MODERATOR: Is there another question in Argentina, in the
meeting being held in the Argentine Congress? It's Argentina's
turn for a question.

Q: I wanted to ask Mr. LaRouche if you could briefly explain
your concept of energy flux-density, so that it could be
understood more clearly. So that we could understand why it is
the case that nuclear energy is qualitatively more different than
other energy sources, and why it's a necessary energy source for
the future development of humanity? Thank you very much.

LAROUCHE: It's a matter of physics. The idea that you can
measure energy in watts or calories, and define energy topics in
those terms is a fallacy, which is widely circulated. But it's
utterly incompetent scientifically.

The more competent measure, as a crude measure of what we
should call "power"--don't use the word "energy," that's a bad
term; use the term "power." And the best measurement of power is
in terms of watts per square centimeter of territory. Now, what
that means is, for example, you have three levels of common
reaction in ordinary physics, that is basic physics, not living
processes but basic physics. One, you have chemical reactions,
which are molecular reactions. Then you have a higher order,
which are called atomic reactions, the relationship between
electrons and protons in the combination of molecules and things
of that sort. Then you have a still higher level, which is
nuclear forces. In other words, you have the chemical forces
have a certain limited power. When you get into the power of
combination, of atomic action, you get to a higher order; that
is, the forces which bind electrons and their core nuclei
together, this is a higher order of power. This is nuclear
power, what we call nuclear power. Then you have, also, the
thermonuclear processes, which go into the forces within the core
of the atom, the core of the nucleus of the atom, intranuclear
forces.

These forces, these densities, or what we might call power
densities, reflect the capacity and efficiency of action in the
universe. If you want, for example, to desalinate water
effectively, you can--the plants do it rather well, in terms of
what they do, in terms of turning sunlight into atmosphere.

You have burning wood, burning coal, typical chemical
reactions of sources of power. Burning oil, burning natural gas,
typical chemical sources of power. Then, you get to a layer
which is nuclear power, nuclear fission. Then you get to the
point where you get nuclear fusion, thermonuclear fusion. These
are relatively higher orders of magnitude of power.
Conversely, if you want to do something, and do something
efficiently in the universe, you must go {to a higher order of
power}. Therefore, mass desalination requires nuclear power.

Ordinary chemical processes can not do that efficiently on a mass
basis. You may, by exception. You may use plants to do things
like that. But you won't do it effectively. If you want to get
changes on a still higher order of power, you have to go to
thermonuclear fusion: for example, we are running, on the
planet, toward the point at which the rate at which we're using
up rich natural resources, mineral resources, is outrunning the
supply available. That is, readily available. Therefore, either
the cost of production is going to rise catastrophically, which
will lower productivity per capita, or else we have to find a way
of improving raw materials supplies, artificially. That we can
do through the aid of thermonuclear fusion.

We have a population now on the planet of over 6 billion
people. This will grow soon to 8 billion people, unless there's
a dark age. At that point, we are using up the richest available
resources, immediately accessible resources, under present
methods, more rapidly than we can replace them. Therefore, we
have to think about the management of raw materials, so-called,
which means we require thermonuclear fusion processes, to deal
with this challenge.

Therefore, anyone who cares about the human race, now
requires nuclear energy is the primary energy source. Let's take
the case of petroleum: What we will do, we will cease to use
petroleum as a fuel for power, gradually, and natural gas in a
sense. We will use a form of synthetic natural gas for fuels as
in combustion engines. Synthetic natural gas is called
hydrogen-based fuels. Hydrogen-based fuels can be produced, en
masse, with nuclear reactors of the high-temperature gas-cooled
mode, in the order of magnitude of 800 MW. Therefore, we are
going to shift from shipping oil into various parts of the world,
in order to get power, we're going to shift to using nuclear
power to generate hydrogen-based fuels locally. If we have a
nuclear economy, in which nuclear power is the primary source of
power in the economy in localities, as in cities, then you're
going to generate the hydrogen-based fuels which are more
efficient--even than the so-called natural gas, or even the best
natural gase--than petroleum. So we will use petroleum and
natural gas and things, as sources as feedstock largely for
fertilizers and things like that, for chemical products.

So the change is, the change in the concept of what is our
power supply? We want to go from a relatively low-density power
source, to a high-density power source. Which means going beyond
simple chemical reactions, to nuclear reactions, and to
thermonuclear reactions. And that's the way the human race has
to go, if we are going to meet the requirements for the human
being's decent living standards, in time to come.