the amount used. I only know a limited amount on anti-matter so to go much further than this I would need to start researching.
And that would be the end one one of my longest posts. Sleep time now.
|
|
|
Post by XAOTL on May 27, 2008 7:27:55 GMT 12
I apologize for how lazy I am to not quote but for those who have read the article they should know to where I am referencing: I would like to say that contrary to popular belief Solar panels continue to work when there are clouds, and Hydrogen fuel cells still require oil in order to create Hydrogen from Water as Lucifer pointed out the equation before the reverse would be : 2 H2 + O2 <- 2 H2O + energy and therefor is nowhere near practical unless one would use an alternate form of energy in order to form the Hydrogen, and therefore use it as a permanent alternative in comparison to batteries that would be used with solar power. and in the way of Bio-fuel I would say that it dose a substantial amount of damage to the environment that is regarded as close to the effects of intensive farming. a/n Praetor the food crisis and inflation was not created by the use of Bio fuels but back on topic when/if people in a relatively large scale choose to use alternative fuel sources or go to more efficient engines the result would be a decrease in the price of oil. Whenever a product finds itself having a fall in demand the price is lowered in order to bring up sales (possibly an exception in the case of the efficient engines but not in all other circumstances) basic supply and demand. as well as the fact of how relying on alternative fuels would lower the elasticity upon oil. Yet at the same time create a large deficit upon government taxes, as Oil is taxed, due to its inelastic qualities. Although I must ask... Anti matter A lot of power yes, but highly unstable. A hydrogen bomb obtains 0.7% of an atoms energy. This would obtain 100% Rather hard to control, and constantly in numerous locations, in itself is questionable. Not including how Expensive Anti matter is, $300 billion per milligram. and if we are speaking in the form of cars Hydrogen cells should be pressurized unless put in a liquid form which is at an incredibly low temperature, a temperature that must be maintained. Both of which are rather unpractical. Bio fuels are the only option that would work but there are already problems associated with them. The only other practical decision would be to use battery powered cars, which in turn create a mass of possibilities. But to clear things up on the current climate surrounding Oil prices. Oil is only high in price because of someone in a big bank that is starting to worry because of Rebels in Nigeria, in addition to the current Economic climate which isn't helping, as regular people begin to take on some of the panic. Oil prices will stabilize when the worries that have been tied in with the Credit Crunch blow over. The only 'true' worry concerning Oil in the long term is with Global warming, and on contrary the reliance upon countries that, lets admit it. We don't really like. Don't act like you don't know what I'm talking about.
|
|
|
Post by Praetor on May 27, 2008 14:22:37 GMT 12
I know my combustion reactions; if I didn't, I would have long failed chemistry class. I didn't know how the car engine would harness the H2O as an energy source until you told me that it is done through combustion.
How ironic that hydrogen was supposed to replace oil, but uses it to produce hydrogen.
But how efficient are solar panels when the sun's not out?
I remember hearing in the news radio that part of the reason there is a food crisis/inflation is that farmers are clearing their fields to grow more crops used for fuel than for food.
Speaking of intensive farming, if we replaced oil with ethanol as a fuel source, then the farming to produce enough ethanol would be intensive, and forests/rainforests would have to be cleared to make room for more farmland.
Like I said before, while the efficient engine lessens the frequency in which the driver refills, it doesn't eliminate the need for it, so every time the driver refills gas, the oil companies can still charge high (and possibly even higher) gas prices.
As Matt pointed out earlier, cars running on rechargeable batteries are not as efficient as gas - powered cars. Not so practical when you have to refill so often, because that will not decrease the cost of fuel. When you're miles away from home, and you need to recharge your car battery, then the only way to obtain it would be through a "replacement" for gas stations.
|
|
|
Post by LuciferIX on May 27, 2008 15:07:40 GMT 12
Sorry, guess I assumed too much. At least I was able to get my reasoning down as well and it made up for it.
As for the efficiency of solar panels I would assume that it would be whichever radiation waves would be able to successfully be able to pass through the water vapor. I don't remember the exact differences between them so I really can't say.
Part of the reasoning behind the fact that farmers are growing more corn for fuel instead of crops is simply because of the government subsidies that are associated with it. The farmers can earn more money than letting it go to market. And as I said in the first post that I made, part of the ethanol problem could be solved by engineering different bacteria that can break through the tougher cell walls that the stalks have to access the usually unused stalks so that you can still use the husks for food and still be able to get the ethanol that we could use. They are currently working on doing just that.
