3 ms·
Yep. It is quite unbelievable how we use a 1 million old technology (burning stuff) and try to argue that the new way of producing energy (which is already much
by StreamBright 6y ago
Yep. It is quite unbelievable how we use a 1 million old technology (burning stuff) and try to argue that the new way of producing energy (which is already much safer if you check number of deaths per twh) is somehow dangerous and bad. In 50 years of nuclear energy we already made is super safe. Now we can make it safe for being used in location which have pretty serious earthquakes or as a resource for flying (even for spaceships some day).
- labawi 6y ago> 1 million old technology (burning) AFAIK nuclear is older than oxidation/burning. On a more serious note, burning has been a source of power only since about the steam engine, so about 300 years.
- StreamBright 6y agoYou are discounting cave man with camp fire. Also nuclear _technology_ as of being controlled by humans is not as old.
- stallmanite 6y agoI’m pretty sure the parent is pointing out that the chemical combustion in eg a caveman’s campfire required many millions of years of stars performing nuclear fusion to create any elements with higher atomic numbers than 2, oxygen included.
- StreamBright 6y agoI agree. I am talking about technology as of what humans control. Humans do not control this -> "many millions of years of stars performing nuclear fusion to create any elements with higher atomic numbers than 2"
- makerofspoons 6y agoOh, I read it as a reference to natural fission reactors, like the one found at Oklo.