The Focus Fusion Society Forums Spreading the Word Flow Chart for talking about aneutronic fusion

Viewing 2 posts - 1 through 2 (of 2 total)
  • Author
    Posts
  • #1227
    Rezwan
    Participant

    In talking about fusion and the Focus Fusion Society mission, I think a flow chart might help.

    There are so many things to cover, and yet so many common responses. I think they can all be distilled into a chart. What are the common responses you get? What are your own unresolved issues on the subject?

    A chart might also help because people go through the issues in a diffferent order (although I think over time, the chart will sort itself out into a broad, logical, field tested order). When struggling to explain the breadth of topics that comprise the fusion mission, it would help to be able to whip out a chart and show people where they are on the chart, and what the options are in response to various things.

    Do you know what I mean?

    For example, a common issue is the “We’ll wait and see” response. So, the flow chart has you waiting and seeing as one thing you could be doing, vs. other actions you could take, and the impact on the progress of research of those attitudes/actions (or lack thereof). In other words, this isn’t just a chart about the ideas of fusion, but also the responses people are likely to have.

    And then there’s the N-word, (nuclear).

    OK, maybe several flow charts.

    #10835
    Johan Clemmesen
    Participant

    I don’t think that argumentation about fusion experiment should be pre formulated in a generic flow chart. It is complicated and comprehensive to think about all intricacies on human argumentation that can be emotional and not based on science facts or economics.

    There are pro’s and con’s on focused fusion as there is about everything else.

    I suggest that a comparative analysis list is drawn up comparing FF, fossil fuels, renewables and nuclear fission.

    That way it is easy to understand limitations and possibilities. I strongly suggest that the situation with cheap FF power is examined with the positive consequences for renewables since they are very power consuming in the first place. There are however also the counter argument that especially farmed fuels are extremely resource demanding with water and time.

    the comparative points could be:

    1. area requirement and size, maybe even mass/ watt ratio for a plant can be added
    2. emmisions in use
    3. waste
    4. radiation and time to safe radiation level
    5. Fuel cost
    6. Price pr. KwH reflecting resource and human time usage(labour) and thereby environmental friendliness!!!
    7. future development possibilityes. size, cleanlyness

    Just a suggestion

    BR J

    BR J

Viewing 2 posts - 1 through 2 (of 2 total)
  • You must be logged in to reply to this topic.