Oil is one of the few commodities that actually supersedes the idea of supply and demand. Currently even with the change in prices, the demand for the oil will not take a dramatic change. People will grumble and complain but for the most part they will bite the bullet and just pay it. So it won't matter what the price of it becomes, as long as its our main fuel source people will pay it and demand will only rise.
Finally, while it may be true that you need gas to change the water into hydrogen the amount of electricity that is put out by the hydrogen prototypes is enough to power not only the car, but your house as well. Even being able to put electricity back into the grid. The real thing is that they have to learn how to use this excess in electricity to replace the gas completely.
And again with the anti-matter, its mostly theoretical and is far from becoming mainstream. Any knowledge in that area is slim. For it to become anywhere close to what we would need for a practical energy source the first problem would be overcoming the production problems with yield efficiencies. And as for the control issue, that has not stopped humans from learning as much as they can as fast as they can about it. We've learned how to control and harness nuclear fission reactions and have learned how to reproduce the power of the stars, there is little stopping us from trying to control yet another mystery presented before us. This is exampled by the fact of the first Hydrogen Bomb test. The scientists didn't know if starting the fusion reaction in Earth's atmosphere would start a chain reaction with the hydrogen and possibly destroy the entire planet. They decided to take the chance. So at the moment the only thing stopping us from trying to harness the anti-matter/matter reaction is the limited amount that we can create of it right now.
|
|
|
Post by XAOTL on May 27, 2008 23:23:05 GMT 12
It may have made a minor contribution towards inflation in food prices inthe way of supply. But when you hear of the lakes of wine, and Mountains of butter that the EU do not use it's not really much of a major contributor. The main focus as to how prices have risen has been caused by demand by emerging Economies such as India and China. With the growing wealth that people in said countries are gaining they want more luxuries. Rather than having meat once a week they'll have it twice. And when an item gains demand prices for the item go up in order to meet the point of equilibrium.
Oil dosn't really supersede supply and demand, Oil in comparison to the majority of goods is a nessesity, therefore has inelastic qualities(in the way of demand), and even now there are substitutes to Cars such as public transport or walking, both options if used would decrease the use of oil.
The only reason why we have had a constant and stable price for oil in the past is due to the co-operation of Opec, keeping a steady level of supply, but with developments such as pipelines in Nigerea bieing blown up, War in Iraq. the recent strike in an Scottish Oil refinery. There is panic buying of oil which increases demand, therefore increasing price. Which when the econimic climate stables will most likely blow over.
May I ask how so. Because if 2 H2 + O2 <- 2 H2O + energy(oil) 2 H2 + O2 -> 2 H2O + energy(Cars) is constantly occuring the only amount of output would equal the amount of input. If anything using Hydrogen would equal the process of combustion through Oil, if the fixed costs of production arn't taken into account.
and for a second I thought my life was in the hands of smart people.
We havn't created a sucessful 'Fusion reactor to date, and we continue to have safety difficulties with Fission, with many disaters occuring with Fission, that continue to have a real impact today. I find that we've got alot of theories but putting them to practice is a completely different thing.
Like Man exploring the Solar system, that dream panned out well.
|
|
|
Post by LuciferIX on May 28, 2008 5:23:22 GMT 12
Inelastic, thats what I was thinking of. Sorry, I'm trying to remember things from Economics classes from at the minimum of 2 years ago. But I got the general idea out at least.
Okay I tried to come up with a reason for the argument for the hydrogen powered car by using the stability of water and the ease of the process or achieving that state but then I remembered a few basic things about manipulating a chemical equation. To tell you the truth I don't know exactly how it would work. At the moment everything in my head is telling me that reversing the equation will simply change the total joules required from a positive number to a negative number (or vise versa). But from watching the shows on Discovery Channel that featured this topic it was saying what I put down before. The only thing I can think of is that the energy released from the breaking of the two hydrogen molecules would be enough to use electrolysis and split another two water compounds with enough left over to give an excess of energy to run the car. Beyond that I would need to research the topic.
I never said that we have successfully harnessed fusion power yet, but as I said with the anti-matter that won't stop humans from trying. Humans are creatures that have a lot of curiosity, and that curiosity helped us develop the massive brain that we have today. And it is because of that curiosity that we will continue the development of fusion energy. Fusion has the potential to revolutionize human life in many ways and we are close to finally being able to know and control its secrets. Between the curiosity and egos that define humanity, no matter what the lengths would be there will be people that will strive to obtain the mysteries of the stars and beyond and allow us to use that power ourselves. This expands into space exploration as well, if there is even the slightest chance of success people will strive to capture it. Because if that piece is caught and understood it can only open future doors. Development and the strive for it is part of human nature. No many how many times we fail, as long as that door exists people will want to open it.
|
|