[PASSED] Repeal "Renewable Research Commitment"

[Excidium Planetis]

"No, my second clause does not deal with a star supplying light to a planet. That is an assumption on your part. I'll ask again:

"Why is using nuclear fusion to power your devices non-renewable, but using nuclear fusion to generate light to be converted into electrical energy to power your devices renewable?"

OOC: Dude. Are you purposely trying to be confusing?

IC: What are the sources? We need to know what the sources are before we can answer whether those sources are renewable or not.

"Why does it matter what the sources are? Nuclear fusion in a star and Nuclear fusion in a reactor use the same fuel and output the same things. Both are equally renewable, the only difference is one is gigantic and uses gravity, the other is very small and uses heat and pressure. Nuclear reactors will run out of fuel when the universe ceases to be filled with elements lighter than iron, and stars will run out of fuel when the universe ceases to be filled with elements lighter than iron."

[Excidium Planetis]

This is actually quite a good point and I don't understand the response. Nuclear fusion is, by definition, unrenewable in the long run. It uses fuel (e.g. hydrogen, helium) which cannot be replaced to produce heat. Unless you're going to find some way to artificially reducing the entropy of the universe within a closed system, nothing is renewable.

OOC: Okay, so I got my answer, you ARE purposely trying to be confusing. Instead of taking words literally and out of context why don't you try defending your position using definitions that are universal in the scientific community? Yes, the sun will burn out, but our species will be dead long before that happens, so for all intents and purposes solar energy is renewable.

OOC: Yes, nuclear fusion reactors will run out of fuel, but our species will be dead long before that happens so for all intents and purposes nuclear fusion is renewable.

[Wrapper]

OOC: Dude. Are you purposely trying to be confusing?

IC: What are the sources? We need to know what the sources are before we can answer whether those sources are renewable or not.

"Why does it matter what the sources are? Nuclear fusion in a star and Nuclear fusion in a reactor use the same fuel and output the same things. Both are equally renewable, the only difference is one is gigantic and uses gravity, the other is very small and uses heat and pressure. Nuclear reactors will run out of fuel when the universe ceases to be filled with elements lighter than iron, and stars will run out of fuel when the universe ceases to be filled with elements lighter than iron."

Not everyone is able to extract elements from the universe beyond their own planets, Ambassador. Any type of energy using materials found on one's own planet which result in the destruction or conversion of those materials, whether we are talking about fossil fuels or nuclear source material, has to be considered non-renewable energy, due to its potential to be expended due to man-made effects. Harnessing solar or wind energy does not consume materials, nor do they effect the efficacy of the sun or the wind, so they have to be considered renewable energy.

Are we clear?

[John Turner]

Unless you're going to find some way to artificially reducing the entropy of the universe within a closed system, nothing is renewable.

Untrue. Lighter elements fuse to heavier elelements, and heavier elements fission into lighter elements. E-MC2 my friend. The universe contains all the matter/energy it will ever have since it's creation.

[New Leppikania]

How about we stop discussing the renewability of nuclear fusion power, and instead debate the resolution at vote, like this thread was meant for?

[Wrapper]

How about we stop discussing the renewability of nuclear fusion power, and instead debate the resolution at vote, like this thread was meant for?

Understanding what does and what does not constitute renewable energy can make a difference in how someone votes on this proposal.

[New Leppikania]

How about we stop discussing the renewability of nuclear fusion power, and instead debate the resolution at vote, like this thread was meant for?

Understanding what does and what does not constitute renewable energy can make a difference in how someone votes on this proposal.

This is NationStates; someone make an arbitrary decision and get on with it. Most nations shouldn't care, either; the only nations that have nuclear fusion tech are FT and maybe PMT.

[Excidium Planetis]

"Why does it matter what the sources are? Nuclear fusion in a star and Nuclear fusion in a reactor use the same fuel and output the same things. Both are equally renewable, the only difference is one is gigantic and uses gravity, the other is very small and uses heat and pressure. Nuclear reactors will run out of fuel when the universe ceases to be filled with elements lighter than iron, and stars will run out of fuel when the universe ceases to be filled with elements lighter than iron."

Not everyone is able to extract elements from the universe beyond their own planets, Ambassador.

"So? Nations being unable to do so suddenly make it non-renewable for my nation, which can? That's completely illogical."

Harnessing solar or wind energy does not consume materials, nor do they effect the efficacy of the sun or the wind, so they have to be considered renewable energy.

