The Instigator
Pro (for)
0 Points
The Contender
Con (against)
0 Points

Nuclear fusion will never be economically successful

Do you like this debate?NoYes+0
Add this debate to Google Add this debate to Delicious Add this debate to FaceBook Add this debate to Digg  
Post Voting Period
The voting period for this debate has ended.
after 0 votes the winner is...
It's a Tie!
Voting Style: Open Point System: 7 Point
Started: 9/20/2017 Category: Science
Updated: 2 years ago Status: Post Voting Period
Viewed: 742 times Debate No: 104006
Debate Rounds (5)
Comments (3)
Votes (0)




I contend that atomic fusion power will never eventuate because it is based on illogical and false principles. Fusion requires the sun's gravity for it to work. This can't be achieved on Earth without expending a lot of energy to recreate the sun's gravity and heat energy.


On fusion taking a lot of energy:
Nuclear fusion does, indeed, require large amounts of energy to work (This does not necessarily need to be from gravity, however). However, so does nuclear fission power- fission power requires one to launch a very high energy neutron at an unstable isotope's nucleus, and this takes large amounts of energy to achieve.

When you think about it, all methods of generating electricity require large amounts of energy- oil requires us to drill deep into the sea and then build an enormous generator, solar power requires us to build complex and intricate electronics systems, wind power requires us to build giant turbines, and so on. These all take huge amounts of energy.

My point is, taking huge amounts of energy does not limit the economic viability of a method of any given method of generating electricity, as all of these other methods exist and are economically viable.

Why it hasn't happened yet:
The problem nuclear fusion power has experienced is sustaining the reacton for long enough to produce enough energy to end up with more than you started with. However, progress has been made here:

"Prager points out that reaction outputs have come a long way in the past few decades—from milliwatts in the 1970s to 16 megawatts today,"

(See source 2)

A milliwatt is one thousandth of a watt, while a megawatt is one million watts. This means that sine the 70s, we've become ten billion* times more efficient at producing energy from nuclear fusion. If such trends continue, and it seems likely that they will, then we will have the ability to produce billions of watts of electricity from fusion plants within a few decades.

*by which I mean the short scale billion, 10^9, rather than the long scale billion, 10^12. See source 3.

Debate Round No. 1


The problem with fusion power as opposed to other forms of power is that fusion power will only ever give you back what you expend in getting it started. The researchers are still far from breaking even with nuclear fusion. Fusion researchers have never produced energy in excess of what they expended in getting the fusion reaction to start. They have been at this for more than 60 years and have made little progress. Whereas, nuclear fission reactors only took less than 5 years before they became viable. Solar power and wind power may give you some power if the wind is blowing or the sun is shinning.

My point is that fusion power will never ever be a viable source of free energy because it violates basic principles of how the universe works. To understand this, we must first understand how the sun produces heat and light. Firstly, the sun is really a giant black hole which attracts aether. The aether is spinning at the speed of light. The sun's pressure squeezes the spinning aether particles together so that they stop spinning and release E = MC 2 energy in the form of heat and light. This energy is transferred to the Earth via spin torque and wave energy.

Thus, we can plainly see that the sun produces free energy by virtue of its huge mass which causes the aether particles to stop spinning which releases the universes secret energy source. Thus, the universe is energy rich as the aether contains all the energy that we need. This can be confirmed by studying how an atomic bomb is constructed. To make an atomic bomb you must build a large sphere which has explosives placed evenly around the outside of the bomb. You then place some unstable uranium in the centre. Atomic bombs work via the mechanism of aetheric compression which is just a miniature version of what the sun does every second of the day.

The problem being that the scientific community is still stuck in the 19th century and haven't understood how the universe really works yet. They think that gravity is pulling us down to the ground. This is false. The aether pushes us down to the ground. Thus, their technology is faulty because their thinking is faulty. When it comes to fusion, only the sun can provide free energy. Thus, fusion is not possible on Earth if your aim is to get some free energy.


On Pro's scientific assersions:
Pro has made a bunch of scientific assersions, and they are all utter nonsense. For one thing, the sun is not a black hole. For another, the aether is an outdated idea invoked by scientists to explain light's wave-like properties, and this was debunked decades ago. See sources 4 & 5.

"The problem with fusion power as opposed to other forms of power is that fusion power will only ever give you back what you expend in getting it started. "

Pro has not substantiated this, and there's no reason to think this is true.

