[PASSED] Repeal "Renewable Research Commitment"

[Wrapper]

Nuclear energy may be clean, but it is not a renewable source of energy. Uranium, thorium or other source materials can be depleted over long periods of time, much in the same way fossil fuels can.

"But what if you use nuclear fusion? Hydrogen is far more abundant, and solar power relies on nuclear fusion... Actually, one could make the case that no energy source is renewable. The stars will die out, the winds will stop, the water will freeze."

Abundant, yes, but fusion power is still not technically renewable energy. And, we'll all be dead long before the stars die out and the winds stop.

[Losthaven]

Losthaven votes FOR the repeal. While the RRC was perhaps at one time a valiant step in the right direction, subsequent laws have made much more concrete progress on the subject and render the weak, mainly aspirational and somewhat meaningless language of this resolution completely unnecessary.

OOC: I've always suspected that this proposal was merely a way for the Europeian delegate of the time to get a badge...

[Principality of Voree]

I, the esteemed representative of the great principality of Voree, would like to present a different perspective on this discussion.

Frankly, CO2 is not and shouldn't be considered as a pollutant, it is PLANT FOOD! plants utilize CO2 and water in the process of photosynthesis. Curbing the output of CO2 does nothing for the environment, but only succeeds in unnecessarily burdening our industries with burdensome regulation. If CO2 is such a danger to the planet what measures will be employed to lessen its production? Will the countries so concerned with CO2 accept the wholesale slaughter of their citizens who even now exhale the malicious substance?

I am voting to repeal this legislation for the good of the economies of all nations.

[Wrapper]

Frankly, CO2 is not and shouldn't be considered as a pollutant

OOC: Many don't, even though the US EPA started moving in that direction in recent years. The main concern with the burning of fossil fuels is not CO₂ production; it's the production of CO, NO_X, SO₂, particulate matter and other pollutants that are just as bad for plants as they are for humans.

[Excidium Planetis]

"But what if you use nuclear fusion? Hydrogen is far more abundant, and solar power relies on nuclear fusion... Actually, one could make the case that no energy source is renewable. The stars will die out, the winds will stop, the water will freeze."

Abundant, yes, but fusion power is still not technically renewable energy. And, we'll all be dead long before the stars die out and the winds stop.

"So if you use nuclear fusion to power your stuff, it's non-renewavle, but if you use it to generate light for your solar panels to absorb, the n it's renewable? What kind of logic is that?"

[John Turner]

Abundant, yes, but fusion power is still not technically renewable energy. And, we'll all be dead long before the stars die out and the winds stop.

"So if you use nuclear fusion to power your stuff, it's non-renewavle, but if you use it to generate light for your solar panels to absorb, the n it's renewable? What kind of logic is that?"

Erm.... Might have something to do with the fact that fusion reactors rarely gravitationally collapse in upon themselves forming nebulae that form new stars. Fusion reactors simply consume hydrogen and convert it to helium (and don't tell me you have figured out how to build fusion reactors that have a 100% efficiency either).

[Excidium Planetis]

"So if you use nuclear fusion to power your stuff, it's non-renewavle, but if you use it to generate light for your solar panels to absorb, the n it's renewable? What kind of logic is that?"

Erm.... Might have something to do with the fact that fusion reactors rarely gravitationally collapse in upon themselves forming nebulae that form new stars. Fusion reactors simply consume hydrogen and convert it to helium (and don't tell me you have figured out how to build fusion reactors that have a 100% efficiency either).

"You aren't making much sense, Ambassador. My questiopn mentioned nothing of efficiency or star formation. Please explain why using nuclear fusion to power your devices is non-renewable, but using nuclear fusion to generate light to be converted into electrical energy to power your devices is renewable."

OOC:
Also, you make it seem like star formation continues indefinitely. Yet black holes, white dwarfs, and neutron stars are all products of a star's death, and do not contribute to the formation of new stars, and the rest of a stellar remnant, while it contributes to new star formation, contains higher proportions of heavy elements, and therefore will eventually reach a point at which new stars cannot be formed from a stellar remnant.

[Wrapper]

Erm.... Might have something to do with the fact that fusion reactors rarely gravitationally collapse in upon themselves forming nebulae that form new stars. Fusion reactors simply consume hydrogen and convert it to helium (and don't tell me you have figured out how to build fusion reactors that have a 100% efficiency either).