"Wind turbines convert kinetic energy in the air (wind) into electrical energy. When they do, the wind loses that kinetic energy. That's a reduction in the efficacy of the wind."

[Excidium Planetis]

Unless you're going to find some way to artificially reducing the entropy of the universe within a closed system, nothing is renewable.

Untrue. Lighter elements fuse to heavier elelements, and heavier elements fission into lighter elements. E-MC2 my friend. The universe contains all the matter/energy it will ever have since it's creation.

Unture. Lighter elements fuse into heavier elements up to iron, and heavier elements fission into lighter elements down to iron. We'll be left with nothing but Iron, eventually.

[Wrapper]

Untrue. Lighter elements fuse to heavier elelements, and heavier elements fission into lighter elements. E-MC2 my friend. The universe contains all the matter/energy it will ever have since it's creation.

Unture. Lighter elements fuse into heavier elements up to iron, and heavier elements fission into lighter elements down to iron. We'll be left with nothing but Iron, eventually.

And boom, nonrenewable energy. Thank you.

[Excidium Planetis]

Unture. Lighter elements fuse into heavier elements up to iron, and heavier elements fission into lighter elements down to iron. We'll be left with nothing but Iron, eventually.

And boom, nonrenewable energy. Thank you.

As I already pointed out, that won't be until long after our civilizations are dead, and still applies to solar power. No energy is renewable, by that standard.

[New Vancouvia]

Yes

"Is this attempt... currently publicly available anywhere?"

viewtopic.php?f=9&t=363748

[Astrolinium]

"Is this attempt... currently publicly available anywhere?"

viewtopic.php?f=9&t=363748

"Excellent, it's trash, worse, trash without teeth, so now I can much more firmly say I'll be voting NO on the current proposal at vote."

[New Vancouvia]

viewtopic.php?f=9&t=363748

"Excellent, it's trash, worse, trash without teeth, so now I can much more firmly say I'll be voting NO on the current proposal at vote."

Are you saying this soon to be repealed resolution has more teeth?

[Astrolinium]

"Excellent, it's trash, worse, trash without teeth, so now I can much more firmly say I'll be voting NO on the current proposal at vote."

Are you saying this soon to be repealed resolution has more teeth?

"Certainly not, but why on earth should we go through the bureaucracy associated with repealing one resolution that does nothing and replacing it with another that also does nothing when we could save ourselves a lot of time and work on resolutions that actually do things?"

[John Turner]

Untrue. Lighter elements fuse to heavier elelements, and heavier elements fission into lighter elements. E-MC2 my friend. The universe contains all the matter/energy it will ever have since it's creation.

Unture. Lighter elements fuse into heavier elements up to iron, and heavier elements fission into lighter elements down to iron. We'll be left with nothing but Iron, eventually.

Really? So how did we get elements heavier than iron?

[Imperium Anglorum]

Unture. Lighter elements fuse into heavier elements up to iron, and heavier elements fission into lighter elements down to iron. We'll be left with nothing but Iron, eventually.

Really? So how did we get elements heavier than iron?

He's right about this one. Lighter elements fuse to all elements (to iron in normal fusion and to all heavier in supernovae). We will actually not be left with nothing but iron, especially since there is yet bound energy in the universe. Considering the nature of a bounded universe, the outcome is likely heat death — and with heat death — everything would be black-hole matter. Black holes degrade into leptons and fermions via Hawking radiation, so the ending state of the universe would be a diffuse gas of extremely low-energy light and electrons. Then, we have to address whether the proton has a half-life, because if it does, then this will happen even faster.

[Excidium Planetis]

Are you saying this soon to be repealed resolution has more teeth?

"Certainly not, but why on earth should we go through the bureaucracy associated with repealing one resolution that does nothing and replacing it with another that also does nothing when we could save ourselves a lot of time and work on resolutions that actually do things?"

"Because then we can repeal it, vote NO on the replacement, and write a replacement that actually does something."

[John Turner]

Really? So how did we get elements heavier than iron?

He's right about this one. Lighter elements fuse to all elements (to iron in normal fusion and to all heavier in supernovae). We will actually not be left with nothing but iron, especially since there is yet bound energy in the universe. Considering the nature of a bounded universe, the outcome is likely heat death — and with heat death — everything would be black-hole matter. Black holes degrade into leptons and fermions via Hawking radiation, so the ending state of the universe would be a diffuse gas of extremely low-energy light and electrons. Then, we have to address whether the proton has a half-life, because if it does, then this will happen even faster.