Nuclear weapons work in one of two ways- fission (see source 6) or fusion (see source 7). They do not use the so-called aether. Not is an aether responsible for gravity.

I have a BSc. in physics; you can't overwhelm me by throwing around nonsense jargon from the 19th century.

Why fusion is such a great idea:
Fusion, once it can be successfully stablized, will be a brilliant thing. For one thing, we're talking endless electric power without producing any greenhouse gasses. Furthermore, it produces Helium as a waste product, and mankind is running low on Helium, which is a serious problem- it's crucial in running MRI machines, for instance. See source 8 for more on this.

Huge amounts of money can be made from the production of clean energy and the sale of helium.

Debate Round No. 2


I have backed up all my so called "assertions" with video evidence which my opponent has chosen not to study or comment on. Thus, I will wait till she properly addresses my previous post until I progress further on this matter.

My last reference clearly shows that the Michelson/Morley experiment was conducted improperly and the results were distorted to suit the expected or scientific communities expectations and bias. The truth is that the scientific community has no will or agenda to find an aether because it doesn't suit their agendas. An aether would lead to a simple universe which can be easily explained. This is the last thing that the scientific community wants or needs because it would lead to a loss of employment; a loss of integrity; a loss of authority and a loss of power. All these things are far more important to the science community, than what is scientific truth and reality.

The Michelson/Morley experiment did find an aetheric wind of 10m/s but this was discounted as instrument noise. The assumed that the Earth moves through the aether at a speed of 30m/s as the Earth goes around the sun. They never understood that the aether pushes the Earth and the other planets around the sun at the same relative speed according to Kepler's Laws. (VxR 1/2 = 1 for all planets.)

The Sagnac Experiment of 1913 did produce the expected fringes. This is because the device was rotated at 2 revolutions / second. Note - 10 m/s is the speed that the aether enters the Earth - its called gravity.


Pro has provided nothing more than conspiracy theories and inaccurate scientific claims. A YouTube video is not scientific evidence- if Pro wishes to substantiate their claims, they should link us to a reputable scientific journal with even a shred of evidence for an aether. Otherwise, they've said nothing meaningful. I needn't comment further.
Debate Round No. 3


My references were written by fully qualified physicists. Thus, my opponent has run out of ideas and has no answers to my evidence. I have clearly shown that the system is corrupt and that the aether was found by a number of scientists over 100 years ago but it doesn't suit the agenda of my opponent nor of the scientists concerned that there should be an aether. Thus, they have blocked the eyes and minds to the facts and choose to live in a permanent state of ignorance.


The aether is stll nonsense, and Pro has not convincingly demonstrated otherwise or the existence of this conspiracy between scientists they're claiming. I feel I needn't comment further at this point as Pro's case has fallen flat on its face and they haven't even touched my case with actual, real physics.
Debate Round No. 4


If you spin a ball in a bucket of water, (the water will represent the aether), The water will be dragged along with the spinning ball. Its called 'aether drag'. That's why it is difficult to record an aether wind.

Modern day analysis of Dayton Miller and Michelson/Morley experiments.
It was found that Dayton Millers experiment yielded an average aether speed of 6 m/s while the Michelson/Morley experiment yielded an average aether speed of 7.5 m/s. This was regarded as a 'null result' because they were expecting a speed of 30 m/s. They didn't understand that the aether pushes the Earth around the sun and that a spinning ball will have aether drag.

Note - Any measurement above zero is not a 'null result'. 'Null result' is a terminology used by the scientific community to describe something which doesn't meet their expectations and preconceived ideas.


As said before, all of Pro's scientific assersions are utter nonsense.

Nuclear fusion will be an economic success, as the consensus among scientists is that is not far off being done, and the sun demonstrates that it is at least physically possible to do. Fusion energy will provide the word with clean energy, and also have the useful side-effect of producing helium, which can itself be very useful. It will be an economic success for these reasons.
Debate Round No. 5
3 comments have been posted on this debate. Showing 1 through 3 records.
Posted by QueenDaisy 2 years ago
I'll accept the debate if you agree to a slight change of the motion- that "Nuclear fusion will never be economically successful".
I'd propose such an amendment because it is not currently possible to do nuclear fusion, so at the present, it is not economically viable.
Posted by Akhenaten 2 years ago
Ya don kno da tooth!!!!!
Posted by TechnoAngel 2 years ago
you don't know the truth aobut comunim
No votes have been placed for this debate.

By using this site, you agree to our Privacy Policy and our Terms of Use.