"You aren't making much sense, Ambassador. My questiopn mentioned nothing of efficiency or star formation. Please explain why using nuclear fusion to power your devices is non-renewable, but using nuclear fusion to generate light to be converted into electrical energy to power your devices is renewable."

Because renewability is all about the source, and you're talking about two different sources. In all practicality, one source is renewable, the other is not.

[John Turner]

Erm.... Might have something to do with the fact that fusion reactors rarely gravitationally collapse in upon themselves forming nebulae that form new stars. Fusion reactors simply consume hydrogen and convert it to helium (and don't tell me you have figured out how to build fusion reactors that have a 100% efficiency either).

"You aren't making much sense, Ambassador. My questiopn mentioned nothing of efficiency or star formation. Please explain why using nuclear fusion to power your devices is non-renewable, but using nuclear fusion to generate light to be converted into electrical energy to power your devices is renewable."

Really? I need to give a physics lesson to an interstellar species? Solar power depends on light, whereas fusion power depends on heat. Two monumentally different processes. Stars eventually collapse in upon themselves shedding their outer layers which create nebulae from which new stars form. Fusion reactors on the other hand take hydrogen, and fuse it to helium leaving only a byproduct from which no new material or energy can be created (and if you tell me you have created fusion reactors that can fuse helium into carbon/oxygen/neon I will call bullshit and completely ignore your RP wank).

[New Leppikania]

"You aren't making much sense, Ambassador. My questiopn mentioned nothing of efficiency or star formation. Please explain why using nuclear fusion to power your devices is non-renewable, but using nuclear fusion to generate light to be converted into electrical energy to power your devices is renewable."

Really? I need to give a physics lesson to an interstellar species? Solar power depends on light, whereas fusion power depends on heat. Two monumentally different processes. Stars eventually collapse in upon themselves shedding their outer layers which create nebulae from which new stars form. Fusion reactors on the other hand take hydrogen, and fuse it to helium leaving only a byproduct from which no new material or energy can be created (and if you tell me you have created fusion reactors that can fuse helium into carbon/oxygen/neon I will call bullshit and completely ignore your RP wank).

Actually, nuclear fusion is exothermic all the way up to iron - that's why iron is so common.

[John Turner]

Really? I need to give a physics lesson to an interstellar species? Solar power depends on light, whereas fusion power depends on heat. Two monumentally different processes. Stars eventually collapse in upon themselves shedding their outer layers which create nebulae from which new stars form. Fusion reactors on the other hand take hydrogen, and fuse it to helium leaving only a byproduct from which no new material or energy can be created (and if you tell me you have created fusion reactors that can fuse helium into carbon/oxygen/neon I will call bullshit and completely ignore your RP wank).

Actually, nuclear fusion is exothermic all the way up to iron - that's why iron is so common.

I am aware of that. Upon reaching iron the process consumes more energy than it produces. That still doesn't preclude the fact that as you begin to fuse heavier elements you need increasing temperature and pressure to overcome the Coulomb barrier which I don't believe any species is capable of producing without expending more energy than they would gain from the fusion reactions themselves.

[New Leppikania]

Actually, nuclear fusion is exothermic all the way up to iron - that's why iron is so common.

I am aware of that. Upon reaching iron the process consumes more energy than it produces. That still doesn't preclude the fact that as you begin to fuse heavier elements you need increasing temperature and pressure to overcome the Coulomb barrier which I don't believe any species is capable of producing without expending more energy than they would gain from the fusion reactions themselves.

The flaw in your logic is that you can just take the heat energy used to begin fusion and make that into electricity too. It doesn't just disappear.

[Excidium Planetis]

"You aren't making much sense, Ambassador. My questiopn mentioned nothing of efficiency or star formation. Please explain why using nuclear fusion to power your devices is non-renewable, but using nuclear fusion to generate light to be converted into electrical energy to power your devices is renewable."

Because renewability is all about the source, and you're talking about two different sources. In all practicality, one source is renewable, the other is not.

"No, I'm talking about the same source. I don't know where you got this idea of two different sources. I'm talking about two equally renewable sources. "

"You aren't making much sense, Ambassador. My questiopn mentioned nothing of efficiency or star formation. Please explain why using nuclear fusion to power your devices is non-renewable, but using nuclear fusion to generate light to be converted into electrical energy to power your devices is renewable."

