What's new

Why hydrocarbons (colloquially called fossil fuels) is king of the future

.
Yeah, not gonna happen, at least not for the next 100 years. Building the infrastructure and transportation would cost upwards of a trillion dollars, no one can afford that. Not worth the effort.
 
.
Yeah, not gonna happen, at least not for the next 100 years. Building the infrastructure and transportation would cost upwards of a trillion dollars, no one can afford that. Not worth the effort.


Eventually humans will colonize other planets and moons. My point is, plenty of hydrocarbons will be available even if solar and wind are not.
 
.
Eventually humans will colonize other planets and moons. My point is, plenty of hydrocarbons will be available even if solar and wind are not.
By that time, humanity will probably have better sources of energy. Proper colonization will not take place in our life time, that I can say for sure. Earth may post small stations on other planets, but colonization will require certain amount of terraforming. which we don't have the technology for.
 
.
By that time, humanity will probably have better sources of energy. Proper colonization will not take place in our life time, that I can say for sure. Earth may post small stations on other planets, but colonization will require certain amount of terraforming. which we don't have the technology for.


I suppose you mean fusion? Fusion is not practical IMO. Getting hydrogen just for the fuel will not be worth it even if fusion is possible, which I highly doubt. Hydrogen is the most common element in the universe but it only exists as a free element in stars and gas giants.
 
.
I suppose you mean fusion? Fusion is not practical IMO. Getting hydrogen just for the fuel will not be worth it even if fusion is possible, which I highly doubt. Hydrogen is the most common element in the universe but it only exists as a free element in stars and gas giants.
The scientific community doesn't really care about your doubt. harvesting elements from other starts and planets is even more impractical.

What is your point? Why are you posting such threads all the time? Especially since you've done a poor job of back your words with facts.
 
.
I suppose you mean fusion? Fusion is not practical IMO. Getting hydrogen just for the fuel will not be worth it even if fusion is possible, which I highly doubt. Hydrogen is the most common element in the universe but it only exists as a free element in stars and gas giants.

Your opinion is worthless, as your science lessons comes from Sunday morning Bible school.
 
.
The scientific community doesn't really care about your doubt. harvesting elements from other starts and planets is even more impractical.

What is your point? Why are you posting such threads all the time? Especially since you've done a poor job of back your words with facts.


Fusion is expensive as hell. Hydrocarbons is cheap. Who would spend money on fusion rather than burn hydrocarbons? There is no economic incentive for fusion. There is every economic incentive for hydrocarbons.
 
.
Fusion is expensive as hell. Hydrocarbons is cheap. Who would spend money on fusion rather than burn hydrocarbons? There is no economic incentive for fusion. There is every economic incentive for hydrocarbons.

How is hydrogen or helium expensive?
 
. . .
.
Fusion needs enormous gravity to work. Won't even work on Jupiter let alone on Earth.

Guess where they input energy for their tiny net positive fusion that lasted what a nanosecond? Not from fusion but from burning hydrocarbons. :p:

Did you failed your basic science classes? Cite me a single paper where fusion relates to gravity.

Even converging Laser can create fusion, or high intensity colliding magnetic field. And the plasma can be contained by magnetic field.
 
.
Did you failed your basic science classes? Cite me a single paper where fusion relates to gravity.

Even converging Laser can create fusion, or high intensity colliding magnetic field. And the plasma can be contained by magnetic field.


Fusion needs a strong enough gravity to self sustain. Jupiter didn't turn into a star because it's not big enough.

http://www.businessinsider.com/we-will-never-have-sun-like-nuclear-fusion-2014-10

Not to mention, they need a layer of lithium to absorb the resulting neutrons that fly out during fusion. They have to keep replacing the lithium to obtain heat from fusion that drive turbine. In the end, fusion is a lot more expensive than burning hydrocarbons, even if only the cost of lithium is considered.
 
. .

Pakistan Defence Latest Posts

Pakistan Affairs Latest Posts

Back
Top Bottom