4 ms·

> Of course, if we had fusion we could easily solve this problem, but that's a good 40 years away. I'm not sure if Fusion would be much better than fission (wh

> Of course, if we had fusion we could easily solve this problem, but that's a good 40 years away. I'm not sure if Fusion would be much better than fission (which isn't to say that it's not good, just that it doesn't seem nearly as much of an improvement as some would want us to believe (many of those people writing grant proposals)): http://www.rationalfuturist.com/writings/fusion.html http://www.rationalfuturist.com/writings/fusion.html What I'd really like to see is a liquid-fluoride thorium reactor (LFTR). Check out this Google Tech Talk about it: http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=AZR0UKxNPh8 http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=AZR0UKxNPh8

Retric 17y ago
That first link is filled with lie's and half truths. EX: H - H fusion in our sun is a vary slow and stable process. But that's simply based on the conditions of our sun, under other conditions H - H fusion can be extremely fast. EX2: Under specific conditions the Uranium in a fission power plant can generate an explosion equivalent to a similar mass of TNT. It's not what we think of as a nuclear explosion but it's not exactly peanuts either. The basic problem is creating a film of boiled water see: http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=gjsMV1MglA4&feature=related http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=gjsMV1MglA4&feature=relat... for some simple related experiments. EX3: Lithium isotopes are either stable or far to short lived to be radioactive. At worst your dealing with a half life of 840.3 ms which means it does not accumulate in the reaction chamber and within 1 minute of shutting down the reaction it's hard to detect.