Really? I need to give a physics lesson to an interstellar species? Solar power depends on light, whereas fusion power depends on heat. Two monumentally different processes. Stars eventually collapse in upon themselves shedding their outer layers which create nebulae from which new stars form. Fusion reactors on the other hand take hydrogen, and fuse it to helium leaving only a byproduct from which no new material or energy can be created (and if you tell me you have created fusion reactors that can fuse helium into carbon/oxygen/neon I will call bullshit and completely ignore your RP wank).

OOC: Not really sure if your comment was OOC or IC, but given the wank comment I assume it was OOC.

First of all, the difference between using heat from fusion directly and using heat from fusion to generate light to generate electrical energy is that the second process is far less efficient.

Second, you have a serious lack of understanding of thermodynamics if you believe star formation is an indefinite process. You cannot endlessly get energy from stars that then die and form new stars to get energy from. Eventually the fusion reactions will result in iron, which cannot produce energy from fusion, and you end up with a ton of iron and heavier elements that can't form stars.

Third, none of this matters because IC, I only mentioned fusion powering devices or fusion powering solar panels powering devices, not stars or any other such nonsense.

[Araraukar]

which I don't believe any species is capable of

Fortunately not all universes work solely on the principle of "what John Turner believes".

OOC: FT nations can do that if they say they can do that. You can ignore their RP if you want to, but they can ignore you ignoring that. NS =/= RL and all that.

[Wrapper]

"No, I'm talking about the same source. I don't know where you got this idea of two different sources. I'm talking about two equally renewable sources. "

Really? you have a star inside a fusion reactor? That's quite the trick.

[Excidium Planetis]

"No, I'm talking about the same source. I don't know where you got this idea of two different sources. I'm talking about two equally renewable sources. "

Really? you have a star inside a fusion reactor? That's quite the trick.

"What is it today with Ambassador's weird obsession with stars? I'm not talking about stars."

[Wrapper]

"What is it today with Ambassador's weird obsession with stars? I'm not talking about stars."

Please explain why using nuclear fusion to power your devices is non-renewable, but using nuclear fusion to generate light to be converted into electrical energy to power your devices is renewable."

Your first clause deals with a fusion reactor. Non-renewable energy. Your second clause deals with the fusion reaction in a star supplying light to a planet. Renewable energy.

[John Turner]

which I don't believe any species is capable of

Fortunately not all universes work solely on the principle of "what John Turner believes".

OOC: FT nations can do that if they say they can do that. You can ignore their RP if you want to, but they can ignore you ignoring that. NS =/= RL and all that.

OOC: I tend to operate on the principle of reasonable probability. Is a talking plant from another planet a reasonable probability? There is nothing in chemistry or physics to discount that probability. Is their a reasonable probability that a nation can compress and heat helium to the point where it fuses via the CNO process? Whilst it is technically possibly from a physics standpoint, assuming they have stellar mass providing the required heat and gravitational compression needed, it kind of negates the need for the fusion reactor in the first place. But whatever, I suppose people can RP wank to their hearts content.

[Imperium Anglorum]

assuming they have stellar mass providing the required heat and gravitational compression needed

Naturally, they could also just build a machine which heats it up and compresses it in such a form that CNO becomes more efficient than P-P at producing helium...

[Excidium Planetis]

"What is it today with Ambassador's weird obsession with stars? I'm not talking about stars."

Please explain why using nuclear fusion to power your devices is non-renewable, but using nuclear fusion to generate light to be converted into electrical energy to power your devices is renewable."

Your first clause deals with a fusion reactor. Non-renewable energy. Your second clause deals with the fusion reaction in a star supplying light to a planet. Renewable energy.

"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?"

[Wrapper]

Your first clause deals with a fusion reactor. Non-renewable energy. Your second clause deals with the fusion reaction in a star supplying light to a planet. Renewable energy.

"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.

[Tinfect]

"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.

OOC:
I think what he is asking is whether or not pointing a Solar Panel at a Fusion Reactor is Renewable Energy, if actually using the Fusion Reactor for energy is not.

[Imperium Anglorum]

"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.

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.

[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.

OOC:
I think what he is asking is whether or not pointing a Solar Panel at a Fusion Reactor is Renewable Energy, if actually using the Fusion Reactor for energy is not.

If so that's a ridiculous question. Recovering energy as a byproduct of a reaction involving nonrenewable sources may make the process more energy efficient, but it certainly doesn't make it a renewable energy source.

[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.

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.