There are also quarks and neutrinos that you are forgetting. But in the end the universe will keep expanding to the point where it tears itself apart anyway, not that I want to bring that particular threadjack into play.

"Certainly not, but why on earth should we go through the bureaucracy associated with repealing one resolution that does nothing and replacing it with another that also does nothing when we could save ourselves a lot of time and work on resolutions that actually do things?"

"Because then we can repeal it, vote NO on the replacement, and write a replacement that actually does something."

Or we can let Vancouvia have his badge, forget this whole thing happened, and let nations decide this shit for themselves. /nods

[Imperium Anglorum]

He's right about this one. Lighter elements fuse to all elements (to iron in normal fusion and to all heavier in supernovae). We will actually not be left with nothing but iron, especially since there is yet bound energy in the universe. Considering the nature of a bounded universe, the outcome is likely heat death — and with heat death — everything would be black-hole matter. Black holes degrade into leptons and fermions via Hawking radiation, so the ending state of the universe would be a diffuse gas of extremely low-energy light and electrons. Then, we have to address whether the proton has a half-life, because if it does, then this will happen even faster.

There are also quarks and neutrinos that you are forgetting. But in the end the universe will keep expanding to the point where it tears itself apart anyway, not that I want to bring that particular threadjack into play.

Quarks, no (as there are no free quarks. Neutrinos, yes. However:

Unless you're going to find some way to artificially reducing the entropy of the universe within a closed system, nothing is renewable.

Untrue. Lighter elements fuse to heavier elelements, and heavier elements fission into lighter elements. E-MC2 my friend. The universe contains all the matter/energy it will ever have since it's creation.

The closed system I am speaking of is the universe. This statement is true. You cannot reduce the entropy of the universe as a whole, which means heat death is inevitable. Thus, nothing is renewable.

[Excidium Planetis]

Really? So how did we get elements heavier than iron?

He's right about this one. Lighter elements fuse to all elements (to iron in normal fusion and to all heavier in supernovae). We will actually not be left with nothing but iron, especially since there is yet bound energy in the universe. Considering the nature of a bounded universe, the outcome is likely heat death — and with heat death — everything would be black-hole matter. Black holes degrade into leptons and fermions via Hawking radiation, so the ending state of the universe would be a diffuse gas of extremely low-energy light and electrons. Then, we have to address whether the proton has a half-life, because if it does, then this will happen even faster.

Oh, I don't deny that elements can fuse into elements heavier than iron. It just takes more energy to do so then you get out of it, and therefore is not a source of energy, renewable or otherwise. In short, we can use all elements lighter than iron to power fusion, and all elements heavier than iron to power fission, but we can't use iron.

Eventually, I suppose, all that iron left over will get sucked into black holes and then turned into leptons and fermions, but the end of nuclear fusion and fission will be turning everything into iron.

[Sierra Lyricalia]

The closed system I am speaking of is the universe. This statement is true. You cannot reduce the entropy of the universe as a whole, which means heat death is inevitable. Thus, nothing is renewable.

OOC: Right. Ultra-long-term, everything will be used up. Therefore, since the WA can't reasonably legislate on topics several centuries away, any claim that fusion (or even fission, allowing for very, very mild thorium-cycle RP-wank) power, or its solar-fusion derivatives such as wind, hydroelectric, photovoltaic, etc., is "non-renewable" on the planning horizon of the next few hundred years is completely asinine, and a remarkably wilderness-flummoxed threadjack. There's no "renewable" full stop, there's just "more renewable than what we're using now" (go back to the 19th C, petroleum is way more "responsible" than e.g. spermaceti). We cool now?

[Frustrated Franciscans]

How about we stop discussing the renewability of nuclear fusion power, and instead debate the resolution at vote, like this thread was meant for?

Why don't we just all agree that there is no such thing as a "renewable" energy source in the first place; only those sources that manage to "steal" potential energy from other energy sources which in turn are eventually non renewable.

Mind you some power sources LAST longer than others. Perhaps this should be the criteria.

[Wrapper]

Why don't we just all agree that there is no such thing as a "renewable" energy source in the first place

Because no. The term "renewable energy" is well-defined in the scientific community regardless of what some silly ambassadors claim.

[Losthaven]

Why don't we just all agree that there is no such thing as a "renewable" energy source in the first place

Because no. The term "renewable energy" is well-defined in the scientific community regardless of what some silly ambassadors claim.

Okay then why don't we just all agree that we have an unlimited source of silly ambassadors and find some way to tap into that for our energy needs?